Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis Charges Former President Trump, Former Trump Administration Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and Others with Counts Related to Attempts to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired August 15, 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)

[08:00:53]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The 45th president United States indicted on state charges stemming from his and others' efforts to overturn Joe Biden's election win in the state of Georgia.

FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I make decisions based on the facts and the law. We look at the facts, we look at the law, and we bring charges.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She didn't throw the book at him. She threw the library.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now having another indictment for him, questioning the integrity of this country's elections, that is what we are doing to a president that served this country?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The governor of Georgia, I guess, can't pardon. I don't know how you get out of this.

WILLIS: Do I intend to try the 19 defendants in indictment together? Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The calendar is getting crowded with all the possible trials both criminal and civil that the former president is facing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This case has a couple of twists on advice of counsel. You see some of the lawyers on whose advice he relied indicted.

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R-TX): This is disgraceful. It is an abuse of power by angry Democrats who decide the rule of law doesn't matter to them anymore.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's much bigger than Watergate. It goes to the very foundation of democracy. This is very different and much more serious and much more troubling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. We are so glad you're with us on a truly significant morning. Breaking news overnight, Donald Trump indicted again on felony charges, this time for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state of Georgia. And he is not alone. The Fulton County grand jury indicting 18 alleged co-conspirators, including Rudy Giuliani and also former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: And they are all facing RICO racketeering charges which have been famously used in the past to take down mob bosses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The indictment alleges that rather than abide by Georgia's legal process for election challenges, the defendants engaged in a criminal racketeering enterprise to overturn Georgia's presidential election result.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Paula Reid is live outside the Fulton County courthouse. Paula, we now have the 98 pages. We have the former president and 18 associates here. What happens next that this is now all at this point?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, the next step is surrender, and the district attorney, Fani Willis, has given the 19 defendants until next Friday at noon to arrange their surrender. Then there will be an initial appearance. It will be a little bit different than what we have seen in federal court where they tried to do processing, initial appearance and arraignment, all in one fell swoop. But it's going to take a while to go through this process with 19 different defendants.

Now, we fully expect the former president will cooperate here in terms of the surrender, going through the process. But then after we expect there will be many legal challenges to this case. The first, I'm told, will be a challenge to jurisdiction, an attempt to try to move this case from Fulton County to the federal level. Now, one of the biggest advantages that would potentially give the former president is drawing from a broader jury pool instead of just heavily Democratic Fulton County.

HARLOW: Can you lay out Fani Willis's case here? It's incredible complex, 98 pages in this indictment, I think 161 acts. But lay out in broad terms.

REID: Yes, Poppy, it's quite a sweeping indictment. While this is the fourth criminal indictment the former president has faced this year, it is by far the most detailed, the most broad. And here the district attorney has made a choice to structure this as a RICO case. RICO laws were designed to help go after organized crime. So you can charge people as a unit even if not every single person in that unit participated in every single alleged activity. Now, some legal experts say that will also likely be challenged in

court. But she alleges a conspiracy. She says this group of people engaged in a conspiracy and she lays out eight specific things that they did to support this accusation, starting with lying to state officials and state legislatures as part of an effort to try to install fake electors, try to undermine the Electoral College.

[08:05:06]

They also allege that some of these defendants were harassing witnesses, particularly election workers, trying to get them sort of caught up in this alleged scheme. Also they talk about the pressure the Justice Department was facing from former president Trump, and even at least one official inside the Justice Department at that time. We also know and we've reported extensively on the pressure the vice president was facing. That is also one of the eight pillars that she laid out here. They also talk about attempts to breach voting systems in rural Georgia in an attempt to find this alleged fraud. And then, finally, they allege that there was a cover-up.

So she broadly lays out that case and then she details throughout the rest of the 100 pages 161 different discrete agents that these defendants allegedly committed.

MATTINGLY: Paula, I have to ask, because in reporting on all of this, you have done a ton of reporting on this individual specifically, and that's Mark Meadows, a former White House chief of staff. Were you surprised, especially since he was not listed -- he was not indicted or listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the special counsel's case, were you surprised to see his name among the 18 Trump associates indicted here?

REID: I was not surprised to see him here, right. It was more surprising not to see him in the special counsel's indictment, because you'll remember, if you go back to the January 6th investigation on the Hill, one of their key conclusions was that all roads in this alleged conspiracy led to Mark Meadows. They really framed him based on their investigation as the key enabler of former president Trump and his efforts to try to overturn the election.

So obviously, we have been trying to figure out what's going on with him in the special counsel probe. But it was notable, he was a conspicuous absence in the federal indictment, raising questions about whether he is cooperating. Here he has been charged, and that is supported by many allegations, many instances of him being involved in this alleged conspiracy. So it's not a surprise to see him here. I think it was definitely more of a surprise that he was not in the special counsel indictment. And there are questions about whether -- how these cases will interact, which one will go first. It's really interesting, because Mark Meadows really is probably the key player here in some ways, even more so than former President Trump.

HARLOW: Paula Reid, thank you for all of that.

Rudy Giuliani is in the middle of many of the episodes that form the basis of this indictment, including a Georgia Senate subcommittee hearing. You are looking at video of it. This this was December 2020 during which he and other Trump associates pushed false claims of mass election fraud. So according to the indictment, quote, "The purpose of these false statements was to persuade Georgia legislators to reject lawful electoral votes cast by the duly elected presidential electors from Georgia." Here is what Rudy Giuliani told state lawmakers on that day in that meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP'S FORMER PERSONAL LAWYER: It's your responsibility if a false and fraudulent count is submitted to the United States government. And it's clear that the count you have right now is false.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Our next guest, former Georgia state senator Jen Jordan, was at that hearing and she was one of the witnesses who testified yesterday to the Fulton County grand jury before this indictment was handed out. But it's her first interview since testifying, and she joins us now. Good morning. Thanks for joining us once again. Talk to us about your interview before the grand jury. How would you explain it? What did you say? What were you asked?

JEN JORDAN, FORMER GEORGIA STATE SENATOR, TESTIFIED IN TRUMP PROBE: Yes, good morning. Thank you for having me. So I was the first witness that went into the grand jury room, and I'll tell you, it was a little overwhelming. I mean, there has been so much that has happened that we know and what we don't know. But I'll tell you, when I walked in there and sat down, it was clear that every man and woman in that room was taking their role and their job very seriously. They were interested in what was happening. They had questions. And 40 minutes later when I walked out, I felt like it was in good hands.

MATTINGLY: You said you were the first to go in yesterday. There were expecting to be 10 total witnesses. It was expected to take two days or could take two days. It all happened in a day. It all happened seemingly a little bit faster than everybody thought. Did you have any sense when you were there that it was going to move that fast or why?

JORDAN: No, I didn't. But I can tell you with respect to grand juries in Georgia, they really lead the process. So while you have prosecutors that will go in and maybe have a plan in terms of how they are going to present, at the end of the day the ebb and flow is kind of guided by the grand jurors themselves. So if they have more questions with respect to one witness, they may spend more time with that witness.

[08:10:02]

Or if they think they have heard enough, right, they can end it at any point in time and say, all right, we have heard enough, we have seen enough, we are ready to vote. And I think that's what happened yesterday. Maybe there were two days that were planned to be chockful of witnesses, but after two or three had gone, it was clear that the evidence, at least from my perspective, is fairly overwhelming. And really the bar in Georgia with respect to an indictment isn't very

high. It's just probable cause. So like I said, probably after two, three, four witnesses, probably from the grand jurors' perspective they had heard what they needed to hear and really just wanted to make sure that all of the witnesses that they needed to hear with respect to all of the charges included in the indictment, that they were able to get through it by the end of the day.

HARLOW: What did the grand jurors home in on with you? And what do we not know?

JORDAN: I think it's one of those things where, think about it, you're called to a grand jury. You are doing your normal kind of civic duty. They had already looked at other presentments earlier on other cases in Fulton County. And then all of a sudden, the door opens and they are told that they are the Trump grand jury. That's got to be a very, very serious moment for all of them.

So when I walked in, I think that that -- understanding what they were undertaking and how serious it was was just starting to hit each of them. And so they asked questions. They asked follow-ups. They pushed me if they were, like, wondering, what does that mean exactly, or how do you know that? They definitely weren't just being spoon-fed. And they, you know, it really seemed to me that they wanted to do a good job, they wanted to do the right thing, whatever the right thing was at that moment.

HARLOW: Can I ask you on what? Can you be more specific? What were they really most interested in? I was asking what did they home in on with you, and also, what did they want more specifics on?

JORDAN: You know, I think --

HARLOW: And who?

JORDAN: Well, with respect to what I know as a witness, because that's what you get called for as a witness. It's not your opinion or anything like that. So it really dealt with the Senate committee hearing. They wanted to know more about Giuliani. Why was it odd? How was this different than other Senate committee meetings?

And I just had to be very clear that this was something I had never seen before, the fact that Giuliani and Ray Smith and the rest of Trump's legal team, including Jenna Ellis, were allowed to basically take over the Georgia Senate and present in a way that was very one- sided, that other witnesses that could offer a counter weren't allowed, and that with respect to minority party members, we weren't really -- we had no clue what was happening. It was all kind of happening in real time. And so with respect to any pushback, any questioning, we are literally having -- I remembered I had to Google who is John Eastman? Because it was one of those things.

And remember, this is December, right, December 3rd right after the election. We are still in the middle of COVID. And I'm thinking what's going on here? And it's one of those situations where when you have the then-president of the United States tweeting out for folks, all of his followers to tune in to OAN for the livestreaming of this hearing, it became clear at that point that there was something more to this than people just trying to get to the truth of what happened in our state.

MATTINGLY: Jen, you've told this story, recounted these events repeatedly over the course of this investigation, over the course of this process. Was there anything that you were asked yesterday by the grand jury that surprised you or seemed off base or that you weren't necessarily prepared for given your specific knowledge of what happened?

JORDAN: I don't think so. I think they had very specific factual questions. Again, as the first witness, I think they were a little overwhelmed by the role that they were about to play. But look, I was there to really kind of set the scene and kind of begin the story, because really, from my perspective, what happened in Georgia was just the implementation of the overall plan at the federal level.

So if you look at Georgia and then you look at the federal indictment, everything that they wanted to do or planned to do, they were actually doing on the ground in this state. And so I think that's why it's so incredibly important. I think the federal indictment and prosecution is important. But I think with Georgia it is so important that we actually hold folks accountable here for what they did in trying to overturn the election, and really try to undermine our democracy. And it looks like the district attorney is willing to do that.

[08:15:00]

HARLOW: You're also an let me let me ask you this, because you told us a few weeks ago you don't want to take a swing at the former President of the United States and then miss. So put your attorney cap on for a moment. How strong do you think Bonnie Willis's case is here after reading the indictment?

JORDAN: I think it's incredibly strong. I mean, look, if you go through and you look at the overt acts and if you remember and your folks have talked about in terms of Rico, conspiracy is when you have an agreement, right? And you can show that there is kind of this meeting of the minds, we all sat down and said, this is what we're going to do. With Rico, you really use the overt acts of certain actors to show the agreement, the scheme, the plan.

So, if you go through and look at the predicate acts, the overt acts, and the predicate acts really are, you have to break certain laws, right? You have to do some overt illegal things in order to kind of meet the very basics of RICO.

And so, with respect to that, if you go through that indictment, almost all of the predicate acts are the overt acts, they have quotations, right? So what you know about that is that there is a piece of paper, there is a witness, there is a recording where with respect to those quoted portions, that they have evidence with respect to that.

So, this isn't just them flying blind or making assumptions or even allegations with respect to everything in that indictment. They have some evidence to show that. And I tell you what, that's incredibly strong, especially right out of the box.

MATTINGLY: Just going back to something you said about the grand jury, you being the first witness, the magnitude of that moment and their kind of recognition of that, that you observed, what signaled that to you? I think it's completely how anybody would feel in that moment. But how did you kind of pick upon that during the question and answers?

JORDAN: I think it's how they were looking at me, how they were really trying they're trying to assess my credibility. Who am I? What am I bringing to the table? Like, exactly what am I trying to establish as a witness? But also, I think there was the feeling in there. For me, it was incredibly overwhelming. I've been a part of this since 2020, and going through death threats and the ups and the downs and being questioned and told that what I saw really wasn't what I saw.

You know for me it was overwhelming and I think they felt the same thing. And the prosecution team that was in there, they were incredibly respectful and really did respond to the grand jurors in terms of what they wanted to know or what their questioning was. So it was just one of those processes that I think we all know that this was something different, and it really did have that heavy feeling.

HARLOW: We appreciate you being with us, especially for your first interview after having that experience. Thank you very much, Jen.

MATTINGLY: Thanks, Jen. Donald Trump now has to turn himself in to face charges in Georgia. What could his defense in the case look like? We're going to ask David Shone, Trump's former lawyer, who defended him at his second impeachment trial. Stay with us.

[08:20:00]

MATTINGLY: This morning, we're learning more about the attorney who will be representing former President Trump in this Georgia case. Drew Findling is a high-profile Atlanta attorney best known for representing rappers like Cardi B on social media. He dubs himself the hashtag billion-dollar lawyer. And notably, he's been outspoken about his liberal political views and his distaste for Donald Trump.

In 2017, Findling tweeted that Trump's quote, "position on the Central Park five is racist, cruel, sick, unforgivable, and unAmerican." In 2018, he wrote the racist architect of fraudulent Trump University, criticizing LeBron, the founder of a free school for children POTUS pathetic once again.

And when Roe versus Wade was overturned last year, he said on Instagram that he was committed to, quote, "fighting to restore a woman's right to choose, which has been destroyed by the Supreme Court."

HARLOW: When asked about these differences, Findling told "The New York Times", quote, "I do not believe that we choose our client or clients based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, political belief, or the substantive issues involved in the crime. We have our personal lives and we have our personal politics. I don't apologize for my personal politics," that's his quote.

He also told the insider that the investigation into Trump is an erroneous and politically driven persecution. Joining us now is former President Trump's defense lawyer David Schoen. He represented the former President in his second impeachment trial.

David, we always appreciate having you on and for your candor. Thanks for being with us on a morning like this. If you were Trump's defense counsel, what would your first move be here?

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEFENSE LAWYER: Let me just back up 1 second. I think you did a great service to the viewers by having that last guest on. The idea of having insight into the grand jury process is almost unprecedented. It's very important. The only thing I would add is, I personally think it was reckless to have a one-day grand jury like that in a case this complicated with this kind of indictment. Because while Ms. Jordan is absolutely right, grand jury jurors get to ask questions.

What they don't have any idea of is the exculpatory evidence. It would be impossible to present the grand jury with the exculpatory evidence. That is the other side of the story in one day like this.

That's important, also, the low bar for getting an indictment is important, and the presumption of innocence is important. Now, back to your question. I think that the first move has to be removing this case to federal court. I think it fits clearly within the statute 28 USC.1442 A, which permits a federal official to move the case into federal court. But if the acts alleged go ahead.

HARLOW: I just want to ask you because you bring up the statute 1442, and what that statute says is that you basically have to be within the outer perimeter of the official duties of office. And we just saw in the New York case when they tried to move the Bragg case to federal court, Judge Hellerstein said, no, those actions were not within that perimeter. Are you so sure these are?

SCHOEN: I am sure they are, but that's very different case. You make an excellent point. It's a very different case. In that case, of course, what Judge Hellerstein went off on was that Donald Trump, according to Judge Hellerstein's findings, at least did those on his personal agenda was having to do with Stormy Daniels covering up an embarrassing situation, et cetera.

In this case, it directly relates to the President -- Former President's official acts. Let me read you. The statute says, remove any criminal case from state court if it's for or relating to any act performed by or for them under color of their office. And the 11th Circuit construes it pretty broadly. The act was amended to not require any causal connection. So there's an 11th Circuit case called Caver versus Alabama Electric Co-op that says is the act is just associated with the official position. I think it's --- HARLOW: Can I ask you one other thing in this case, one other thing,

and then I'm going to let my brilliant co-anchor fill in here, but Norm Eisen brought this up last night. He calls you a verifying criminal defense lawyer, but he brought up a case that he thinks Trump's what the11th Circuit said, and that's Malcolm versus Martin. That says an officer who acts out of any personal interest, check malice or criminal intent to do his duty does not get removal to Federal court.

SCHOEN: Right, but to that question later what the intent was and all of that, the key question here is I'll tell you what my starting point is. My starting point is article two, section one and section three. These require the president to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The defense story of this case is, of course, diametrically opposed to the prosecution story. The defense story would be president Trump and all of those around him believed at all times that there was election fraud, there were irregularities. That what he was saying he believed in.

And so, we don't just focus on the excerpt from that tape. We play the whole tape, and that talks about all the irregularities they thought there were at the time. And if that's the case, then he had an obligation would be the defense to see that, take care that the laws are faithfully executed, clearly acting as president. The only reason they got this forum was because he was the president at the time. The only reason the secretary of state would pick up the phone or the governor was because he was president.

[08:25:00]

Therefore, I say they're associated with the act in his official capacity. And that's what the 11th Circuit says, I think is how the statute is construed. That's my view of it.

MATTINGLY: I appreciate it. Can I just ask, in terms of this being one of the first moves that we both think that his defense team will make and that you think that they should make, this may be a simplistic version of events, given the statutes you and Poppy have been going back and forth on to some degree. Is the only reason to try and move this to the federal side to take away the possibility of the president not being able to pardon himself if he were to win reelection? Because that's kind of on its face, what it appears to be.

SCHOEN: First of all, between Poppy and me, I'd go with Poppy on the legal advice question, but secondly, directly to your question, I would say - no, I think there are a number of reasons. I think you certainly expand the jury poll. You know better than I, although I happen to be here, but you know better than I how strongly democratic Fulton County voted in the last election.

And generally, this would broaden the jury pool to outlying counties in the northern district of Georgia. So that's a very important factor. It also would separate President Trump from other defendants in this case. I happen to think it's unworkable to even consider trying all of these defendants together. We have the experience here in Atlanta with a case currently pending now, the young thug case, in which jury selection takes over six months trial, they estimate anywhere nine months to two years. That's unworkable.

MATTINGLY: But to my initial question, those are all great points. One of the pieces of moving it to the federal side would be to eliminate the possibility that a state prosecution would occur, he would go to state prison and therefore could not pardon himself, right?

SCHOEN: Like, whether or not that's the intent, that would certainly be part of it could be. And as I'm sure you know, Georgia has not unique, but one of three states in the country that doesn't permit the governor to grant a pardon. And there are many other requirements. You have to have been five years past any sentence in a case and so on and it goes to a board.

The legislature could change that. But, yes, maybe the pardon idea is an interesting idea, but I think that the primary thing would be the reasons underlying the statute. And in this case, the jury pool would be primary reasons to remove it. Federal court.

MATTINGLY: All right, David, we appreciate your time, as always. We literally got through the first step the defense team would be making. We have about 16 more to go through here, but actually you want to come back on that very helpful. So, we're going to have to have you back.

HARLOW: Thank you very much. We always appreciate it. Come back soon. David, thanks very much. Trump is now facing 91 charges in four jurisdictions, think about that. We just heard from one of his former impeachment attorneys and one of the witnesses who testified to the Georgia grand jury. We'll have our experts here to put it all into context for you. We'll be right back.

[08:30:00]