Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Colorado GOP Appeals Trump's Ballot Case to Supreme Court; Colorado GOP Appeals Trump's Ballot Case to Supreme Court; Mayors of NYC, Chicago, Denver Plead for Federal Help; Haley's Complicated History Over the Civil War. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired December 28, 2023 - 06:00   ET

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

[06:00:13]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. So glad you're with us. It is Thursday, December 28. I'm Poppy Harlow with Phil Mattingly in New York.

And right now, Donald Trump's battle to stay on the ballot is playing out in multiple states, and big decisions could be coming any time.

This morning, the Colorado Republican Party is now asking the Supreme Court to decide if Trump will be on the ballot. This comes after Colorado's Supreme Court ruled that he engaged in an insurrection and was therefore disqualified. Trump himself could, though, still appeal.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: And at any moment, we could find out if Maine will become the next state that will actually consider what happens next. They're waiting for the secretary of state on that front.

Also this morning, Nikki Haley was asked a very simple question: what led to the Civil War. Listen to what she didn't say. We're going to have more on that in a moment.

CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

HARLOW: So here's where we begin. Right now, Donald Trump's battle to stay on the ballot in the state of Colorado and in multiple states, and big decisions could be coming down any time.

The Republican Party asking the Supreme Court to keep Trump on the ballot. That is what is happening right now.

Also you talked about Maine. At any moment, we're waiting to also hear from the Maine secretary of state.

MATTINGLY: Yes. If you want to know the full scale of the legal issues that the president is facing, and which all could end up on the plate of the Supreme Court, we're certainly giving -- getting a look at that, as well.

Also the special prosecutor -- special counsel in the January 6 case with a new filing yesterday morning, as well. We're going to start things off with Katelyn Polantz. And Katelyn, when you look at kind of the full scale of what's going

on right now, in a very consequential supposed to be news-free week just before the new year. What stands out to you right now?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now, the question of whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot in the 2024 primary election or potentially general election because of his role after the 2020 election, January 6, and whether we ban insurrectionists -- and that can apply to the presidency -- that all is before the Supreme Court now.

The Supreme Court is going to have to make some really hard decisions about how much they get involved in states' decisions about how they govern their elections; how much they get involved in primaries; and what to do with Donald Trump because of what he did back in 2020.

The reason that it's before the Supreme Court is because Colorado had decided through their Supreme Court, their own state courts, that Trump should not be on the primary ballot in that state.

And so now the Republican Party in Colorado has gone to the Supreme Court to appeal that and to ask the Supreme Court to step in and put Trump back on the ballot. That it should be the party's decision, and they should allow Trump to be on the ballot there.

One of the things they write: "For the first time in American history, a former president has been disqualified from the ballot, a political party has been denied the opportunity to put forward the presidential candidate of its choice, and the voters have been denied the ability to choose their Chief Executive through the electoral process."

So that's in Colorado. But all of the states are doing their own thing, figuring it out on their own in their own ways. Maine, we're waiting for a decision from the secretary of state. We have this decision from the Michigan Supreme Court yesterday, saying they're not getting involved. Trump can stay on the ballot there for the primary at this time.

And so state by state, as these decisions are coming down, lining up as we head into the primary season, the question is, does the Supreme Court get involved? And what do they ultimately say about Donald Trump being on the ballot in 2024?

MATTINGLY: Katelyn, and at the same exact time, Jack Smith's team is asking Judge Tanya Chutkan to keep Trump's team from injecting politics into the 2020 election trial. They're not just asking. This was a filing.

Is this actually possible? Can this move forward?

POLANTZ: Right now, Trump's team is very likely sitting around saying why are these people filing this? This case is supposed to be on hold as Trump is appealing, trying to claim he has presidential immunity and shouldn't go to trial.

But the Justice Department is still at work. The special counsel's office did make a filing yesterday. And this filing is the sort of thing that you do see before most criminal trials, that sketches out what the Justice Department does not want Donald Trump's team to be able to argue to a jury.

[06:05:14]

The things they don't want them to be able to say to the jury is that Trump was the victim of disinformation or he believed at the time that the election was stolen.

They don't want him to be able to say that the reason he's being prosecuted is because of the politicization of the Biden administration, that they're going after him for political reasons.

They also don't want him to try and blame law enforcement for the failures of January 6. They say in their filing, "The court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation and should reject his attempt to inject politics into the proceeding."

The trial judge is not going to do anything at this time, because she can't. But she has this -- this before her. And it is one of those things that will have to get looked at before Trump actually does go to trial.

HARLOW: Katelyn, thanks very much for the reporting on both fronts.

MATTINGLY: And joining us now, politics correspondent for the "New York Times," Michael Gold; CNN political analyst Natasha Alford; and CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig.

Elie, starting with you here, the Colorado Republican Party, we've been waiting for an appeal. We've been waiting for either Trump's campaign, the Republican Party, to move. They have done so. How do you think this is going to turn out?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, as expected, we are starting to see appeals to the Supreme Court. The biggest question to me is will Trump's team actually appeal?

I'm not so sure the Colorado Republican Party is going to have standing. I'm not sure they're going to have enough of a dog in the fight. Certainly, Donald Trump will.

But I do think that the Supreme Court has to take this case, and I do think the Supreme Court will reverse the Colorado Supreme Court and rule that Donald Trump is not disqualified.

And we can see the -- one of the reasons why unfolding day by day. Just yesterday, yet another state, Michigan, rejected this 14th Amendment challenge.

And I think we're in an untenable situation if we see 50 different states adopting 50 different procedures and reaching -- well, so far the results have been fairly uniform against the 14th Amendment, with the exception of Colorado. But this one's screaming out for the Supreme Court to intervene.

HARLOW: Let's turn to Katelyn's reporting on Jack Smith and this filing in the election interference case. The fact that a defendant has wide latitude to defend themselves is not without limits here. So what's going to be the limit on Trump in this case?

HONIG: I think Jack Smith's motion here, it's common. I used to always file this kind of pretrial motion, and I think it's smart and necessary in this case. Because you want to set the outer limits.

Yes, a defendant has very broad latitude to defend himself. No, it's not anything goes. Issues about political motivation, claims that this is pushed by the Biden administration, about the security measures at the Capitol on January 6th, are irrelevant to the charges here.

Yes, he can argue he didn't have intent. He can argue prosecutors have failed to meet their burden. He can argue the facts, as alleged by prosecutors, are untrue or unproven. But he can't go onto this rank.

HARLOW: And I thought -- you're nodding, Michael, and I thought what Jack Smith wrote in the filing to prosecutors is that a bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming a bank security guard for failing to stop him. Just using very plain examples of how ludicrous some of these arguments can be.

MICHAEL GOLD, POLITICS CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK TIMES": Yes, the question of all these trials is how much courtroom and campaign are going to blend. Right?

And I think with the civil trial in New York, we saw a big blend. It almost felt like another big campaign stop. Trump would come. He would go to the courthouse. He would stand outside the courthouse. Then, he would be on Truth Social, posting about what happened in court.

In this case, one of the things I wonder is how much it will even matter if you keep these things out of the courtroom, because Trump's argument about these being political prosecutions is so pervasive at this point, it's hard to imagine a jury in D.C. hasn't heard it. And from D.C., politics is kind of in the air there, even if you're not involved.

I'm sure it is a very worthy idea to keep this out of the courtroom and keep the case focused on the legal question, but at this point, this is such a campaign message for him that it almost feels like it doesn't matter too much what happens inside. He'll keep saying it outside.

NATASHA ALFORD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And Trump is so good at branding. Right? Every person that he gives a little name, a little nickname, it sticks with them. This idea of the Biden Injustice Department.

If you keep that out of the courtroom, again, it doesn't keep it from the public conversation and the court of public opinion. And the public is just looking at all of these cases. Again, they may not be able to tell you the details. They can't break it down like Elie, but it builds --

HARLOW: No one can break it down like Elie.

ALFORD: No one can break it down like Elie. But it builds this Trump narrative that he is a victim, and this is all a coordinated attack.

HONIG: This is the difficulty of picking a jury in this case. I mean, when Natasha and Michael are spot on. When everybody knows the person, when everybody sees the tweets or the Truth Socials, how do you manage it?

This is going to be a challenge for the judge. I mean, during jury selection, you're going to have to try to vet that out. Do you have preconceived notions? And during the trial, it's going to be a day by day policing effort.

MATTINGLY: To Elie's point, I actually learned, in reading Elie's notes before the show, which is actually a fairly normal occasion, that this is a normal filing. This is something that Elie, when he was prosecutor, would try and do.

And yet, it feeds directly into the Trump narrative, which he laid off on Truth Social very shortly after the filing, of they're trying to eliminate my ability to speak. They're trying to -- the campaign-- the convergence of campaign and legal.

[06:10:10]

And I think that's my question. If you don't know that this is a norm, that this is what a prosecutor does, you immediately take what Trump said and say that's right. Almost feeds his narrative, to some degree.

GOLD: And it's so funny because I feel like it's so rare for us to be able to say this is normal when we're talking about one of these Trump criminal cases.

But it is true. I think most people don't know the ins and outs of the legal system. They're not paying any kind of attention to what happens inside. And Trump has already outlined this narrative around these trials.

So if your narrative for the last however many months has been they're trying to suppress me. Look at all these gag orders. They're trying to take away my right to say what I want to say. Now you have this filing that really plays into his hands.

HARLOW: But on that point, Elie, just quickly, the Maine secretary of state today, tomorrow and the next couple of days is -- has the power to decide whether Trump is on the ballot there. That's different than in other states.

Yes, he can appeal. But now Trump's team is pushing back, saying she should have to recuse herself from this decision because of past comments she has made.

We've seen this with a number of judges, politicians, attorneys general. Past things they've said about Trump coming back to potentially bite them.

HONIG: Yes. I don't think the Maine secretary of state will recuse herself, but it is unfortunate. We've seen several decision makers supposed to be in positions of impartiality.

Judge, two of the judges involved in these cases have donated money to anti-Trump political campaigns and declined to recuse themselves. That's not ideal.

Because it's not necessarily that the people are biased, some of what they are saying is objectively true, but it is the impression of bias that goes to the public perception that matters in the justice system, too.

MATTINGLY: All right. I'm just rattling in my head. We talk about politics being part the discussion in D.C., as every part is like, who do you work for? Makes me want to judge off a bridge.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: Deeply, deeply -- Washington, D.C. All right. Michael, Natasha, don't go far. We have a lot more to get to.

HARLOW: Including this new overnight. The United States says it has, quote, "had very productive talks" in those big meetings in Mexico yesterday about the Southern border. Pressure keeps building, though, over the border. And Democratic mayors are taking aim at the Biden administration.

MATTINGLY: And demolition day at the Idaho home where four college students were killed. Why families of the victims are urging prosecutors to, quote, "stop this madness" and keep the House intact. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:15:59]

MATTINGLY: Welcome back. New this morning, Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, says he and Secretary of State Antony Blinken had a, quote, "very productive meeting" with Mexico's president yesterday.

U.S. and Mexican officials met to discuss new ways to stem the challenging tide of migration at the Southern border. Right now, a huge new migrant caravan has been making its way to the U.S.

But officials say it's dwindled from a ground of at least 6,000 to now about 3,000 people.

HARLOW: As this is happening, Democratic mayors of big cities, including Chicago, New York and Denver, are pleading with the federal government for more help coordinating migrant bus arrivals that are being sent from Texas.

They say the buses are arriving at all hours, with no details about who is on board.

Our Kevin Liptak is live for us with more in St. Croix, obviously, following the administration, the president. I mean, it's not the first time we've heard Mayor Adams of New York or the mayor of Denver or Chicago call out the Biden administration.

But is this different, meaning is the administration feeling the increased pressure from those in their own party?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think they did do. And I think that President Biden does realize he is in something of a squeeze here.

Because on one side you have Republicans, but also a lot of these Democratic mayors, Democratic governors, who want him to do more to curb the flow of migrants at the Southern border.

But on the other side, certainly he's feeling pressure from progressives, from immigration advocates who are worried about some of the changes that are being talked about on Capitol Hill now, things like tightening up asylum rules, making it easier to do deportations.

And so I think President Biden, as he is so often on this issue, is really caught in the middle. And that's one of the reasons I think he dispatched this high-level delegation to Mexico City.

And this was a cabinet-level delegation to talk about these issues with the Mexican government. And when you talk to officials afterwards, they were fairly pleased with those discussions. They do feel like they found a willing partner in the Mexican President Lopez Obrador to talk about these issues.

We know that they went in with a few very specific asks, things like moving some of these migrants South into Mexico to ease some of the congestion at the Southern border; trying to get a control over the railways,, the railways that migrants use to come from South and Central America up to the United States.

And trying to put in place some incentives like visas to convince some of these migrants to stay in Mexico.

And what we heard afterwards is that the Mexican officials in these talks did express some willingness to continue ramping up their enforcement mechanisms and also to try and get a handle on some of the smugglers that are really fueling some of what we're seeing down on the Southern border.

So certainly, President Biden, I think, looking to do everything he can and pull every lever that he can to try and get a handle on this crisis, particularly as we head into next year's election.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Certainly an issue that's not going anywhere in the new year. Kevin Liptak with the hardship assignment that he annually has with the president down in St. Croix. Thanks, buddy. Appreciate it. Well, just hours from now, the home in the town of Moscow, Idaho, will be demolished. It's the off-campus house where four University of Idaho students were brutally stabbed to death last November.

But the victims' families are now pressing officials to stop the demolition, because they say it could still provide evidence in the upcoming trial of suspect Bryan Kohberger. Prosecutors are asking to have the murder trial start next summer.

HARLOW: Well, Nikki Haley answers a question about what started the Civil War, a response a voter calls astonishing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, don't come with an a easy question, right? I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: She gives a 160-word answer but leaves out the most important word.

MATTINGLY: And Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has a change of heart. Why she's switching districts as she's going to run for re-election in 2024. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:23:38]

HARLOW: Welcome back. Nikki Haley back on the campaign trail today as backlash grows after she did not say "slavery" caused the Civil War. This is what she said at a town hall in New Hampshire last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the cause of the United States Civil War?

HALEY: Well, don't come with an easy question, right? I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now, Haley is, of course, the former governor of South Carolina. South Carolina, the first state to secede from the U.S. in 1861.

The South Carolina Declaration of secession makes it clear why. Quote, "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states North of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States" -- Abraham Lincoln -- "whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." HARLOW: Haley has a complicated history in terms of what she has said

about the Civil War. In the past she's framed it as a war about tradition versus change. She has said the Confederate flag was part of South Carlina's heritage before of course, presiding over its removal and pushing for its removal from the state House in 2015 after the murder of nine people at a historic black church in Charleston.

MATTINGLY: Back with us, Michael Gold, Natasha Alford, and joining us, CNN congressional correspondent Jessica Dean.

Just want to start with you, because it seems like there should be an obvious answer to this question. If you track back over Haley's career, there has been sometimes pained responses to this. Does this have a longer term impact?

[06:25:10]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I was wondering that exact thing last night, as this was kind of unfolding. Because there are moments, as you all know, when we get closer to when people start to vote, where things get traction that, you know, maybe several months ago we would have talked about it for a second and people let it go.

And -- and then -- and then there are other instances where we make a big deal out of something, media, but it doesn't necessarily gain traction with voters.

I think, when you're in those town halls, you -- you get a ton of questions. And this is -- I will say, as someone who's been following this race, how did -- why did the Civil War start is not a regular question that you're getting on the campaign trail.

However, I think most Americans would be able to immediately answer that that was a war about slavery and should it exist or not, in addition to what she was talking about.

HARLOW: And control room, do we have the rest of that sound bite? Because the voter responds here.

DEAN: Yes.

HARLOW: If we don't, I want to read -- so let's just play that, so you can see how this played out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the cause of the United States Civil War?

HALEY: Well, don't come with an easy question, right? I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Oh, we don't. OK, we don't have that. That's the same thing. Let me read it to you. The voter responds, "In 2023, it's astonishing to me that you would answer that without mentioning the word 'slavery.'" This is what the voters said back.

And she says, "What do you want me to say about slavery?"

And they say, "You answered my question. Thank you."

That's a little bit more that I think is important when you think about this.

ALFORD: I mean, this is -- I don't think this is innocent at all. Right? Nikki Haley is playing into a moment right now where it appeals to a certain base to deny what has happened in American history, to reject and rewrite a narrative that we have established is progress, right?

Moving away from a divided country, you know, being clear that slavery wasn't a benefit to people.

She is playing into that and doing it in a way that makes it seem as if she's innocent, to ask that question, "Well, what do you want me to say about slavery?"

You can say that it was wrong. You can say that it was the cause of the war and that we have moved forward as a country. But instead, she sort of feigns this innocence.

And it may work in the primary, but if she ever makes it to a general election, which you know, is likely -- unlikely to happen, that's not going to be popular with a lot of voters who will say what is the problem with just saying what it was.

MATTINGLY: And the Biden campaign immediately, actually, clipped and responded to it --

HARLOW: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- before anybody else dd, saying it was slavery.

And I think to your point, this is -- if you look at the South in the wake of reconstruction, this kind of revisionist history was actually seminal to the telling of the story of the Civil War and kind of the decades that follow.

I think my question is, if every other candidate in the primary was asked that same question, would they be able to say the word "slavery"?

GOLD: That is such a good question. I don't know. And -- and it's sort of hard to say to what extent this narrative has -- I mean, look, we're in an era where we're talking so much about what gets taught in schools, and this is actually one of the things that has come up.

I mean, you saw DeSantis kind of get into hot water earlier this year. And it's just sort of one of these weird issues where the way that we teach history has become a culture war topic that Republicans have been so fired up about.

So I don't know that you would necessarily get an honest answer about slavery in this question.

For me, what's really striking about that, is that she's saying it in New Hampshire, which is just not one of these Southern states that was so quick to kind of reconsider the legacy of history. So I do wonder how it's going to play in a Northern state, where they don't have that kind of history and that sort of set of issues.

ALFORD: And how sad is that. I'm sorry. I just am having this reaction just there's me as a journalist, but me as a human being, right, as an American. Like, these are basic facts. Things that we learned about in school.

And as a country, we cannot move forward. We cannot heal the very divisions that are breaking us if we can't just be honest about what happened. Like, why is that so hard for people?

I think there's a denial. There's a sense that -- that maybe there's a responsibility to do something. If you acknowledge that slavery was the reason the country broke apart rather than looking to the past to find answers for how we heal. I -- just -- it's ridiculous to me.

DEAN: And I'll be curious to see, too, as we go through today and she's back on the trail. Obviously, you know that we have journalists that -- we call them embeds, but they're following every move she makes. They'll be with her with a camera, and she's going to get asked about this again. She's going to -- and does she take the opportunity to explain it more? Does she not? Where does she go from here?

HALEY: But it's easy to just say, I should have said slavery. I mean, it's easy to -- to say, I wish I had said this, too.

I wonder if this is part, Michael, of a bigger trend for Nikki Haley. Which some of the criticism of her has been she tries to have it all ways with all people.

GOLD: Yes.

HALEY: And it's just not clear on certain critical issues.

GOLD: I think that abortion is the one where you're seeing this most -- I want to say effectively, but this has been, like, such a heated topic of debate. What is Nikki Haley's position on abortion?

And I've been out with her once or twice.

[06:30:00]