Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Trump Makes Campaign Stop on Way to Courthouse; SCOTUS Hears Trump's Presidential Immunity Arguments; One-on-One with Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO); Trump Back in Court in Criminal Hush Money Trial. Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired April 25, 2024 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[06:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Welcome back to CNN "This Morning". I just want to note we're keeping an eye on a Donald Trump campaign event he has arrived a few blocks away from Trump tower where as you can see he's talking to supporters signing some hats will bring his remarks when he starts speaking.
But we want to get to this because in just a few hours, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from Donald Trump's lawyers in his bid to avoid prosecution and receive quote absolute immunity end quote, for plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Trump has repeatedly claimed that his actions on and around January 6, were part of his duties as president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If a president doesn't have full immunity, you really don't have a president. Or president of the United States must have immunity. And I'm not talking for myself. I'm talking for every president of the United States. A President of the United States has to have immunity.
There is nothing more important to a presidency than immunity. You have to have a guaranteed immunity for a president. The president you have to have immunity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: It's an argument that multiple lower courts have rejected things efforts to subvert the election. We're about getting a second term in office and we're not an official presidential act. Our panel is back. We're joined now by Tara Palmeri. She is Senior Political Correspondent for PUC and the host of the "Somebody's Gotta Win" podcast, Tara, nice to see you.
This claim of absolute immunity, Elliott, I let me -- let me show you a couple of things and again, keeping an eye on Trump. But the argument that he has tried to make he has invoked the atomic bombings that were conducted at the end of World War Two, watch what Trump had to say about this in January.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: That's one of the reasons the Supreme Court is looking now at immunity you have to have a guaranteed immunity for a president otherwise the president's not going to be able to function. They're not going to move Harry Truman would not have done. Harry Truman would not have done Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably ended the war probably I think so. But he wouldn't have done it. So many things wouldn't be done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Elliot is I mean, is there any? Is that grounded in reality at all?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No. And no one is making an argument seriously that the laws of war would somehow change or that how the United States interacts with other countries would change based on some limitation --
HUNT: Let me pause for a second. Let's listen to Donald Trump here for a second.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: -- many buildings --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: We're having a lot of trouble hearing him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: -- I have a lot of support here. The teamsters you know did a lot of work with teamsters. I took a lot of buildings with the teamsters and they liked and it's an amazing show of affection. But we did a great job --
[06:35:00]
I think -- maybe more Democrat -- is not a Democratic building look what we can do a lot of great buildings in this city with these people and they've given me great support. They're really amazing, very, very, very talented people. They don't get the credit for it. They have very few people can do what they do.
We used to do three floors a week in concrete. And it was guys like this that did it sounds very --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you know --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- David Pecker's testimony so far. When was the last time you spoke to them?
TRUMP: Nice. He's been very nice. He's been -- David's been very nice, nice guy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, did you know --
TRUMP: -- we have a big case today this isn't allowed me to go. We have a big case today the Supreme Court or presidential immunity. A president has to have immunity. If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you know about the -- did you know about the -- Did you know about the -- Stormy Daniels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Just listening to Former President Donald Trump current presumptive Republican presidential nominee speaking with reporters just a few blocks from Trump Tower where he went to meet with he was looking for this union photo op. It's a pretty classic scene from Donald Trump's time as a real estate mogul in New York City.
A couple of things here he talked about the testimony that David Pecker is been delivering on the stand in his hush money trial he called pecker quote unquote, very nice. So there is an assessment on that one. And then he also talks briefly about the immunity arguments that are set to play out in the Supreme Court this morning looking at whether or not he will be immune from prosecution in the special counsels January 6 case.
He said it was a big case. Fair enough. And then he said also that presidents need to have immunity because if not, quote, you'll just have a ceremonial president. Elliot Williams, this is actually a very good place to pick back up on the conversation we were having before we went to listen to that.
WILLIAMS: He's absolutely right. A president ought to have immunity. And presidents do have immunity from civil suits for things that happen to them when they're in office. Now the question and he's not being totally candid here. The question is presidents absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for things they do in office?
And the hypothetical that his team simply was not able to answer at the lower court was what happens if a President were to use a drone, to you know, to shoot a political opponent? He'd be using the official tools of the presidency, but for a criminal purpose, and no one and frankly, no Supreme Court Justice, I think is going to bless that argument.
But I guess not unlike they would say to us in elementary school, it's not what you say. It's how you say it, how the Supreme Court writes their opinion, is really going to be important. And do they send it back down to the lower courts for more litigation and analysis, which could slow pending litigation down -- cases against them?
HUNT: Let's just remind everyone from the arguments that we heard in the lower court when they consider this the how Trump's legal team responded to a question about whether or not it would be acceptable for a president to use the United States military to assassinate a political rival, watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could a president who ordered SEAL team sets to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached? He be subjected to criminal prosecution
JOHN SAUER, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If he were impeached and convicted first.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So your answer is --
SAUER: -- my answer is qualified. Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Tara Palmeri.
TARA PALMERI, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT AT PUCK: I mean, it's -- an interesting argument to make. I don't yeah -- I don't think they have a lot of grounds to stand on with that. But you know, I think at the end of the day, this is about extending the arguments making this a longer drawn out process kicking this over to after November 5th or 6th, when you know, Trump can obviously drop the case if he wins.
And it's there mucking up the water and I just think the longer it takes the Supreme Court may want to write all these rules passed down to the lower courts. I just don't see this Jack Smith trial being, you know, litigated before the election. And the Supreme Court probably knows how politically toxic it is.
And they probably want to take their time on it. They don't want to be seen as tipping the scales in an election year either.
HUNT: Right, but Kate Bedingfield. I mean, I have to say, as I think about this in the big picture, on the one hand, sure, yeah. Don't tip the scales right ahead of an election. But you can argue with the other way and for the millions of Americans. I think we should note that in the popular vote, Democrats have been winning presidential elections, even in some cases where we end up with a Republican President. It is tipping the scales to not have this litigated before the 2024 election.
[06:40:00]
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I mean, these are really big fundamental questions. This is a question of former presidents subverting of the constitution. And yes, I mean, this is information that voters should have before they go to the polls in November.
HUNT: That'd be I mean that polls show that people care about things right. Like they there. Is it or not.
BEDINGFIELD: They do. Do we -- do we see in the polling that even a significant number of Republicans say if he's convicted, that would have an impact on their vote. You know, we also see dissatisfaction from Republican voters. We've seen it throughout the Republican primary process.
We saw it in Pennsylvania, just this week, when it was something like about 150,000. And I'll double check the number. But a significant number of Republicans voted for Nikki Haley who dropped out of the race over a month ago. So -- so yes, I think this is information that voters deserve to have they have said repeatedly that it will have an impact on the way that they think about the election.
I also think even as the -- as the case drags out and obviously this is Donald Trump's strategy he wants to the case to drag out beyond the election, but as a political matter, even just having this as the backdrop of the campaign is problematic for Donald Trump, for him to constantly have to be talking about defending January 6.
It's great for his base we know that it is not great as a general election argument. And so even just having this as the backdrop of the campaign, it's challenging --
HUNT: -- for him very briefly.
MIKE DUBKE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Yeah, briefly timing is everything. I don't know that I buy that this is bad for his election every day that he's in court. Yes. Granted, he can't speak to the people. But neither is Biden. And when's the last time you had Biden on the screen? It's -- he is --
HUNT: Oh, we can --
DUBKE: You can change that, I'm sure. But --
HUNT: -- can we show what Biden had to say yesterday about Trump's hair, we have that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Remember when he was trying to deal with COVID, just inject a little bleach in your veins. He missed it all went to his hair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Sorry --
DUBKE: No, no -- now we have the election of one liner I mean that's what you're basically laying out.
HUNT: I mean -- every election since television has involved one liners.
DUBKE: My quick argument here is I can't believe I'm even saying this. But Donald Trump is an artist. And cable news is his canvas. And that is what's happening. He is dominating all of this even being in court. So that's part of the process now. And that's how our elections are being run. HUNT: He's --
DUBKE: I'm not saying it's a good thing.
BEDINGFIELD: He's a very specific kind of artists.
PALMERI: He's not like he's not getting booked on TV as frequently to have these like phone calls with anchors like for us to call into Fox News or CNBC frequently. So this is his moment. He's got every single network trained on him to get his message out. So what if it's New York and those aren't his voters?
It's the larger audience. I agree. A lot of Republicans and Democrats keep referring to this as an in kind campaign contribution its entire trial, like they feel.
HUNT: That was his whole show.
PALMERI: Right.
HUNT: All right. Up next here, Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado is here to talk about President Trump's Supreme Court arguments around presidential immunity. Plus, first look at the future home of the Chicago Bears this bring you the morning round up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:45:00]
HUNT: We are back. Donald Trump speaking to reporters in New York, let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: -- but we're going to give it a shot. We're going to give it a shot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you know about --
TRUMP: Oh, I have no idea. I have no idea. They've taken my constitutional right away with a gag order. That's all it is. It's election interference. His whole thing is election interference. So the polls have just come out and I just got another sample. We're leading every swing, save a lot.
And we're leading the nation by a lot. He's the worst president in the history of our country. He makes Jimmy Carter look great. Jimmy Carter is very happy because his presidency was brilliant by comparison. But this is the worst president we've ever had. He's destroying our country, close the borders, he can do it in one phone call you can close the borders, close up the borders Joe our country's going to hell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, we have been listening to Former President Donald Trump. He is still talking to reporters. We do not have a microphone over there. So I would like to at this point, bring in our next guest to talk to him about what we've heard from Donald Trump here. And this frankly, historic day, we will listen in on this we will flip the tape and bring it to you if we get more that we can actually hear.
But first, you might remember our next guest Congressman Jason Crow from this photograph. This is Congressman Crow comforting his colleague, the Congresswoman Susan Wild, as the two took cover from rioters who were storming the Capitol on January 6th. Crow is a combat vet and of course, was thrust back into action that day.
And I don't want to lose sight of the fact that this is what today at the Supreme Court is all about is what you are seeing on your screen right now what happened to those officers who are crushed in these crowds. The arguments are going to talk about whether or not Donald Trump's actions on and around January 6th fell into the realm of official presidential conduct.
That could be protected with immunity and their decision will determine whether the federal election subversion case against Trump can go forward. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman from Colorado, Jason Crow.
Congressman, thank you very much for being here.
You heard what Donald Trump had to say there. These major arguments are unfolding at the court today.
Do you think that the court even simply taking this up represents a gift to former President Donald Trump? Do you expect this to even go to trial before the election?
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, good morning. Thanks for having me.
You know, listening to Donald Trump there, nothing has changed with Donald Trump. The man lies constantly. He just cannot tell the truth. Almost nothing that he says is true these days. It seems to be getting worse.
And I think the American people are way smart enough to understand that his claims of absolute immunity that a president can do anything he or she wants to do is absurd.
I mean, we are a nation of laws. We don't have kings. We don't have queens. We don't have dictators.
No man or woman is above or below the law, when our system works the way it's supposed to work. Right now, we're seeing that system go through its process.
And Donald Trump is not entitled to, nor should he under the Constitution have absolute immunity from anything that, that is an untenable result for any presidency.
So, we'll see what happens with this case, but I couldn't imagine a circumstance in which any court would say a president can do anything he or she wants with no recourse.
HUNT: What is the ultimate impact if this January 6 case is not tried before the November election? Do you believe that our presidential election will -- can be viewed as fair in the event that that happens?
[06:50:00]
CROW: Well, absolutely, the presidential election will be fair. I mean, the last presidential election in 2020 was actually the most secure election in our nation's history. That's what all the election judges, the experts, the courts that are reviewed, all the files, all evidence. There was no widespread evidence of corruption or fraud or abuse.
In fact, most of the fraud cases are actually Trumps supporters that tried to cast fake electors, that tried to get additional votes. And then of course, the president himself, who directed the Georgia secretary of state to fabricate or to find over 10,000 votes so he could win that state.
So, that's actually the fact. That is what happened here.
In our election, we'll move forward. We have systems in place. It's governed by the states and by county officials. And that's the way our system has always worked.
HUNT: Congressman, if the court were to declare Trump immune from prosecution in this case, what do you think the political effect of that would be?
CROW: Well, I think that's a hypothetical that, you know, is probably not worth totally fleshing out here because I just couldn't imagine a situation in which a court would find absolute immunity. You know, again, this goes back to I initially said in the beginning here, that we are not a nation that has kings or queens or dictators or autocrats.
A president is always accountable. There's -- there is a limited immunity for any president from civil suit, as your guest earlier pointed out, in the pursuit of their official functions and duties. That is a well-established law. That's a precedent Republicans and Democrats have enjoined.
But this idea of absolute unqualified immunity has never been a part of our Constitution. And, of course, it's untenable in our process.
HUNT: Congressman, from the perspective of someone who experienced January 6. You know, I'm thinking back to some of these sentences that have been handed down to these people that Donald Trump has been out there calling January 6 "hostages". And the judge, in one recent sentencing hearing gave a significant sentence to someone because she said that she thought that the idea that there could be another January 6 was entirely possible.
I mean, do you think we may face another day in our country like January 6 again? Is there a danger of that? CROW: I think one of the lessons of the past five to six years, is that the United States is not immune to anything, that anything is possible on our democracy, that our democracy is both stronger and more fragile in some ways than we ever thought. You know, democracy is not a set of documents or papers or traditions or customs.
Democracy is actually just people waking up every morning and deciding to defend it, to fight it into deciding to stand by it, and to implement it, right? And that's what we have learned from the last couple of years.
So, in an era of increased political extremism, thanks, you know, in no small part to Donald Trump and his minions and his very dangerous rhetoric, he continues to put -- pour fuel on the fires of political extremism, we have to be very vigilant to that. That's one of the biggest lessons I certainly have learned in my time in office, and the last few years here.
So, we have to be very vigilant of political extremism. And I'm going to continue to focus on bringing folks together, governing, doing big, important things, like passing a national security bill last weekend that is an incredible bill to protect the American people. That's real work, doing real stuff, not inciteful, dangerous rhetoric that Donald Trump and others engage in.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Jason Crow for us on what is really a historic day as the court tries to decide whether or not Donald Trump's going to be held accountable for what you went through on January 6, what our country went through on January 6th. Thanks very much for your time.
CROW: Thank you.
HUNT: All right, let's go now to a Donald Trump's hush money trial in New York. We know that today Ex-tabloid publisher David Pecker returns to the stand. The judge has yet to rule on whether Trump violated the gag order in that case, we could see that decision come down at any time.
In the meantime, Trump's Former Fixer, Michael Cohen, has said that he will stop commenting about the president he wrote, quote, despite not being -- despite not being the gag defendant out of respect for Judge Merchan and the prosecutors, I will cease posting anything about Donald on my X formerly Twitter account or on the Mea Culpa Podcast until after my trial testimony. See you all in a month or more.
Tara Palmeri, what do you -- what's going on here with Michael Cohen deciding I can't I'm not going to say anything anymore to somebody, like advise him to do that --
PALMERI: He's been running his mouth for a long time, right. And the big part of this case is based on Michael Cohen's credibility, right. And so the more he speaks, and the more he seems to have a grudge against Trump that it makes it a harder case for the prosecutors because the defendants are going to spend all their time tearing down Michael Cohen. [06:55:00]
Also at the same time, you're going to you know, charge Trump $1,000 per whatever infraction of the gag order for attacking witnesses. You've also got someone else that is a major witness who's also attacking Donald Trump. Like there's obviously conflict and a war there. It just makes their --
HUNT: -- a public figure, right. He's not an anonymous juror, a member of a judge's family.
PALMERI: No. And again, like it just wouldn't make him a much stronger witness if he would just shut up. You know what I mean? And so and it's harder for the judge to rule against Trump, when you've got another person that case.
WILLIAMS: That's the compelling point. Even though they're -- they're not in the same place. One is the defendant, one is a witness. And Michael Cohen really is free to speak his mind as much as he wants to your point and suddenly a credibility issue, but to the judge can't credibly enforce a gag order for attacking a witness when the witness and the defendant are constantly sniping with each other in the public.
So I do think as lawyers probably gotten busier and told him that, number one, he's undermining his credibility as a witness. And number two, you are impeding the judge's ability to enforce --
DUBKE: -- got in his year.
WILLIAMS: Maybe --
DUBKE: They want to make sure that he is as strong a witness as he possibly can be, even though he's ordered himself before.
HUNT: Many times --
(CROSSTALK)
DUBKE: Many times --
HUNT: Yeah, right. I mean, I guess I keep -- I do keep stumbling on that. I mean, it seems like it's kind of the point of having Pecker testified to all of these things, right to outline like, this is what I said to Michael Cohen. So when Michael Cohen goes out there and says, well, this is what I did, then there's someone that hasn't. Doesn't have a record of perjury doing that?
DUBKE: That's the case that they're building but don't forget. Pecker also got immunity too at the end of the day, if there was a campaign violation that just strikes me as a campaign professional. Pecker is the one that was -- that is opening himself up to prosecution for this -- this catch in a --
WILLIAMS: -- That will come up when certainly on examination that -- that defense will attack David Pecker for that immunity deal telling the jurors in effect, you can't believe anything, this guy says he has an incentive to not be straight --
DUBKE: Exactly right.
PALMERI: Also, it's like this cast is like the sleaziest cast you're ever pick and so much of America is learning about tabloid journalism. And like, what that is the how they change pictures and the symbiotic relationship, and they're paying off mistresses and loved children. It's like this.
DUBKE: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: I mean, I'm a journalist, I don't buy the argument. This is all good for Donald Trump. I mean, this is why I don't agree that this is like an in kind contribution to his campaign. Yes, sure. Is he -- is he finding ways to, you know, get himself on TV? Yes, he is.
But largely, this is all in the framework of the back and forth of this salacious case that, you know, really underscores how much of Donald Trump Inc is about Donald Trump, and how much about -- how much of Donald Trump's presidential campaign is about Donald Trump and his personal grievances and the -- you know, his bad behavior.
So I just this is where I really I mean, this back and forth that you all are having right now, as the average voter, to the extent that they're absorbing it. It doesn't feel like it has an impact on their lives. But they're not walking out great for his campaign
PALMERI: Or they're not watching it in court, like the OJ trial. So like, they have to be reading The Daily News, like the updates in the AP and the New York Times. It's just like, it's just not as real plus, we know the story. We all know.
BEDINGFIELD: Right. Yeah.
DUBKE: -- Donald Trump is not trying to change who Donald Trump is. We all know who Donald Trump is. So that's already baked into this conversation. So if he was introducing himself to the American public, yes, I could agree with you. He's not he's known. He's a known quantity.
HUNT: Can I ask you a question?
BEDINGFIELD: Well, I just the backdrop, that's fine. But a backdrop for his campaign that is all about reinforcing the kind of worst pieces of his personality. That's where I don't -- that's where I don't --
HUNT: Well, my question is that as a political winner, the whole trial is about stories that he wanted to cover up --
DUBKE: Every campaign has stories, that whether it's if you really would do damage or not do damage and stories that they try to cover up. As reporters, you all have been received calls from campaign officials who say, you know what, I think you got the facts wrong here.
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah --
DUBKE: Exactly. Are you sure --
BEDINGFIELD: -- great for the campaign.
DUBKE: I mean his hair cut -- look at his hair before and after.
WILLIAMS: But I guess all depends on how much the jury buys any of this, right. And to the extent that they're a look, they were picked, because of the fact that they have no largely no predetermined views about any of these witnesses or anything like that, right. And so I guess --
BEDINGFIELD: -- the question is, if that's possible, today, but yes.
WILLIAMS: But how much do they just put all the common sense aside and actually just look at the facts and law because a lot of this just seems icky and weird and gross to normal people who aren't Washington D.C. communications.
DUBKE: And its entertainment now.
WILLIAMS: Right.
HUNT: For the record, it's still weird porn stars and tabloid to Washington D.C. communications professionals and journalists -- still weird. That's what I keep coming back to. It's like it does feel like this was kind of inevitable after the 20 --
DUBKE: -- that's been dealt
[07:00:00]
