Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Trump Says Charges in New York Case are 'Rigged'; Alito Won't Recuse, Blames Wife for Controversial Flags. Aired 6-6:30a ET
Aired May 30, 2024 - 06:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: It's Thursday, May 30. Right now on CNN THIS MORNING, verdict watch. The Trump hush money jury back to work today and asking for another look at some key evidence.
[06:00:50]
Plus, Justice Samuel Alito, defiant, refusing to recuse himself from January 6-related cases.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I threw my hands up. I'm like, "Hey, hey, hey, hey." And he just pulled me down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: A family carjacked in their own driveway, and it's all caught on a doorbell camera. That's terrifying.
And Elon Musk, White House adviser? What might happen if Donald Trump wins in November.
All right, 6 a.m. here in Washington. Live look at New York City on this Thursday morning, and cloudy there as those jurors get underway with their work.
Good morning, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. It is wonderful to have you with us.
Jury deliberations about to resume in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. And we're getting a better feel for what those seven men and five women are focusing on and how the former president may be preparing -- Or maybe he's just preparing his supporters -- for a bad outcome.
After deliberating for more than four hours on Wednesday, the jury is now reviewing four pieces of testimony they requested: Michael Cohen and "National Enquirer" chief David Pecker's descriptions of an August 2015 Trump Tower meeting; Pecker's phone call with Trump in June 2016 about former "Playboy" Playmate Karen McDougal; and Pecker's testimony about not finalizing Trump's payment to the "National Enquirer's" parent company for McDougal's life rights. Jurors also asked to rehear a portion of Judge Merchan's instructions.
Trump seemed to be trying to lower expectations about the pending verdict.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged. It's a disgrace. And I mean that. Mother Teresa could not beat those charges, but we'll see. We'll see how we do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: OK. Joining me now to discuss, former federal prosecutor, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams; Tara Palmeri is senior political correspondent for "Puck"; Matt Gorman, former senior adviser to Tim Scott's presidential campaign.
Guys, Mother Teresa. We're -- we hit Mother Teresa territory with this president. I mean, they're also, you know, hammering this in a memo, out this morning from Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, which tells me this is kind of a focused political strategy, more than a legal one.
But Elliott, let's start with what we are going to go and hear from the jury later on today here in court. The jury is going to read here, I should say in court later today.
The thread that seems to tie these things together for me is Donald Trump's involvement and knowledge of what went on.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And it's great of you to say the "for me" portion of that. Because there are things that lawyers might focus on and things that the viewing public that's not lawyers might focus on.
And as a smart consumer of news, you know, that's an important question for you to ask.
Now, it's absolutely the question of intent. And back to this August 2015 meeting. To be clear, Donald Trump is charged with falsifying business records in the first degree, which requires falsifying business records to conceal or aid in another crime that other crime here, either being campaign law violations or tax violations.
In order to prove any of that, you have to prove that Donald Trump is at the center of it, knew it, put it in motion, or actually, you know, engaged in the act himself.
This August 2015 meeting is critical to that for prosecutors, because they're Donald Trump is said to have spoken with Michael Cohen, his former fixer and lawyer, and David Pecker from "The National Enquirer," where they sort of hatched the scheme, as prosecutors allege. You've got to put Donald Trump in the room. That's the room that allegedly he was in. And it's clear that jurors are focusing in either direction, to be clear. It's not necessarily that they're leaning toward convicting him, but they just want to know what happened in there. And it was quite telling that they asked about that specific moment.
HUNT: Yes. No, I thought it was really interesting.
Tara Palmeri, this Mother Teresa situation. I mean, they seem to be -- I mean, look, they may be right that none of this actually matters, right? That's the argument that they're making here.
This does seem like a classic as if -- you know, if we were going into a debate, and I was playing the role of classic political reporter. I would say, "Oh, they're lowering expectations. They're saying he's going to do terrible when actually it's going to --"
TARA PALMERI, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "PUCK": Right.
HUNT: So they can say on the other side that it's all fine.
[06:05:05]
PALMERI: Yes. I think you're right. I mean, that's exactly what you do. You set expectations. This verdict is like winning or losing a debate. This is a milestone in a political campaign.
Sure, it's nothing like we've ever seen before. But yes, whether he wins or loses, that will have a lot to do with how how this campaign moves forward. He has an acquittal, it will be a huge de for Donald Trump, as we know.
If he doesn't, you know, it will be interesting to see what happens six months from now. I mean, it's a long time between now and when voters go out to vote, and whether it's on their top list of priorities, that one of the candidates is a convicted felon or perhaps was charged on a number of counts, but not on, but acquitted on others.
I think, you know, the jury's clearly taking their time. They're taking this seriously. Thirty-four counts a lot. I covered the John Edwards trial, and there were only six.
It was very similar to this trial. It was a six-week trial, and the jury deliberated for two weeks. And in the end, they had a mistrial on five counts and declared him not guilty on one. And it took them two weeks to get down to that.
It's -- there's a lot hanging on, especially when it's political people, when there's like -- and he wasn't even -- he wasn't even a candidate. He didn't move past the primary.
So I just think, like, we could see them deliberating for a while. They understand the gravity of this, and it's a lot of material to get through. WILLIAMS: Tara, I can't tell you how many people have texted already
texted me saying, Oh my gosh, like four hours! Why are they taking so long? And, Oh, my God, they're still learning where the bathroom is in the building, let alone how they want to decide.
Juries can deliberate for, like you said, days, weeks.
PALMERI: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
PALMERI: And I remember we were all just waiting for them to come up with a decision. They go back to the judge, and they would just -- every day another question, another concern, another -- and then the judge was like, OK, you have to come back and tell us. And it ended up being a hung trial.
So I just don't think it's going to be that clear-cut. I don't think they're that partisan. I think they're not just sitting there being like, let's just nail into the wall.
MATT GORMAN, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO TIM SCOTT'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Two weeks. Hope you're all ready.
WILLIAMS: Yes. Oh, no.
HUNT: I'm not ready to be on standby for two weeks. That's what I have to say.
GORMAN: Oh, my God.
HUNT: Telegraphing that to my bosses right now.
GORMAN: There's going to be a lot of -- a lot of just vamping.
But no, look, I think when we talked about kind of setting the table, I had the exact same thought as you, Kasie. It reminded me of the debate. Reminded me of lowering expectations.
And look, I think I've been pretty consistent (ph) with this. I think that no matter what happens at the end of the day, it's not going to move many voters, in large, either way, pro or con. It might give the Biden campaign a talking point, but that's about it.
But look, I think, too, one of the things that I'm keeping my eye on, as well, is look, if the jury is having trouble with these instructions, then so is the general public. I think in a lot of respects, their jury pool in a lot is often the voting base. So if they're having trouble really understanding and digging in on exactly what they need to come up with, translating that to the voting public in a political campaign is going to be even tougher.
HUNT: Well, but do you think, like, a conviction -- I mean, it's a relatively simple message.
GORMAN: Yes, it's a relatively simple message, but it's a matter of will it actually move votes. And I think, according to polls I've seen, it really doesn't move votes either way.
And the same thing with an -- if it was acquittal. It wasn't all of a sudden, Biden voters are going to go back to Trump. It was -- if people are -- tend to be in their camps.
If they move, I think it will be on things like the economy, immigration and abortion, if anything.
WILLIAMS: Anybody who might be swayed by, well, you know, when he was charged with a crime, you know, I was still in his camp. But a jury convicted him, therefore, oh, my God, it's all over. It's just -- people knew what they were getting.
GORMAN: I agree.
PALMERI: It might actually matter, though, in the margins, because if this race is actually decided by a very small group of voters in battleground states that haven't somehow made up their minds already about two people who have already been the office --
HUNT: Yes.
PALMERI: -- which is the other thing about all of this, then maybe this will move them. They may just feel like this is not something they want to be. They feel like integrity is important to them.
So I think it could -- it could sway a few voters. And that could be what matters.
HUNT: So the swing voters, the most interesting people in all of America, because, hey, I don't know how you landed there. But --
PALMERI: You know what you're getting.
HUNT: I know.
All right, coming up next here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: With your vote in 2024, we're going to make Donald Trump a loser again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Biden and his vice president launching their push to try to win over black voters.
Plus Justice Alito refusing to recuse and continuing to blame his wife for the upside-down flag.
And what was he thinking? A man with a suspended license appears in virtual court from his car. That is one of five things you've got to see this morning.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [06:14:04]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. Supreme Court Justice Smauel Alito says he will not recuse himself from cases involving the January 6 attack or the 2020 election over reporting he flew flags associated with the Stop the Steal movement on two of his properties.
In a rare letter to lawmakers, Alito blamed his wife repeatedly. He wrote the following things. Quote, "My wife did fly that flag." Quote, "My wife was solely responsible." Quote, "My wife is fond of flying flags." Quote, "I asked my wife to take it down," end quote.
Panel's back. How would this go over at any of your households?
WILLIAMS: I guess happy wife, happy life doesn't really apply in the Alito household?
HUNT: So we've thrown that out.
WILLIAMS: Yes. It's really interesting, but more to the point. And let's just go back to what the rules say. And a judge ought to recuse. Under the Supreme Court's own ethical guidance, which they put out, including Justice Alito in 2023, a justice should recuse from a case in any matter in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the public.
[06:15:07]
Now setting aside what anybody believes about the pine tree flag or the upside-down flag --
HUNT: Because we don't have Scott Jennings here to fight with you about this today.
WILLIAMS: No, but that's -- Scott and I disagreed on this.
HUNT: Maybe Matt can jump in, in a minute.
WILLIAMS: But here's the thing. Regardless of what you think of the flag or the symbolism behind either, he's acknowledged that they're political symbols and that he knew they were up in front of his house, right?
He -- you know, it's not that his wife accidentally hung up the flag. It was a political symbol and one that was associated with a certain political movement in the country.
Right there, if that entity has matters before the Supreme Court, it's something he ought to recuse. And just -- Congressman Raskin --
HUNT: Yes.
WILLIAMS: -- in his op-ed wrote -- he wrote an interesting one in "The New York Times."
HUNT: Yes, yes. No, in fact, let's put that up here. So this is Congressman Jamie Raskin, who's a lawyer, constitutional lawyer, writing this.
Quote, "Everyone assumes nothing can be done about the recusal situation, because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards -- no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection. The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality."
WILLIAMS: So that would be a pretty aggressive remedy. In general, in our government, there's always a remedy. There's always a solution. But often, it's sort of out there and buried deep in the Constitution and will be very hard to implement, right?
HUNT: Right.
WILLIAMS: So who knows? I have a hard time believing that you'd ever get Congress to do that.
I just -- why I brought him up, the clearest line for the point I'm making here is he says, quoting John Roberts, "Judges are like umpires," which is what John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing. John Roberts, the chief justice.
HUNT: Right.
WILLIAMS: "But professional baseball would never allow an umpire to continue to officiate the World Series after learning that the pennant of one of the two teams was flying in the yard of the umpire's house."
HUNT: Do we have Angel Hernandez? Do you, guys, in there?
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Go ahead.
GORMAN: No, no. I'm glad he's fired.
But anyway -- But no, look, I think this -- I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Because especially, too, as of last week, the "Appeal to Heaven" flag was flying outside the conservative bastion of the San Francisco city hall. So I think, like, that whole thing is just ridiculous on its face.
And look, I take Elliot's point. I do. But I think what's become incentivized is you have members of Congress who I think have a pretty big incentive to say they feel a reasonable kind of standard.
Because down the line, there's a political goal, which is that they want to see recusal, but more importantly, what they want is they want cases involving Trump, whatever entity kind of they are on either side on, to win.
And so I think that's what this is. And we saw it yesterday, too, with this "Rolling Stone" article going after who Jesses [SIC] Barrett. Jesse Barrett, husband of Amy Coney Barrett, who his clients are.
They're trying to set this standard where sowing doubt intentionally, I think, in people's minds to create this kind of doubt. So that way down the line, if rulings don't go their way, they can kind of appeal to this sense. Well, let me just --
HUNT: That does not seem to be the --
WILLIAMS: Let me just -- I'm sorry, Kasie. What I want to say, not let me Democrats, but more to the point, a justice's spouse's clients would never be grounds for recusal unless -- unless the justice had spoken out in that way.
You know, I think just -- you know, we're getting lost in this question of what we think of the right versus the left in this country. And if it were a "Don't tread on me" flag, another political symbol from the American Revolution, no one would doubt that that was a political symbol.
And the point is, the justice was flying political symbols in front of his house. Whether we like them or not.
HUNT: Well, and I think --
WILLIAMS: It's grounds for recusal.
HUNT: Tara, the bottom line, too, is that increasingly -- I mean, 50 percent of people think that politics motivates justices, while 49 percent say, well, they're mainly motivated by the law. I mean, it does feel like the court has moved from umpire to something else.
PALMERI: Right. I mean, we're supposed to believe they're just like us. They have domestic issues. You know, throwing his wife under the bus, et cetera. But, at the end of the day, they don't follow their own ethics rules. And it seems like they've become almost infallible.
And that's the problem. You hear about, you know, Alito and his flags. But then then there was Harlan Crow, who was taking -- offering major gifts to another justice.
And even just to the fact that they can decide whenever they want to retire from the court, whether they're in good health or not. I think people are just starting to lose trust in that process.
And of course, the overturning of Roe versus Wade was a major moment in this country when people felt like the justices took away one of their rights.
HUNT: Yes. All right. Coming up next here, Biden and Trump rolling out the red carpet for celebrity endorsements. Does it make any difference?
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(GUNSHOT)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Oh, my God. Carjacked in their own driveway. One of the five things you have to see this morning.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:24:17]
HUNT: All right, 23 minutes past the hour, five things you've got to see this its morning.
Bodycam footage of golfer Scottie Scheffler in the back of a police car during the PGA championship.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTTIE SCHEFFLER, GOLFER: You're right. I should have stopped. I did get a little bit impatient, because I'm quite late for my tee time. And --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: "I'm quite late for my tee time." Scheffler was arrested trying to drive around the scene of a car crash. All of the charges have been dropped.
A volcano in southwestern Iceland erupted for the fifth time since December, spewing more lava near some other -- some towns there. Officials say they had to cut power in the area as a precautionary measure.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I lifted my hands up. I'm like, "Hey, hey, hey, hey." And he just pulled me down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Terrifying video out of Mississippi. A woman and her three children and two grandchildren were carjacked in the driveway of their own home.
Police in Jackson say they've identified two people of interest. Thankfully, no one was injured.
Fast-moving flames spotted in South Central Arizona. A wildfire there has grown to 450 acres. Power was shut off. Very little of it has been contained.
And I don't know what you want to file this under. A Michigan man, charged with driving with a suspended license, attended his pretrial hearing via a video call, live from his car. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you driving?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually, I'm pulling into my doctor's office.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a driving while license suspended?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That is correct, your honor.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He doesn't have a license. He's suspended. and he's just driving. The defendant needs to turn himself into the Washington County D.A. (ph) by 6 p.m. today. Failure to turn himself in will result in a bench warrant with no bond.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my God!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Is he just realizing what he's done there?
WILLIAMS: That's pretty awesome. That is called a confession in the law. You have admitted to the thing you are accused of doing. So probably a happy prosecutor right there.
HUNT: Oh, my God. All right.
Coming up next, new DNA testing on a piece of evidence approved by the judge in the murder case against Scott Peterson.
And first lady Jill Biden, hitting the trail for her husband.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JILL BIDEN, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe that Americans are going to choose good over evil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
