Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Judge Denies Trump's Motion To Delay New York Hush Money Case; Chef Jose Andrews Accuses Israel Of Targeting His Workers; Greene To CNN: "Not Backing Off" On Threat To Oust Speaker; 2 Plead Guilty To Insider Trading, Tied To Truth Social Deal. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired April 03, 2024 - 19:00   ET




The breaking news, a major setback for Trump tonight. A judge denying a desperate attempt to delay his first criminal trial which starts in just days. This as the judge he appointed in the classified documents case is facing accusations that she is delaying the trial for the man who appointed her, Trump himself.

Also breaking, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene speaking to our Manu Raju and tripling down on her threat to oust the Speaker Mike Johnson. Will she really do it? And can she succeed?

Plus, more trouble for Truth Social as the stock tumbles. There are now charges of insider trading, a lawsuit against the site's co- founders, who by the way, happened to be former "Apprentice" stars.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight: We begin with the breaking news and that is a Trump lost tonight. A New York judge tonight rejecting one of Trumps last ditch efforts to delay his criminal hush money trial.

Trump's team wanted the case delayed until after the Supreme Court rules on Trump's immunity claim, right, that he's immune from anything he did while he was president. But that ruling, of course, could take months for the Supreme Court.

But as of tonight, Trump is going to trial this month in that case, and just over ten days. Judge Juan Marshawn writing: This court finds that defendant had myriad opportunities to raise the claim of presidential immunity well before March 7, 2024.

And by the way, when you talk about myriad opportunities, just to be clear, Trump went to court for the first time in this case, appeared in court exactly one year ago, and immunity claim only came today. So that is a fail for Trump's delay strategy in this case.

But that strategy is finding fertile ground with the judge in Florida tonight, a judge Trump appointed. Judge Aileen Cannon, of course, is presiding over Trumps classified documents case, and she is being accused of upping the ante on stalling the case to avoid trial. And special counsel Jack Smith's frustration is now clearly evident. It was scathing filing that he put forth, Smith in it accusing the judge of putting the entire case in jeopardy before it even begins, specifically because of her unusual request, the jury instructions in the case be based on Trump's claim that he had the authority to take classified documents to Mar-a-Lago.

Now, this is a judge who has repeatedly ruled for Trump again and again on important claims in the case. She has slow rolled what is long been considered an open and shut case, very black and white with 40 counts against Trump

She's delayed it so much, it's essentially a standstill. She'd originally scheduled the trial for May 20th. Recently, though, she said prosecutors proposed date of July 8th was too soon. And as of tonight, she has no date on the calendar for the trial to start.

Among her biggest moves to stall the case, she aligned herself with Trump and appointed a special master to review more than 11,000 records from Mar-a-Lago. Think about bat amount of time. Well, that decision was overruled by the 11th Circuit Court, a court which by the way, is made up of judges nominated by former President George W. Bush and Trump.

And as for Trump, of course, when it comes to Judge Aileen Cannon, he's got nothing but praise.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know, it's a very highly respected judge, a very smart judge, and a very strong judge. I'm very proud to have appointed her, but she's very smart and very strong and loves our country. I mean, loves our country. We need judges that love our country. So they do the right thing.


BURNETT: Smart, strong, those are stunning words from Trump when you compare them to what he has said about justices in his other cases.


TRUMP: This judge is a lunatic.

He's a nasty judge.

Oh, I have a Trump-hating judge.

Her whole life is not liking me.


BURNETT: Evan Perez is OUTFRONT live in Washington to begin our coverage tonight. And, Evan, so this breaking development in the New York hush money

case, what more you learning about why the judge rejected Trump's immunity claim, even as it comes in the final hour here after this has been an issue for over a year that the case itself? And what other ways is Trump trying to delay the case, you've got -- it's set to trial, of course, in just days.


EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right, Erin, he is -- he is throwing everything he can at the -- at the wall to try to get this case delayed. And one of the things a judge points out in his ruling today, Judge Marshawn is he points out that Trump actually did try to use this immunity claim when he tried to move this case to federal court, that that attempt, of course failed and the judge points out that given the fact that this request came so late, just days as you pointed out, before this case was supposed to go to trial, it really what he says strains credulity of the court and the judges just not buying this.

Now, one of the things that is still in the offing the Trump -- the Trump team is trying to get the judge to be recused. They're also saying that the -- raising the issue of pretrial publicity and publicity around this trial, of course, as you pointed out -- the former presidents attacks on the judge and attacks on the district attorney. Those are the things that are creating some of -- at least some of the pretrial publicity that is surrounding this case.

And so one of the things that also stood out to me in this ruling from the judge, it's very strange for the former president to be claiming immunity for something that is he alleged to have done before the 2016 --


PEREZ: -- in the '24 -- the 2016 campaign. And so that's one of the parts of this that has never really made any sense, the judge shooting this all down. This trial appears now, certainly to be set to go to start in just ten days, Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Evan, thank you very much in such a crucial point, hard to claim presidential immunity for something that you did when you weren't president.

OUTFRONT now, Ty Cobb, a former Trump White House lawyer.

So, Ty, obviously, there's some, you know, intellectual hoops to jump through to even get there. So the judge then says no to Trumps immunity claim in the hush money case. But as Evan points out, his attorneys are still pursuing other avenues to try to delay the trial, you know, to complain about the publicity around it, to get the judge kicked off -- all these things.

The trial though is set to start in just days, right, in just over 10 days on April 15. Will Trump succeed at delaying it beyond that? TY COBB, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: I don't believe so. Although I don't think were done with attempts to delay it, and I think that those attempts will get even more desperate. I would not be surprised to see Trump's team tried to mandamus the judge over the recusal issue or over the immunity issue. I don't think either of those could be brought and good faith.

But, you know, as the judge has pointed out, in the most recent hearing, he has a very difficult time believing Trump's attorneys are acting in good faith at this stage of the game. And I think that they don't feel to tethered by the ethical or evidentiary rules that should circumscribed those efforts.

BURNETT: So that's the hush money case, and as I said, scheduled for April 15 here.

I want to ask you about the other case that I mentioned you and I've talked about it a lot, the one in Florida the one that legal experts talk about for -- I mean, what are we, now, eight, ten months as an open and shut, no -- a year? I mean, where are we that it open and shut case and yet, we don't have a trial date.

COBB: Over year. Yeah, well over year.

BURNETT: Why do you think Judge Cannon installing it?

COBB: Well, I think it's -- I -- I recognize that many commentators today have tried to be polite about Judge Cannon's missteps here, you know, and suggesting that they relate somehow to her inexperienced or competence. I think that her -- I think the evidence of her bias pretty palpable at this stage of the game. I think the 11th Circuit tried desperately to draw a line for her at the time of the search warrant and the special master cases where they rebuked her very sternly for her making up -- basically making up the law and her lack of analysis of the required factors that went into those decisions, but her delays here are extraordinary.

I mean, as you highlighted as others violated, she hasn't even set a trial date. That's -- that's remarkable. She ignored the governments request months ago to set the schedule under the Classified Information Procedures Act, that there are multiple steps that have to be gone through and she hasn't -- she hasn't completed step one.

I think that along frankly doomed the case to not start before the election or the next year's inauguration of whomever wins. But I think it's clear that her efforts to delay this continue. The current matter that the filing was geared to today with regard to her baffling perception that the Presidential Records Act somehow has any relationship at all to the Espionage Act is stunning.



COBB: I think that Jack Smith -- I think, you know, the filing today makes it plain that she has to rule. And if she doesn't rule under either -- under either scenario, there'll be in a position to take her up to the 11th Circuit. And I think the 11th Circuit will likely take her off the case.

BURNETT: Okay. So I want to ask you what that means, but quickly just to be clear, you're saying that you don't by that this is just incompetence or inexperienced at this point?

COBB: No, I think -- I think the evidence is just too overwhelming. I mean, yes, she may be incompetent, but at this stage of the game, you know, the -- her incompetence is so gross that I think it clearly creates the perception of impartiality -- of partiality --


COBB: -- and her attempt to put her thumb on the scale. So I think that should disqualify her.

BURNETT: All right. So if that happens, is it goes 11th Circuit as you say, would be a next step and those judges, as I pointed out, who have rebuked her before appointed by Bush and Trump, they take her off the case. Does that change whether -- when -- this -- it can't start before the election situation for you?

COBB: I don't believe so. I think she's successfully achieved what appears to be her goal of favoring the president, to the point where this cannot get to trial. There's just so much to be done. She's sitting on nine motions to dismiss, three other significant motions and the entire CIPA process which is complex. I mean, not for the government because they've been through it before, but certainly for her who she seems to stumble on the most fundamental things.

You know, a month ago, she tripped over the fundamental issue of a public trial when she closed the courtroom to even the defendant's family in jury selection in a case, not this case, but in another case. She just doesn't -- she just doesn't seem to be up to this in any fashion.

BURNETT: All right. Ty Cobb, thank you, as always. Appreciate it.

COBB: My pleasure. Thank you, Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Good to see you.

And David Axelrod is with us now. I mean, David, this has been considered really an open and shut case for quite some time and, you know, you're heard Ty's analysis that it -- he just doesn't see it in any scenario going to trial before the election.

So, how much do you think that helps Trump?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think it helps him a lot. There's a big body of evidence in polling that conviction in any of these cases. but in these federal cases, in particular, would be harmful to him. And his goal has been clearly throughout to try and delay all of these trials beyond the election. So, look, I think that she -- Ty is a lawyer and he said it in a

lawyerly way, but it feels like this judge whom he appointed is in the tank and she's done what he wanted, which has helped delay this trial beyond where it could be tried before this election.

BURNETT: In the contrast that you make, right? Obviously, this is one of the federal ones, but this was considered to be, as I said, in many cases, open an opening shot black and white.

AXELROD: Yeah. Sure.

BURNETT: You had political -- you had legal experts from all aspects of the political spectrum who agreed on that. So, if that one's not going to go to trial, the one that you have going to trial is not a federal case, right? It's a New York case. It's widely considered to be the weakest for a variety of reasons, among them, a D.A. who is running for election, had campaigned in part on going after Trump.

So if that case goes ahead as it's expected to in the next ten days and that's the case you get end and he's convicted, maybe that helps him. What do you think?

AXELROD: No, I don't think it will help them. I -- look, I do think there's no doubt that the indictments help them. It seems improbable. But 91 counts and four indictments strengthened him through the primary season because we are living in tribal times and Republicans rallied around Trump. He's very good at branding these things in his direction. And it helped him win the nomination.

I don't think there's as much evidence that they that this will help him in a general election. And I don't think it conviction will -- there was a poll a couple of weeks ago in "Politico" that suggested that -- particularly among independent voters -- this would be very troubling if he were convicted, even 9 percent of Republicans.

And, Erin, even in the exit polls that we took during the primary elections, Republican primary elections, on the average like 12 percent of Trump voters said that he wouldn't be fit for office if he were convicted of a crime. They weren't distinguishing between any crimes.

Now, he will try -- he's already -- this bombast of the weekend was designed to try and soften the field for him if he is convicted, you know, by implying -- not just that the D.A. was biased, but that the judge was biased.


I'm sure he will denounce the jury as a Trump-hating New York Democratic jury if he's convicted. The problem with the case has been you call it a hush money case. What it is -- paying the hush money isn't illegal. What was illegal was the way he hid the money that apparently was spent or the government alleges to try and keep this out of the election campaign and they considered an election expense. He paid it as legal fees to Michael Cohen as a business expense. And so, you know, its' a little bit confusing. I said at the

beginning, if you have to put the words porn star and novel legal theory in the same sentence, you have to really think about whether you should go forward with that.

But there's a lot of evidence that this wasn't the only case in which he paid this hush money. Now that was very much motivated by campaign considerations and so I think that, you know, I think that this will be damaging to him if it goes forward.

The thing we ought to consider is what if he doesn't get convicted? What if there's a --

BURNETT: Right, exoneration.

AXELROD: What if there's an acquittal or a hung jury? That could have a helpful effect for Trump and coloring all of these prosecutions.

BURNETT: Yeah, it can be profound if that's the one -- if that's the one thing you're going to get.

All right. David Axelrod. Thank you very much.

And next, the celebrity chef, Jose Andres speaking out after workers from his aid group were killed by an Israeli airstrike.


JOSE ANDRES, CELEBRITY CHEF: But I know is that we were targeted deliberately nonstop until everybody was dead in this convoy.


BURNETT: Plus, breaking news, Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene speaking to our Manu Raju, says she is not backing down on her threat to oust Speaker Mike Johnson and you'll hear exactly what and how she plans to do it.

And Nebraska now considering a move that could deny Biden a crucial electoral vote, a vote that could give Trump the presidency. And we are going to show you the math.



BURNETT: Breaking news, targeted. The celebrity chef Jose Andres, the founder of World Central Kitchen, he's breaking his silence and speaking out on camera for the first time tonight. Seven aid workers from his organization were killed by an Israeli airstrike. And he says that Israel targeted his workers systematically.

His anger palpable as he slammed Israel's actions again and again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDRES: They were target systematically car by car in the process, we know that trying to call, but in the case of the moment, whatever happened, they -- to try to be telling IDF that while they're doing that, they were targeting us in a deconflicted zone, in an area controlled by IDF, them knowing that was our team's moving on that route with three cars, and then they hit the third one. Then we saw the consequences of that continuous targeted attack. Seven -- seven people dead. This was not just bad luck situation where, oops, we dropped the bomb in the wrong place or not. This was over 1.5, 1.8 kilometers with a very defined humanitarian convoy that had signs in the top, in the roof. A very colorful logo that we are obviously very proud of, that that's very clear who we are and what we do. But I know is that we were targeted deliberately nonstop until everybody was dead in this convoy, that cannot be -- that cannot be the role of an army.


BURNETT: You had goosebumps listening to that. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that his forces committed a, quote, grave mistake, and that it was unintentional. But that is doing little to quiet the growing global condemnation. The Australian prime minister says his country is, quote, outraged. Poland's prime minister says the attack is caused understandable anger. Prime minister of Spain calling Israel's response unacceptable and insufficient. Of course, citizens from all those countries were killed.

And President Biden, who is facing fierce resistance tonight over his response to the Israeli war in Gaza, is said to be various over the deaths of the aid workers.

We begin our coverage with Melissa Bell in Jerusalem.


MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Systematically targeted car by car.

That's how the world central kitchen is describing the Israeli military attack that killed seven of its aid workers in Gaza. In an interview with "Reuters", the charity's founder and celebrity chef, Jose Andres, insistent, the WCK had coordinated the convoys movements with the Israeli military.

ANDRES: We were targeted deliberately. This looks like it's not a war against terrorism anymore. It seems this is a war against humanity itself.

BELL: The attack has sparked international outrage, prompting several humanitarian organizations, including World Central Kitchen, to pause their operations in Gaza at a time when civilians are starving.

Israel's prime minister acknowledged the strike, saying that his forces unintentionally struck innocent people.

But according to CNN's analysis of aftermath videos, the attack appears to have consisted of multiple precision strikes, in what was a deconflicted zone on two armored cars and one unarmored vehicle.


CNN has geolocated video imagery of all the destroyed vehicles, at least one of which was clearly marked with a WCK logo on its roof.

And this is just the latest in a string of Israeli attacks on aid convoys.

Last month, more than 100 people were killed in northern Gaza, as Israeli troops opened fire near civilians, gathering around food aid trucks with some run over by fleeing vehicles in the chaos in what's become known chillingly as the flour massacre. Israel denied targeting the aid trucks, saying the Israeli defense forces fired at, quote, suspects nearby.

And less than a week later, witnesses said at least 20 people were killed by Israeli shelling as they waited for desperately needed food in Gaza City.

Israel denied it was responsible for the deaths, blaming them instead on Palestinian militants.

Even Israel's closest ally, the United States, has strongly condemned the WCK attack, but said it would not affect their efforts to deliver aid to Gaza by sea.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That effort is ongoing. The Pentagon is working hard on that. And I know they brief on that on a regular occasion, and we want to get that stood up as soon as possible. Of course, this strike does reveal the very difficult situation that aid workers on the ground inside Gaza face when it comes to not just receiving aid in Gaza, but then actually delivering it.

BELL: With every day that passes in Gaza, hunger becomes more evidence. And despite Israel facing increased scrutiny over its conduct in the war, Palestinians continued to face deadly violence in their desperate efforts to survive.


BELL (on camera): We've also, Erin, had this heartbreaking tweet from chef Jose Andres this evening, dedicated to Zomi Frankcom, the Australian aid worker that was killed, playing a video of her in Pakistan when she was working for the organization already and saying that he was heartbroken, explaining that he wished he'd never even set up World Central Kitchen, then he explains, she might still be alive, making people feel that they were the most beloved people in the world and saying, towards the end of the tweet that he will meet her again one day to hug her.

This outpouring of grief comes, of course, even admit the growing outrage, Erin, at what has happened over in Gaza and Israeli promises that they will get to the bottom of it -- Erin.

BURNETT: Melissa, thank you very much. And with me now here, retired Army Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, who

is commanding general of United States Army in Europe.

So, General, Jose Andres obviously heartbroken. He's saying he wishes he didn't even found this organization, in which he has done such great good around the world because of this horrible tragedy. He says that they were systematically targeted and he lays out why, that they were three strikes. They were precision strikes. They were operating in labeled cars, coordinated with the IDF, in a humanitarian zone, on a road where the IDF knew, right -- he lays all of that out.

Do you think he's right that this was systematically targeted?

LT. GENERAL BEN HODGES (RET.), FORMER COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY EUROPE: Well, of course, is gut wrenching to hear his report and talking about his people. The burden is on the Israeli Defense Force to protect all civilians from being injured or killed this responsibility of the Israeli defense force. And they obviously failed here.

Now, this convoy was coordinated with the IDF. So, the Israeli defense force knew it was passing through there. They knew the route. This was all organized, and then to lose -- to lose track of it doesn't -- doesn't wash. I've had convoys, World Food convoys, or other targets and we were told to make sure nothing happened to. So you devote attention to it.

And clearly, if the leadership with the IDF was serious about protecting against collateral damage and casualties like this, something like this convoy would never been had.

BURNETT: All right. So there was an article today in a British newspaper, "The Guardian". It was about A.I. and how Israel is using it they say to target. So a senior official at the IDF is taking issue with many points in the article, Colonel Lerner.

I just want to read one thing that he's taken can you share with. He says no Hamas individual was automatically approved for attack with an expected 15 to 20 casualties. Now, I'm presuming he's talking generally, not specifically to this incident, obviously.

What stood out to me was the use of the word automatically.


BURNETT: That means that you could approve an attack that would have 15 to 20 casualties?

HODGES: I thought his rebuttal of the article was really, really very, very narrow and thin when you should have just said it is Israeli defense force policy, we do everything possible well to limit civilian casualties, we would never allow civilian casualties to happen and instead, what he did is kind of worded it in such a way that makes it sound, oh, we don't -- we don't actually do that.

[19:30:05] It was not a compelling rebuttal.

BURNETT: So is it possible then what Jose Andres is essentially saying here is that is it -- that they targeted that convoy knowing it was World Central Kitchen, knowing that were innocent people in it, being willing to kill aid workers because they thought that a Hamas operative was among them. By the way, 200 other aid workers have been killed according to the state department today. So that's -- that's what Jose Andres is saying is possible it's happened.

It's possible that happened?

HODGES: Yes, it is possible because I think that the IDF has become -- I don't want to say callous towards civilian casualties, but their tolerance for collateral damage is much higher. For us, it's zero. And so, the fact that they would be willing to strike a convoy because they thought there was a Hamas operative inside the convoy, that they would be willing to accept the international heat well, sorry for the --

BURNETT: And strike every single car.

HODGES: Maybe --

BURNETT: Knowing that that person would only be in one car.

HODGES: Maybe they weren't sure exactly which car he was in.

BURNETT: Right. But if that's what happened, that definitely -- definitionally means they are willing to kill every --


HODGES: Absolutely. I mean, this is the kind, of thing when you talk about targeting and preventing collateral damage, you do an assessment of who else is in the radius of where the impact is going to be.


HODGES: And then depending on what that is, you know, commanders at that level say, no way, we can't do it, it's not worth that kind of loss and it looks to me based on operations over the last several months, that the Israeli tolerance for collateral damage is much higher than any -- certainly any U.S. forces would ever have.

BURNETT: General, thank you very much. Appreciate it

And next, breaking news from Manu -- Manu Raju has new reporting tonight. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's effort to fire Speaker Mike Johnson is continuing. And you'll see what she just told him, what she's going to do.

Also just in, Democrats with a new ad taking on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Andrew Yang who RFK Jr. considered to be his running mate, would be OUTFRONT.



BURNETT: Breaking news, not backing down. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene in the new interview with our Manu Raju saying she's furious with Speaker Mike Johnson over his plans to move forward with an aid package for Ukraine. She calls it, quote, one of the most egregious things, end quote, but he could do.

And it comes down as she is now doubling down on her threat to oust Johnson as speaker.

Manu is OUTFRONT on Capitol Hill.

And, Manu, you know, this is a House now where anybody has the ability to oust the speaker. This is the work of I guess what Kevin McCarthy originally did. Greene digging her heels in and moving ahead with this, what did she say to you?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESONDENT: Yeah. She's making clear that she is not backing off this threat. She's still angry the deal that Mike Johnson cut to keep the government open last month, something that he cut with Democrats and the White House, those unveiled essentially the last minute and push through over the objections of hard-liners like herself.

She has offered a resolution to oust Mike Johnson as speaker, but she is not detail when she plans to call that up to the House floor or something that you can do as soon as next week and she had a blunt warning to Mike Johnson, who is now trying to cobble together in aid package for Ukraine at this desperate moment in the war against Russia, he said, forward with that aid package, and she warned that that potentially could trigger an effort to oust him.


REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I'm going to tell you right now, funding Ukraine is probably one of the most egregious things that he can do.

RAJU: Maybe Democrats could vote with some Republicans for, you know, someone who is more moderate than Mike Johnson.

GREENE: I don't think we can get any more moderate than Mike Johnson, Manu. There's not even any daylight between him and Nancy Pelosi at this point. People are fed up with Republicans that say one thing and turn around and literally joined the flock and just continue the same old crap everybody tired of.

And here, Mike Johnson, he's literally turned in to Mitch McConnell's twin, and worse.


RAJU: So, as you can see, she is discounting the concerns among some are fellow Republicans that ousting Mike Johnson could lead to a more moderate Republican speaker criticizing the deal-making that the very conservative Mike Johnson has made, essentially equating him to Nancy Pelosi there.

But she also, Erin, did not say if she has spoken to Donald Trump about this, but she does plan to speak with the speaker himself on Friday -- Erin.

BURNETT: And we'll see what happens with that.

All right, Manu, thank you so much for sharing that new reporting with us.

And I want to go now to the former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger.

Well, I guess you're glad you're not there right now. But -- so we just heard Manu's reporting, right.

So, Marjorie Taylor Greene threatening to oust Johnson as speaker. And now that's the way it goes in the GOP. You just need one person you can bring it to the floor.

Do you think she'll really do it and could it happen?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I mean, the GOP is ungovernable right now and it's because Kevin McCarthy agreed to the rule that just one person could bring forward a motion to vacate the chair. And so, now, you know look, there's 200 some Republican members of Congress that are not willing to pull that trigger because they're to an extent team players, they understand how policy works and how governance works.

And this is just basic cons - you cant beat -- say that you're for the Constitution like Marjorie Taylor Greene does then be upset when the majority wants something done, but you don't want it done. So you just take your ball and go home. Are you try to blow up the system.

So, will she do it? Look, I said from the beginning, this wasn't about -- remember, she introduced this pretending she was outraged about the deal to keep the government open.


God forbid, the government is open, right?

BURNETT: But what was, was actually she we tried to do a sword of Damocles over the speaker's head on Ukraine. And amazing to me, by the way, Erin, that like funding Ukraine in this existential moment is what she's willing -- the hill that she is willing to die on, it goes to say a lot.

So, will she? I think she very well may. And the question is, what is Speaker Johnson do? Because if he capitulates to her, he will be an ineffective speaker for the rest of his speakership. If he stands up to her, he's going to get a little bit of his power back. BURNETT: Which is interesting, right, you say if you cave to that, I mean you become a unit. You don't have -- you're basically going to cave to anybody on absolutely anything.

So it's very interesting to see what actually does happen. I want to ask -- go ahead.

KINZINGER: No, I was just going to say to that the problem is those that are supportive of Ukraine funding for instance, they could play this exact game and actually gives speaker Johnson some backing by saying fine, if Marjorie Taylor Greene drops a motion to vacate because you put Ukraine aid on the floor, we'll drop a motion to vacate if you don't, or we'll shut down every rule vote, which is the thing that actually makes the house work. That would be playing hardball on the other side. And what actually give the speaker the ability then to say, I don't have a choice, I'm going to do the right thing here and cut a deal with the Democrats.

But unfortunately, on the Republican side, they're unwilling to do that.

BURNETT: It's interesting though, when you talk about Ukraine aid, and obviously it's a challenge to topic and a lot of polling. But there are a lot of Republicans who are very supportive of it, a very supportive of Ukraine. Lot of them happened to have been people who voted for Nikki Haley.

And yesterday when you looked at that primary, Wisconsin, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Nikki Haley walked away with double-digits and every single one of those states. She dropped out a month ago, double digits. What does that say to you?

KINZINGER: That's huge because that is somebody that goes to vote and it's not like they just voted early before she dropped out. They voted after she dropped out. So they made it very clear that they wanted to send a message. Every one of those at voted to her for her, they wanted to send a message that they are not what Donald Trump.

Now, lets keep in mind those voters are probably very pro-Ukraine, right? They're probably very pro-Israel, pro-Taiwan. This is a moment for the president, Mr. Biden, to actually double down on Ukraine, to come out every day and attack the Republicans. Every day, he should be attacking the Republicans for blocking Ukraine.

That's his opportunity to get these voters and I hope they do that.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Congressman. Always appreciate seeing you.


BURNETT: And next, Democrats, all of a sudden paying very close attention to what is going on in Omaha, Nebraska, as the state considers a move that could cost Biden the entire election, and we're going to lay out the math for you. Plus, more problems for Trump's Truth Social. Now the site has an

insider trading scandal going on. Trump trying to fire two former "Apprentice" contestants, I'm sorry, who are turned partners. And we'll explain.



BURNETT: New tonight, could the election all come down to Nebraska? Donald Trump thinks so. He and his allies convincing Nebraska's Republican governor to support a major change in the way the state has been doling out its Electoral College votes for the past 32 years.

So, right now, Nebraska splits its electoral college votes and one of them is crucial to Biden's victory. And that one is the blue district of Omaha, Biden won that vote in 2020.

Trump, though, is pushing for a statewide winner take all system which would potentially deprive Biden of that crucial electoral vote. Now, just -- the reason I say crucial, just look at this, one of Bidens -- Biden's easiest path to reelection. If he holds the three swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and loses the rest of them, right, he's going to lose Georgia, lose all those, Biden gets to 269.

Well, you know, to win, you need to 270. So, obviously, the difference there is one and that one vote would be the vote in Nebraska. The vote in Omaha that gives Biden to 270 and the win.

But if this scenario plays out with Trump getting his way in Nebraska, then both of them are tied 269-269 and then it will be the House of Representatives who makes the decision.

OUTFRONT now, Andrew Yang, former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, now the co-founder of the Forward Party.

And independent 2024 candidate, RFK Jr. also considered you to be his running mate as well as we've reported.

So, look, every vote matters. The polls -- whatever take them on any given day. But, you know, I just laid out a very realistic scenario, what we're in. Right now, if you look at the polls, Biden does not going to win all the swing-state. So that's an area that we laid out is -- that could be it on election night.

How worried are you about a potential change in the Nebraska rules?

ANDREW YANG (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think this is very savvy on the part of the Trump campaign. It's a very legitimate feasible scenario that you end up with 269 to 269. And then this one electoral vote could tip the scales. And if it does go to the house, then the Republican majority will obviously vote in Trump.


YANG: So the Nebraska state legislature, its super majority Republicans. This has a very real chance of passing. I'm someone who thinks that proportionate allocation of electoral votes is a much better system. Why should the swing states get all the political ads and the fun? I mean, it would be great if more states matter --

BURNETT: Right, your vote doesn't matter when you live in a deeply red or deeply blue state.

YANG: Yeah. I mean, we all know that there are about six pivotal swing states. You listed them, just now, that are going to decide this thing.

BURNETT: So, you know, in that context, you know, another person who has been talking about a broken two-party system is RFK Jr.

YANG: Yeah.

BURNETT: And, you know, you speak now from the Forward Party as you've been in.


But the DNC has launched a new mobile billboard ad, I'll show it, trying to tie Trump to Kennedy. So they've been putting up outside is his rallies. RFK, MAGA, and they're putting these things up.

Let me play part of the ad they just put up.


BURNETT: So, this is what it comes to, right? I mean, it's just -- this is the where we are. Brand new Gallup poll, though, shows 30 percent of adults don't think Biden or Trump would be good. More adults think Trump would be better than Biden, the sort of lesser of two evils, I suppose in that world.

So how worried should Biden be, and how worried should Democrats be about the third party threat, whatever RFK Jr. now to finds himself as an independent?

YANG: Oh, you'll see analogous ads from the Republican camp painting, RFK as a liberal Democrat, and, you know, a vote for him is essentially vote for Biden. And so both parties are going to try and play this game because this vote -- this election is going to get decided that the margins.

The fact is, I've seen polls that show RFK being neutral. I've seen some showing that he takes votes from Biden and from Trump. And so both major parties are trying like mad to get their voters to see RFK as a vote for the other side.

BURNETT: So, all right, he said something the other night when he was here, and we had a long conversation. And he said repeatedly that he could make the argument that Joe Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Donald Trump. Despite he was very clear to excoriate Trumps efforts on January 6th.

I wanted to play just part of what he said.


ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. (I), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Listen, I can make the argument that President Biden is a much worse threat to democracy.

And the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history, the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent.

BURNETT: So, just to be clear, you're saying you could make an argument that President Biden is a worse threat to democracy than Donald Trump?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.


BURNETT: He's upset that Biden, you know, had pushed -- have some of these social media posts about somebody dying of COVID removed from misinformation. That's the lawsuit he's referring to.

But this is really hit a chord with people. What do you think about this? Do you think it's obvious who is a bigger threat?

WANG: I'm an anyone but Trump guy. I think that Trump would be catastrophe in a second term. But the fact is the Democrats literally canceled primaries in North Carolina and Florida and then making the case that, hey, vote for us to preserve democracy.

They've also boosted election deniers in Republican primaries because they think they're easier to beat.

BURNETT: Yeah, they provided funding, yeah. Yes.

WANG: Seven-figure funding for folks that are meant to be the enemy of democracy. So there are disingenuous elements to what Democrats have been doing. But I see Trump as a singular type of threat.

BURNETT: All right. Well, I always appreciate seeing you, Andrew.

WANG: It's great to be here, Erin. Thanks for having me.

BURNETT: All right. Andrew Yang.

And next, from an insider trading scandal to a public feud with former "Apprentice" stars, Trump's Truth Social is facing major problems tonight.



BURNETT: Tonight, major trouble for Trump's Truth Social. Two investors just pleading guilty to taking part in an insider trading scheme linked to the deal that brought Trumps social media business public. This as Trump's company is suing two of Truth Social's co- founders who happened to be former "Apprentice" contestants, all the while stock for Trump Media, which owns Trump's Truth Social, I'm sorry, misspeak, has lost more than $2 billion of market value and it just started trading the other day.

So what does all this mean for Donald Trump?

Tom Foreman is OUTFRONT.


TRUMP: Too big to rig.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A sizzling insider trading scandal is rocking the business deal that brought Donald Trump's Truth Social, to the public market with billions at stake. Simply put, two players and accompany that helped Trump strike that deal pleaded guilty to securities fraud, admitting they illegally used secret information to make millions for themselves and some friends, even as the stocks value for regular investors has soared and sunk by the day.

Dan Alexander focuses on Trump's businesses for Forbes.

DAN ALEXANDER, SENIOR EDITOR, FORBES: What you have is arguably the most hyped up, wildly trading new stock that we've seen in a heck of a long time.

TRUMP: We must make America pray again.

FOREMAN: Although Trump relies heavily on Truth Social for selling Bibles, settling scores, and pushing the politics of revenge, in terms of users, his social media the venture has been an Internet backwater compared to the giants, with fewer than a half million people using it each month, Trumps personal worth dropped by $1 billion earlier this week after a regulatory filing revealed Truth Social lost more than $58 million last year.

So who's backing this new stock?

Analysts say its not savvy investors but largely mom and pop Trump supporters.

JEFF TOMASULO, CEO, VESPULA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: People are, you know, who really want to help Donald Trump out and believe in Donald Trump and believe in his vision.

FOREMAN: Trump has gone to court trying to push out too early partners in this venture, former contestants from his reality show, "The Apprentice".

TRUMP: Andy, you're fired. Wes, you're fired also.

FOREMAN: If he wins, that could increase his share of any dividends. But he'll still have to wait about a half year before he can lay his hands on any of the theoretical billions the company is currently worth.

ALEXANDER: If you valued this business like a typical business right now, you'd be looking closer to the $100 million figure than you are any of these billion-dollar figures.


FOREMAN: Then you heard that right. As the stock cools down, which almost every analyst says it has to do, it could be worth off a lot, lot less -- meaning Trump might make millions off it. But as far less likely to make the billions everyone's been talking about -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Tom, thank you very much.

And thanks so much to all of you as always.

"AC360" with Anderson starts now.