Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Trump Racks Up Major Legal Wins Delaying Georgia And Florida Cases; Trump Plots Revenge: "Very Possible" Enemies Could Be Prosecuted; Alito Neighbor At Center Of Flag Fight Speaks To OutFront; U.S. Drops Bombs Over Korean Peninsula, A First In 7 Years. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired June 05, 2024 - 19:00   ET




Breaking news, on hold indefinitely. An appeals court putting the brakes on Trump's Georgia election interference case, making it highly unlikely Trump goes to trial before the election, as the judge in Trump's classified documents case hands Trump another win.

Plus, Republican revenge. Trump promising to punish his opponents if reelected as his allies on Capitol Hill follow suit and now are doing Trump's dirty work.

And tonight, an OUTFRONT exclusive, the neighbor at the center of the dispute with Justice Alito's wife is my guest. What she says happened just before the Alitos flew an American flag upside-down.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, breaking news, a major legal decision in Trump's Georgia election interference case. And that case is now postponed indefinitely.

The Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had been promising that, quote, the train is coming. She had wanted a televised trial to start on August 4th, but that is not happening. A Georgia appeals court putting a stop to the trial while a panel of judges decides whether Willis should be disqualified. Trump's legal team wants her out because of her romantic relationship with the top prosecutor on the case.

Now, the appeals court is not even scheduled to hear arguments on that part of it until October, just weeks before Election Day, which makes it almost certain that there will not be a trial before in-person voters head to the polls in November.

And we have more breaking news this hour. Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida handing Trump a victory in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. This time, she is agreeing to hold a sprawling hearing on a whole host of topics. Trump's requests to get rid of Jack Smith altogether, his appointment, his Trump's requests to have evidence found at Mar-a-Lago thrown out, all of that now, she's going to have a hearing about.

In a moment, I'm going to speak to Trump's former White House lawyer, Ty Cobb.

But, first, we want to begin with Sara Murray OUTFRONT live in Washington.

And, Sara, what does this decision by the appeals court mean for Trump's case in Georgia?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, it essentially means that barring some sort of a miracle for the district attorney's office, there's just no way that Donald Trump is going to be going to trial anytime before this November election in this Georgia election, interference case. Now what normally happens when an appeals court takes up an issue is that automatically what has been going on at the trial court level is stayed. But this was an unusual situation where the trial court judge, Judge McAfee, said he was going to continue on, even if the appellate court decided to take up this issue.

So, today, the appeals court made it very clear that this prosecution against Donald Trump could not continue at the trial court level as long as they're weighing these issues. And again, this means we're looking at potentially months of re-litigating Willis's romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor, whether she should have been removed for the case -- from the case as a result of that, as a result of other public comments she made about the case as well. The trial court judge criticized her conduct very heavily, but allowed her to remain on the case as long as her fellow prosecutor stepped down.

What's also interesting about the way this process works is once the floodgates are open, now that this for has agreed to hear this appeal, it allows the district attorneys office to bring aspects into this, too. So they are going to the appeals court and saying, look, the trial court judge throughout a couple of counts against Donald Trump and his co-defendants, we want those brought in. We want those charges brought in.

So this is again, something that's going to involve a lot of lawyerly arguments. It could stretch on for months you pointed out this is tentatively set for oral arguments in October, but again, that's a tentative date. We don't have even have a hard date on the calendar of if this appeals court is going to hear oral arguments, and when that could happen.

BURNETT: Alright. Sara, thank you very much.

And OUTFRONT now, Ty Cobb, the former Trump White House lawyer.

Ty, the appeals court now, as you were Sarah, detailing, ordering all work to stop in the Georgia election case against Trump. So, you know, just starting their how meaningful is this ruling.

TY COBB, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: I think it's meaningful to the extent that it reflects two things. One, that the appellate court is going to take its time to get this right. And to that it cannot believe in taking this action that the appeal by Trump's lawyers is frivolous.

Now, keep in mind that Judge McAfee did find that the appearance of impropriety required a solution.


And he fashioned that solution really out of whole cloth without much guidance because this is an unprecedented situation. And concluded that it was adequate for Mr. Wade to step down, but that Ms. Willis could carry on.

You know, that's -- there's nothing in the law that dictates that, and there's some question in a law whether that's sufficient to cure the appearance of impropriety.

BURNETT: So, Ty, I just want to ask you about the Mar-a-Lago documents case and going through some of the points there. So, Judge Cannon blew up the schedule today and she announces new, I guess sort of series of hearings or mega hearings. She's going to hear Trump's challenge to Jack Smith, even being on this as special counsel. She's going to hear Trump's requests to throw out the evidence found at Mar-a-Lago, which obviously is the entire point.

What is Judge Cannon doing here, Ty?

COBB: Judge Cannon is kicking the can down the road as long as she can, and delaying both the trial, which is clearly -- clearly her purpose. And when I say purpose, it is purposeful now, it's not mere ineptitude. This is clearly a palpable bias on her part, and I think I heard one former Florida judge say the same thing earlier today.

You know, everybody sort of caught on her act now, but it also evidence is her style. She wants to avoid at all costs making a decision that Jack Smith can appeal to the 11th Circuit, where the 11th Circuit, who has already reversed her twice, and reprimanded her harshly, will have -- would have the opportunity to reconsider potential for removing her from the case, which I predict as you know, will happen. And that she will not be the judge that ultimately tries --

BURNETT: How soon, Ty, could that happen?

COBB: -- whenever it gets to trial?

So I think it won't happen until she actually rules on anything, and by setting these hearings, you know, she isn't promising any rulings. Now, as you as you said, that she is going to have the sprawling hearing on an issue that two circuit courts and half a dozen district courts have already decided, whether the special counsel's statute requires the removal of the special counsel and is otherwise in infirm to the extent that Trump alleges, that's all -- all been resolved multiple times in the past and always in favor of this special counsel.

But she intends to have a hearing and not -- not just to listen to the parties on it, but to listen to people who are not even participants in the case.


COBB: You know, counsel for two former Republican attorney generals and other outsiders in a sprawling hearing that is scheduled for a full day. Keep in mind, the Supreme Court only allows 30 minutes a side. You know, she can't make a decision and she invites input from everybody -- everybody who wants to write her a letter or talk to her in the elevator.

BURNETT: So, you know, she's also refusing to hear Jack Smith's request for a gag order until the end of the month, right? So this is separate from we always hear about gag orders in the Manhattan case, not talking about this. This is Judge Aileen Cannon in the Florida Mar-a-Lago case.

But not hearing even arguments about that until the end of this month, almost a full month away. And I know on some level, you find that shocking, perhaps not surprising, Ty, but shocking.

COBB: Yeah, I don't think finding anything she does surprising at this stage of the game, as long as it favors the former president, but it is shocking to me. You know, as a former federal prosecutor, as somebody who has many friends in law enforcement, heaven forbid, somebody while enforcement gets killed because of these false claims that Jack Smith intended to have the former president assassinated.

I mean, it's ludicrous. It's ridiculous, and it's in danger -- it's dangerous and it's incendiary. And not to take that seriously and to toss it out because she didn't like the way they conferred. You know, conferring doesn't require, you know, doing it in a proper form or in a way that meets whatever her standard is. It requires talking to the other side, and they did and they mentioned it in the papers that they had conferred and Trump's team didn't agree.

BURNETT: And Trump now, by the way, two sources tell Kristen Holmes who obviously covers the Trump campaign that he's told a lot of people that he believes he could go to prison, that he's okay with going to prison. The RNC co-chair says, oh, they're preparing for a convention where Trump would have to address it from prison, which -- which isn't going to happen. He gets four days after a sentencing. He's not going to immediately be remanded to prison under any scenario that I understand anyone's taking seriously.

What is Trump doing here?

COBB: So Trump is, you know, milking this for all its worth, and its reminiscent, frankly, of January 6. You know, he said he's good for -- he's good about it, but he's not sure whether America will stand for it.


I mean, that's incitement in my book and I think in many other people's books, though, the reality is, you know, he's not going to go to prison, and he's certainly going to get bail pending appeal. Now, I will say there is a scenario under which she could spend a

short time in jail because of the contemptuous arguments that he's made denigrating the jury and that -- those are clear violations of the pending gag order. So he might get slapped on the wrist with the night in jail, but he's not going to be in jail during the convention. And this is all silly, but it is dangerous.

I mean that there, there are a lot of crazies out there as we know, and as we have seen through the January 6 proceedings. And inviting violence, which is what he does under these circumstances and trying to keep the fervor -- that were crazy fervor at a white hot level all the time is really sad.

And at some point, if something serious happens, people are going to lament the role they play in that. Although it may all be lost on Judge Cannon.

BURNETT: All right. Ty Cobb, thank you very much. Always good to see you.

COBB: Nice to be with you, Erin. Thank you.

BURNETT: All right. And next, lock them up. Trump is vowing to exact revenge tonight on his political opponents and now, the Republican Party is carrying out Trump's orders.

Plus, an OUTFRONT exclusive tonight, Justice Samuel Alito's neighbor, one of the people at the center of that, quote, very nasty neighborhood dispute, center of that upside-down flag flown on January 6. But she's my guest. Why she says the Alitos are lying about the reason they flew the American flag upside-down.

And it got personal during Hunter Biden's gun trial today. His ex-wife and ex-girlfriend both in the room taking the stand.



BURNETT: New tonight, revenge. Trump in a new interview talking about locking up his opponents after his conviction by a jury in his hush money trial.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's a terrible, terrible path that they're leading us to and it's very possible that it's going to have to happen to them.


BURNETT: It's easy to gloss over Trump's repeated threats, but these comments are shocking and they would raise serious alarm bells if a leader from another democratic country was saying this sort of thing again and again, like Trump has.


TRUMP: For hardworking Americans, November 5th will be our new liberation day. But for the liars and cheaters and fraudsters and censors and impostors who have commandeered our government, it will be there judgment day.

We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.

I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution, I am your retribution.


BURNETT: To your leading candidate, leading presidential candidate in the U.S., frankly, the person who is yes, the de facto nominee of the Republican Party ahead in many national polls is at least disturbing and it's not just Trump. It's not the people around him are calling it out.

In fact, they're rallying around him, Republicans more than willing to help them execute his plans. Plans that are already now underway because today, House Republicans sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department, recommending Joe Biden son Hunter Biden, and his brother James Biden face criminal prosecution.

And Speaker Mike Johnson appointed to staunch Trump allies. Congressman Scott Perry and Congressman Ronny Jackson to serve in the House Intelligence Committee, which has oversight over the FBI.

Johnson, Jackson, and other Republicans admitted no secret that they will continue to follow Trump's orders on this.


REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: We have to fight back and we will, with everything in our arsenal.

REP. RONNY JACKSON (R-TX): President Biden should just be ready because on January 20th, next year, when he's former President Joe Biden, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.


SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): I'm calling for a strong response at every level.


BURNETT: Manu, you just saw there, is OUTFRONT on Capitol Hill.

And, Manu, we saw you there with Senator Rubio. I know you've been talking to a lot of Republicans today, Marco Rubio among them, and it seems that revenge is -- they feel the right word, perfectly justified.

RAJU: Yeah. And, look, there is a debate within the GOP about exactly how far to go particularly in this election season, many calling for simply to focus on other issues, economic issues that they believe are the winning argument. But there's a big push on the right, particularly on the hard right, for them to make the issue of going after the Trump's political enemies as they see it, front and center, at this campaign season, even pressuring the speaker of the House Mike Johnson, take a tougher line towards the Justice Department, particularly when it comes time to fund the government.

Now I asked Johnson himself what this is all part of an effort to seek retribution. And this is how he put it.


JOHNSON: This is not retribution. This is about trying to reset the parameters into make the people trust our system again.

RAJU: Just on the two-tier justice system as you said. What about the fact that Hunter Biden is being prosecuted, Robert Menendez has been prosecuted, Henry Cuellar being is being prosecuted, Democrats are, too? Is that a two-tier system?

RUBIO: Yeah, but not by -- their trials are now being presided over by, first of all, by statute that doesn't exist. They're being charged with specific statutory violations. This is a contortion without precedent.


RAJU: So that's been part of the Republican argument here that they are going after his Trump's allies, Trump's opponents, because they believed that the Justice Department is working unfairly against Donald Trump, even as Democrats themselves are being prosecuted there.

But as you can see, Marco Rubio, who could be on Donald Trump's VP list, making it very clear where he stands on this issue and saying it's time to go back -- to go after Trump's opponents with everything they got.


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

And David Axelrod is OUTFRONT now.

So, David, you hear what Manu saying. You hear what Trump is saying. How concerned are you that Trump actually means it, that he's serious, that he will follow through on his threats if he wins in November?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, I think he means it. Remember, Erin, he was saying in -- before the last election, you know, he was leading chants of lock -- lock him up. We know the re -- there's been reporting that he wanted investigations of his political opponents. He was frustrated because the Justice Department wasn't delivering what he wanted.

I don't think he's going to make the same mistake. I mean, there's been some reporting and he I think acknowledged that he was thinking about Ken Paxton, the corrupt attorney general of Texas as the next attorney general who is a loyal follower of Donald Trump --


AXELROD: -- just escaped impeachment narrowly in the Texas state senate.

So, yeah, I think he is serious about it and one of the questions is just a -- voters will have a say about this, but also, will our institutions hold?

You know, Donald Trump thinks any election that he lost his fraudulent and any case brought against him is corrupt but they aren't. And, you know, the question is how to voters treat this?

I honestly think, you know, Manu said something really important though --


AXELROD: -- which is as a political matter, there may be -- you know, this may be baked in the cake for a lot of people. They may will -- be willing to tolerate this. But the real question they ought to ask is, if the president is focused on vengeance and retribution, and this is his -- this is how he's going to run his administration, what about their concerns? What about the day-to-day concerns that they're hoping to (INAUDIBLE)?

He is obsessed. I had Chris Christie on my podcast last week and Christie said the big question about his cases would be for the conviction wasn't how voters react to it. It's how Trump reacts to it.


AXELROD: I think we've gotten a little taste of that Friday and also in that interview last night. He -- he is more vengeful, more paranoid than he was before. And if I were his campaign, I'd be worried about this. I'd be worried that he's more focused on himself and retribution than he is on the problems of the American people.

So it'll be interesting to see what happens going forward.

BURNETT: David, I am curious though, because we saw Senator Rubio there and people may remember a little Marco, right? He ran against Trump, obviously, for -- and Trump mocked him and demeaned him and belittled him. Senator Rubio called Trump a con artist, dangerous and erratic, right? He stood for something at that time.

And now, he's completely changed, reportedly on Trump's VP shortlist, and obviously supporting the calls for revenge.

What do you make of that? Senator Rubio was someone seen as a sort of the Mitt Romney model, right, by many for a long time.

AXELROD: Well, I -- you know, what I make of it is that ambition is a very, very powerful drug. And Marco Rubio, obviously, wants to be vice president. And what he is signaling to Trump is, I'm no Mike Pence. I'm going to put you ahead of the Constitution. I'm going to put you ahead of the law, and I will be your loyal henchmen.

And that apparently is what he thinks Trump wants in a vice president, maybe that is what Trump wants in a vice president. But it -- you know, he appears to be little Marco when he plays that role. It's a demeaning role. It's kind of sad to see.

Erin, one other thing on this rule of law issue that we don't talk about enough. Donald Trump has already proclaimed that if he becomes president, that he will vacate these cases against him?


AXELROD: And what that would mean is that no one is above the law. If the president of the United States can dismiss these cases against him, cases that go right to the heart of his role as president, what does that say about the rule of law in our country? So, these are really, really serious issues.

And yes, we should take Donald Trump seriously. We owe him that. Let's take him at his word. Let's believe that he's going to try and do what he says. And if he gets elected, let's hope that our institutions are strong enough to resist that corruption.

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

And next, an OUTFRONT exclusive, Justice Alito's neighbor is speaking out here next, tonight, revealing new details about the neighborhood dispute that the Alitos claim lead to flying the upside-down flag, that was a banner on January 6. The neighbor's next.

Plus, Hunter Biden's legal team now building their case, suggesting that there's no proof that Biden was on drugs when he bought the gun. Will the jury buy that argument?



BURNETT: Tonight, Justice Alito's neighbor is speaking out in her first TV interview.

Emily Baden lived near the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. It is at the center of a neighborhood dispute that involves this upside-down American flag flying at Alito's home in northern Virginia. This picture was taken in January of 2021.

Alito facing accusations of bias now. He's now refused to recuse himself from January 6-related cases or Trump-related cases, saying that it was his wife who flew that flag which, of course, was a banner on January 6th. And he said it's also his wife who flew another flag at their vacation

home. The flag also used by insurrectionists on January 6th. He says he didn't know about that one.

Alito also defending his wife, saying she flew the upside-down American flag because, quote, she was greatly distressed at the time due in large part to a very nasty neighborhood dispute in which I had no involvement.

Well, you know, it's an important question for the country what happened here when you look at a Supreme Court justice flying a flag of insurrection. It matters why, who and what he thinks.

And Emily Baden is OUTFRONT. She lived near the Alito's northern Virginia home and she was one of the people at the center of that, quote, very nasty neighborhood dispute.


And Emily speaking out tonight in her first television interview about this experience.

So, look, thanks so much, Emily, for taking the time and coming out to talk about this.

I know it's not something you really expected to ever have to do, but I want to start with the dispute itself with Martha-Ann Alito, Justice Alito's wife. I know it began after the 2020 election over yard signs that you had placed at your mother's home where you were living at the time.

Can you start off by just explaining to me what those -- those first yard signs you put out said?

EMILY BADEN, FORMER ALITO NEIGHBOR WHO HAD A DISPUTE WITH HIS WIFE: Yes. And, Erin, thank you so much for having me today.

My first yard sign that I put up was an anti-Trump sign. It said "F Trump" in glitter, cursive letters.

And, you know, it was just as like a message to the world that I see Trump as a danger to our democracy. And I see him as a self-proclaimed fascist. Like he said, he wanted to be a dictator on day one of his presidency.

And so, I just use my small influence and my small corner of the world to just, you know, broadcast my views like that.

BURNETT: All right, so you put the Trump sign out in glitter, and Mrs. Alito responds, right? So, tell me about that, what she -- how she reacted?

BADEN: Yes. So, there were a handful of times that we somewhat interacted like not actually speaking, but, you know, she kind of stopped in front of the house and gave us a long glare. And I just want to emphasize that the interaction that happened on

February 15th is the one that they're using as an excuse for why they flew the flag. And I really want to hammer home the fact that that happened on February 15th, and their flag went up two or three weeks before that.

So even if it were a valid excuse that they were having a dispute with a neighbor and that made them put the flag up, the -- that timeline just disproves it. It just doesn't make sense.

BURNETT: No, it doesn't. And I want -- I want to go to that in detail.

But first, just the very basic, when you put up the "F Trump" sign and she walks by and she glares, did you really -- had you ever talked to her before? Did you realize that this was Mary -- that this was Martha-Ann Alito?

BADEN: Yeah. So when I moved back to the area in 2020, I did know that the Alitos lived in the neighborhood. I didn't know which house. I didn't know what they looked like.

And so, it didn't take me long though to put two and two together. Why --


BURNETT: And to realize when she's standing outside. So you realize that she's upset about this.

So then when January 6th happens, I -- my understanding is -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Emily, because I'm trying to make sure I have all the timeline right as well.

But you then added a yard sign, "Trump is a fascist", which you just indicated you feel that way, "and you are complicit," and I want to ask you about those specifically because Justice Alito says that those specific signs, you are a fascist and -- I'm sorry, "Trump is a fascist and you are complicit" were, quote, directed at his wife. Were they?

BADEN: Yeah. No, no. So January 6th was a dark day for our democracy. And I think people have all ideologies feel that way. We all saw this direct threat to our democracy and it was chilling.

And so, my putting up a sign that says "Trump is a fascist" because I believe that he's a self-proclaimed fascist and "you are complicit" -- you includes everyone. It includes everybody in the GOP who, you know, endorsed this or didn't say anything against it, or Trump himself, who said, you know, standby and just -- it's to everyone.

And I also think it's to, you know, people on my side of the spectrum. It's like, what are we really doing to hold these people accountable for this attempted coup and insurrection? Like we need to do more, I feel like.

BURNETT: And so -- okay, so now let me get to the upside down American flag because -- and you go through this in a bit of detail because I think here is where your point about what he is alleging happened here does not comport with the timeline.

So the flag is flying. Justice Alito says his wife flew it because she was, quote, greatly distressed by her disputes with you. And in a letter just explaining his motivation to put up the flag, he says, and I quote him again, Emily: A house on the street displayed a sign attacking her personally. I guess that's the "you are complicit" or, you know, that you were just talking about, but that you said it was not directed at her.

And a man who was living in the house at the time trailed her all the way down the street and berated her in my presence using foul language, including what I regard as the vilest epithet that can be addressed to a woman, which is the C word.


Now, let me just break this down, Emily, you say it was you who said those things. It was not your now husband. But you say Alito is lying here for another very basic reason.

Can you explain?

BADEN: So I -- at best, he's mistaken, but at worst, he's just outright lying.

And there was a neighbor who even -- who even witnessed this and witnessed me using that unfortunate term.

And what else I said in that interaction is so important and I hope it's not getting forgotten in the discourse around the word.

In that interaction, she approached us, started screaming at us, used all of our full names, which to me felt like a threat because you're a stranger. We don't know. You don't know us. How do you know our full names?

And I just -- I started yelling, how dare you -- because they both were there at the same time. So, I said, how dare you? You're on the highest court in the land. You represent the Supreme Court of the United States.

You're behaving this way. You're yelling at a neighbor. You're harassing us. How dare you? Shame on you.

And I did use the word. So if that in any way, you know, distracts from that real message, I do regret --

BURNETT: Right. Yeah.

BADEN: -- using the word because the message is important. It's like the power imbalance between these people and me, I am -- I'm nobody to them.

BURNETT: So -- BADEN: And the fact they took umbrage with my sign is telling enough.

It shows like a bias, doesn't it? I mean --

BURNETT: So, it -- well, I mean, I want to talk about that, but just to be very clear on the timing, he's saying that that she put up the flag because you said those things.

But when we look at -- it was actually -- you called 911 on that day. There's actually a police report about that incident. And that shows that the timing doesn't work, right?

The flag was up before. The flag picture that "The New York Times" got --

BADEN: Exactly right.

BURNETT: -- was weeks before that incident actually happened where you called --

BADEN: It's actually --


BURNETT: -- where you called for that were.

BADEN: Uh-huh.

BURNETT: So what he's saying here, you're saying at best mistaken, but it certainly is just -- it's categorically by the date is not true, right? She didn't put the flag up for that reason.

BADEN: Yes. Absolutely, 100 percent.

And that's what I want to really drive home to people is that this happened on February 15th, and we know that because they had been harassing us so long that we were like we need a paper trail of this.


BADEN: Like we'd better call the cops right now.

You know, like I said, these are federally protected people. They have security detail. They represent the judicial system. They are the law. And I am just a regular person.

And so, it's -- you know, yeah, we call the cops that day. It was February 15th. And I think the photo of the flag was on January 17. So --

BURNETT: Yes. So, the timing doesn't add up.

I do think it's important, Emily, just to emphasize here that, you know, your -- this is happening between you, your husband, your household, and a Supreme Court justice, and his wife, and a police report is called. I mean, it is pretty stunning just even think about that. Can I just ask you about your interaction with him? He's there. He

says this happened in his presence, this altercation --

BADEN: Yeah.

BURNETT: -- where you're saying she was screaming at you with your full name and you responded with the C word.

What did he do? What did he say?

BADEN: He didn't say anything, and I find that very telling because I feel like in any other situation, somebody would step in if they see somebody like a accosting someone like that and they would say, hey, you know, ease up a little bit. Let's -- let's go, let's walk down the street.

He didn't do anything. He just kept walking, and basically disappeared.

BURNETT: Never said a word.

I mean, it's -- so I want to ask you about one other thing. Around this time, the Alito security detail started doing something that you perceived as threatening. They have a security detail and something specific happened.

What was it?

BADEN: Yeah. So they have a security detail that parks in front of their house or like in front of the house across the street from them. We are four or five houses away, and sometimes that detail would be in front of our house, which -- you know, obviously, I can't say for sure. I don't know what their motivation was.

But we did take it as intimidating, especially when that same car reappeared in front of our house the day "The New York Times" article came out. And I don't know what else were supposed to get from that.

BURNETT: But you certainly felt -- you certainly felt threatened.

And let me -- let me just ask you, Emily, you -- talking before this and I think -- I don't want to say anything inappropriate, but I know you were nervous to talk. You were -- you thought about this long and hard to decide whether you thought it was worthwhile to speak out.

Why do you think it is so important that you tell this story?

BADEN: I think it is monumentally important. I think our democracy is fragile. And we learned that on January 6th, and we see it all the time with people like Trump who say they want to be a dictator.


These are serious, serious things. And I just want people, regular people like myself, to understand that we live in a democracy and we don't have to -- we don't have to watch our democracy become a dictatorship or a fascist, you know, Christian nationalist society, like we need to pay attention. We need to stand up, organize, and resist.

BURNETT: All right. Well, Emily, I appreciate your time and thank you so much for talking to me.

BADEN: It's really my pleasure. Thank you so, so much.

BURNETT: All right. And next, Hunter Biden's exes take the stand, revealing personal details of Biden's past drug use. So how did the jury react? New details from inside the courtroom.

And then a major show of force, one of America's most powerful bombers dropping 500 pounds of live munitions in North Korea's backyard. We'll show you.


BURNETT: Tonight, Hunter Biden's exes on the stand. In court today, jurors hearing Hunter Biden's ex-wife, as well as his ex-girlfriend, Zoe Kestan. Kestan testifying. Hunter smoked crack almost constantly in private, and that she would help buy him drugs.


All of this happening around the time the gun was purchased, which, of course, is the key charge in the federal case, whether he lied on the application form for the gun. Prosecutors also calling the man who sold the gun to Hunter Biden and the gun in question, there it is.

The jury got a good look at it. They all crane their necks to see it as it was entered into evidence. Our Evan Perez tells us he was in the room.

Ryan Goodman is with me, OUTFRONT legal expert now.

And, Ryan, so Hunter Biden's defense -- this is interesting. They're trying to say, okay, sure. He had real problems with addiction, but when it came to filling out this form, you know, maybe on a particular day on which he filed it, he wasn't actually on drugs, might've only been an alcoholic, really trying to thread the proverbial needle?


BURNETT: Could that succeed?

GOODMAN: It could succeed for a couple of the charges because the ideas that he is not knowingly making a false statement because he thinks the form is asking him right at this moment, are you using drugs?

So maybe he's thinking, oh, they want to know. I might have sound mind that I can sign this form. That's the argument.

BURNETT: Right. GOODMAN: And then the other one is that he doesn't necessarily know

he's addict at the time. So that's -- to their arguments, they're trying to say, look, the prosecution bears the burden beyond a reasonable doubt.

BURNETT: They're trying to prevent -- trying to propose, I'm sorry, reasonable doubt.

All right. Now, Zoe Kestan, I mentioned her. She was crucial witness for the prosecution. She testified she saw Hunter smoking crack a lot, over several days in September 2018. Of course, that's around with the gun was purchased and that she got a text message from Hunter saying, quote, I'll always be an addict.

But then when it came down to it, she said, well, she's not sure what he was doing in October when the gun was bought. So what -- what did she contribute here?

GOODMAN: She does contribute quite a bit by saying right up until mid- September, he is using drugs in her presence, crack cocaine, and he's also aware of it. He knows of it that he's an addict at the time.


GOODMAN: So you just need to get it the three weeks further to the date when you purchase the weapon, then 11 days that he possesses it. And then they have it, but they do have additional text messages coming a day after in two days after he had purchased the gun, where he's texting about using crack cocaine. So it's building to that point.

BURNETT: Before we go, Emily just -- who live next door, near -- a few houses from Justice Alito talking about the timing here, saying that the letter that Justice Alito sent to Congress in which he said, my wife hung the flag because of this dispute, and she was so upset because of C word, all these things, and that's why she had the flag, it doesn't add up because the police report or the date of which that altercation happened was at least 20 days or close to 20 days after, after the flag was actually hung.

GOODMAN: That's right. And it's actually important because it's in Justice Alito's letter to Congress and none of us, including Supreme Court justices, are permitted by law to make false statements to Congress. His second page actually says the precipitating -- it seems to suggest what he's saying is the precipitating factors this neighborhood dispute. He in fact recounts this very specific dispute as though that's the reason and now we have the actual person, the neighbor, saying on the show, no, that's on February 15th.

She has a 911 phone call that corroborated. She also says there's another witness that can corroborate it, and the whole point is that the flag is being flown before January 20, before the transition of power.

BURNETT: Right, and it was -- it was flown over "The New York Times" by January 17. GOODMAN: So it's clearly, it seems to be, her allegation would mean

that his letter is a false statement.

BURNETT: It could be very significant.

All right. Thank you very much, Ryan.

And next, tensions rising on the Korean peninsula, North Korea right now, moving forces, the United States tonight sending one of its most powerful bombers in the region and wait until you see what it did.

And a court today in Italy, once again, finding Amanda Knox guilty.



BURNETT: Tonight, North Korea hardening its border with South Korea, reportedly clearing nearly two-mile block of land inside the DMZ, possibly to build up its military presence. Tensions are escalating in Korea. A U.S. bomber dropping 500-pound live munitions during joint exercises with South Korea today, and Will Ripley is OUTFRONT.


WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Tonight, a major show of force, U.S. flying a long-range B-1B bomber over the Korean peninsula, the first precision guided bombing drill with South Korea dropping live munitions in seven years, says Seoul, still cleaning up the mess from a massive barrage of North Korean trash balloons, about 1,000 balloons floating full of filth and garbage, some 15 tons of trash raining down on residents all over South Korea in recent days.

The first wave of trash balloons triggering ominous cell phone alerts.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Why are they sending things like this? I'm worried that they might send something dangerous.

RIPLEY: Kim Yo-jong, younger sister of the North Korean leader, issued a statement, calling the balloons a form of freedom of expression, a response to South Korean activists who'd been sending balloons to North Korea for years, carrying leaflets condemning Kim's government.

South Korea's speedy response, possibly sending propaganda blaring loudspeakers back to the DMZ, the heavily armed border dividing the two Koreas.

Seoul, suspending the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement, a deal to dial down tensions during the short-lived Korean detente before diplomacy with former President Trump and Kim went off the rails five years ago.

These days, Kim is suspected of trying to put more military spy satellites into orbit. Last week's failed launch, triggering emergency sirens in Japan, North Korea, also launching a barrage of short range ballistic missiles last week. [19:55:05]

President Biden telling "Time Magazine" North Korea remains a serious threat. As long as there are nuclear weapons available, it's always going to be a problem.

Another problem, Vladimir Putin. U.S. intelligence warning of a deepening military alliance with the Russian strongman. Putin expected to visit Kim in Pyongyang soon, with tensions rapidly rising between North and South Korea. And now, U.S. bombing drills back in play, trash balloons maybe the least of our problems.


RIPLEY (on camera): But tonight, there may be more trash balloons coming from the North because we've just learned minutes ago that hundreds of thousands of leaflets have been sent by South Korean activists back to North Korea. That's what started the whole trash balloons thing, not to mention the North Koreans feel incredibly threatened by these live bombing drills, you know, these bombs, these bunker buster bombs could threaten Kim Jong-un and his underground network that the North Korean leadership would hide it if there was ever a conflict.

So, once again, we just see this cycle and we can expect probably, Erin, more escalations from the north. And this tit-for-tat with the South and the U.S., it's heading right towards what some say could be another Korean crisis, frankly.

BURNETT: Will Ripley, thank you very much.

And next, Amanda Knox today returning to Italy, returning to Italy once again, found guilty.


BURNETT: Tonight, Amanda Knox actually back in an Italian courtroom, once again found guilty. Amanda Knox was wrongfully convicted in 2007 for the murder of her roommate. But today was found guilty of slander for pinning the crime at her former boss.

Knox has spent four years in prison for the murder wrongly before conviction was overturned. The slander charge, though, remained. Today, she was sentenced to three years in prison for that crime, but she will not be going back to serve any of it because of the four-year she already served.

Thanks so much to all of you for being with us.

Anderson starts now.