Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

CNN Obtains Audio Of Trump Discussing Classified Docs; Trump On Tape: Classified Document "So Cool"; Poll: 7-In-10 Americans Say Politics Played Role In Indictment; Supreme Court Rules Against Far- Right Legal Theory That Would Have Reshaped Elections; Pres Candidate Mayor Frances Suarez Fumbles Question About Uyghurs; Trump, DeSantis Hold Dueling Events In NH. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 27, 2023 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Today on Inside Politics, CNN obtains audio that pits Donald Trump against himself. Mr. Trump wants you to believe he was playing for 10. But listen here and you decided that sounds like Trump was telling the truth about showing off a classified document.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, 45TH U.S. PRESIDENT (voiceover): These are the papers.

STAFFER (voiceover): You did.

TRUMP: This was done by the military and given to me. See, as president I could have declassified it

STAFFER: Yes.

TRUMP: Now, I can't, you know, but this is still a secret.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Plus, John Roberts doesn't bring. The chief justice leads the Supreme Court charge to kill off a radical legal theory that would let states rewrite how they count your votes. And the House speaker opens Pandora's box. In a new interview, Kevin McCarthy suggests that maybe just maybe Donald Trump is not the Republicans best bet to beat Joe Biden.

I am Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics. Up first, which Donald Trump do you believe. The former president's legal team now has to contend with a new problem. Prosecutors can play this to a jury.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP, (voiceover): Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look, this was him. They presented me this, this is off the record, but they presented me this. This was him. This was the defense department and him. We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff, pages long, look. Wait a minute, let's see here.

STAFFER, (voiceover): Yes.

TRUMP: I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: CNN obtained exclusively that audio and it's from the 2021 Bedminster meeting at the center of the special counsel's case against the former president. And what you hear contradicts the most recent Trump explanation for what happened inside that room.

I want to go to Miami right now where CNN's Katelyn Polantz is. So, Katelyn, this is just another layer of nightmare for the president's legal team.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: It is. It is an audio tape that the president's legal team -- former president's legal team had before they knew existed. They knew was in the Justice Department's hands. But now that we get to hear it, we are bringing to light. We're able to understand what Trump said in his own voice, how the people reacted.

You can hear those papers rustling around, his cadence. How he's looking at the paper. How he's telling them, look, look, look at these documents, their secret. He may even be reading words on top of the documents or some sort of thing. He's referring to it quite clearly. That is what the jury will hear. In this case whenever it goes to trial in the Southern District of Florida. And Donald Trump is on trial as the first former president to be a criminal defendant in a federal case.

He's charged with these 31 retention counts, these obstruction of justice counts, but this tape is the tape that the Justice Department we believe, based on what they've said in the indictment, will be able to show to the jury and tell the story of how Donald Trump felt about having these documents after the presidency.

These national security documents that should have been protected, and that he was so cavalier with them that he wanted to show them to people and that he knew he had them at a time when he knew he shouldn't be sharing them and should not have had them.

So, it really is a tape that brings together so many things hearing it, is just a different level of understanding this case, and it is the sort of thing that will be crucially used in the trial and not just with that there will be witnesses testifying about it. Mark Meadows book has talked about this tape. There's a lot of interviews, the Justice Department has done around this document Trump holds and the tape itself.

BASH: It really is incredible. And Katelyn, before I let you go, you're in Miami because Donald Trump's aide Walt Nauta was supposed to show up there at a federal court. He didn't. What happened?

[12:05:00]

POLANTZ: He didn't, another delay for Walt Nauta the co-defendant. So, Nauta had originally been. He was here in Miami at the federal courthouse two weeks ago, sitting next to Donald Trump with his lawyer but couldn't enter his not guilty plea at that time because he didn't have a lawyer in the state of Florida to represent him, which they'll need.

And then today, he didn't show up because he was stuck on the tarmac in New Jersey. He had been with Trump, couldn't get on the flight to get to Miami in time for his arraignment this morning at 9:45. So, as his lawyer Stanley Woodward stood up, told the judge this, also told him he doesn't have a Florida lawyer just yet. And so, they're set to come back in another week, July 6, to talk to the judge again and get that not guilty plea entered. Dana?

BASH: I guess Trump's plan wasn't available today. Katelyn, thank you so much. Appreciate it. And here to help us understand this moment is CNN's David Chalian, CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, and CNN's Paula Reid. A lot to digest.

And, Paula, I want to start with you because you've done so much extensive and amazing reporting on this story. And before I do, I want to play for our viewers and for you what Donald Trump said to Bret Baier about that particular paper that we have him on tape talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, HOST, FOX NEWS: You were recorded saying that you had a document detailing a plan of attack on another country that was prepared by the U.S. military for you when you were president. The Iran attack plan. You remember that?

DONALD TRUMP, 45TH U.S. PRESIDENT: Ready. It wasn't a document, OK? I had lots of paper. I had copies of newspaper articles. I had copies of magazines. Bret, there was no document.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Well, he said in that audio recording, this is it classified document. I can't declassify it because I'm not president anymore. But more than that, I think the context about what the grand jury heard about corroborating evidence is important.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. You make a great point, because there he's arguing that I didn't actually have the document, right. I had a pile of papers. You hear paper shuffling. But one of the key quotes from this recording that has not previously been disclosed, it's not in the indictment is that he says, these are the papers. He also says, look, this is secret.

And we know from our reporting that investigators have spoken to at least one person who is in that room. There were two of his aides and two people working on an autobiography of Mark Meadows. They know what this document is, even if they don't have it. They've also spoken with Mark Milley. So, they have a lot of ways to corroborate exactly what happened in that room, which is why of course, you know, CNN reporting keeps revealing just how extensive the evidence is that the special counsel has.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. Now, note that a video has no more evidentiary weight in court than a transcript would, you know, the jury can choose to believe or disbelieve what they see in it. The simple fact is hearing a defendant's voice is just so powerful, hearing papers rustling, people chuckling in the background, all of those folks can be called in to testify in court as to what they heard, what they saw and what they believed at the time.

And also, what this helps establish just as a fact, matter is two things. Number one, this possession of a document. And number two, and this is important to the law, that the document itself was relevant to the national defense or could have been used to the injury of the United States defense interests. And when he points out, this is classified. There are markings on this that's all relevant.

BASH: And he says, right before these are the papers, he says he wanted to attack Iran. It seems like he was focusing on Milley there, that's there's a different question or there is an open question about whether Milley wanted to attack Iran? Or this is just a war plan, which by the way, is a big deal for him to have.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. So that was the, you know, the responsibility of the Pentagon to be prepared for different contingencies. And so, but this his discussion in the tape as his demonstrating his disagreement that he says he was having with the defense department. I do think that this corroboration point is really important, though.

When it comes to corroborating the audio that is had -- will be part of the evidence of the Justice Department's case, because there's an instance in the audio that we hear where an individual says, wow, when he sounds like he is showing a particular document. And I think it will be really critical for the prosecutors, if this ends up going to trial and the former president doesn't plead out that that they have individuals who will testify under oath before the jury and say, yes.

When I said, wow, he was showing me a document that I could see was a classified document and was something that I shouldn't have been seeing and that corroboration from the firsthand witnesses I think is going to be (crosstalk)

BASH: And David, I want you to get into the politics in one second, but because you sort of dug in on that, Paula. Can we just go even deeper about who we're talking about here?

REID: Sure, yes. So, we know from our reporting, among the people in this room, there were two people previously been on identified. They are working on an autobiography of Mark Meadows. And at the time, summer 2021 Trump was in the habit of having his own staffers record any conversations with members of media, journalists, people working on books.

[12:10:00]

So, he knew he was being recorded by his own staffer. The staffers who understand or Liz Harrington one a spokeswoman, and also Margo Martin who has worked for him for a long time.

BASH: And they've spoken to the grand jury.

REID: Margo Martin, we know has spoken to the grand jury. And what's so interesting about that is they played the state for her when she went before the grand jury in March. And that's how the Trump team found out about it. We learned from our sources. The first time they were aware of this piece of evidence was Margo went in, and somehow the grand jury already -- or the prosecutors already had this recording. It's unclear how they obtained it. But we know there is at least probably two versions of this.

WILLIAMS: And if there's anything that's contradictory, and what she said if she -- if you don't like the testimony puts on prosecutors can cross examine her and really ask pointed, leading questions in any witness and really hold their feet (crosstalk).

BASH: Let's listen to something else that Donald Trump in these new audio tapes, about many why he was showing these documents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP, (voiceover): It's so cool. It's so. Look, we're here, her and I, and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me.

STAFFER, (voiceover): No, I believed you -- -

TRUMP: It's incredible, right?

STAFFER: No, they never met a war they didn't want.

TRUMP: Hey, bring some, uh, bring some cokes in please.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: I mean, getting into the psychology of Donald Trump is always like a dangerous thing to do here. But I do think it reveals. Just put in your mindset. He's here trying to fight behind closed doors, a public relations battle. He's having with Mark Milley because he's so consumed with his own image and his own narrative and what have you.

I'm not sure in that moment that he could fast forward two years to think this was going to be a critical piece of evidence. In a first ever case where a former president has been criminally indicted by the Department of Justice. He clearly is not in that mind space. He's arguing a different kind of case than the one he's fighting right now.

REID: Right. Most woman appears to be egging him on which is really remarkable that she appears to be agreeing with him, and instead of defending him against his own worst instincts. BASH: There's some obsequiousness going on there. David, you make a very important point that I want our viewers to hear. And that is about the political court, the court of political opinion or public opinion, I should say. And I want to put up on the screen the latest CNN poll about whether or not politics played a role in the Trump indictment. Overall, 71 percent, Dems 53, independent 67, Republicans 92 percent. Dissect that?

CHALIAN: Well, I just think we have to be able to see the reality that two things can be true at the same time. This can be a dangerous, reckless, perhaps criminal bit of behavior by a former president of the United States. And it may not actually damage him politically, may not inside the context of a republican nomination race.

Now, we have seen there is some opening here for a Republican not named Trump, we do see that in that very same poll. We saw that little bit of softening of support for him, there's an opening here. It's not one any Republican not named Trump seems to be exploiting at the moment are really taking.

But I do think it is important to understand when you see majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents saying politics is at play here that there is a note of caution on behalf especially among Republican primary voters, that this is a guy who's just been under attack, and they're not sure that this should be a dispositive point of information.

BASH: So, so, important. All right, everybody standby. John Roberts drove a stake through the heart of a fringe legal theory. That happened today at the Supreme Court. We're going to tell you what it's all about after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Supreme Court stands in the breach and John Roberts says no to the far right. The chief justice is behind a very important ruling that rejects an out there legal theory that would have -- could have let states count your votes, actually not count your votes at all, I should say.

CNN's Joan Biskupic joins me at the table, and David Chalian is still with us. This just happened this morning. Joan. Explain, there's so many different fascinating nuances to this. But as you give your answer, I want to put up on the screen what the outcome was six to three.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Exactly right. First of all, this was the case that could have been moved. And John Roberts said when he announced it from the bench, that there was a strong argument for mootness. And they decided they were still going to handle it. But he said that part of my opinion doesn't lend itself to oral presentation. So, I will skip it to, Dana. BASH: And that's I -- let's get to what the, it is, because I didn't -- -

BISKUPIC: Exactly, because they rushed away, you know, lower court developments in North Carolina and decided to take on this very important question of whether state legislatures have complete an independent control over setting election rules drawing redistricting maps without a check by their state Supreme Court does looking to their state Supreme Court, state constitution protections, for example, for equality.

And that was an issue here was an extreme partisan gerrymander in North Carolina that the state Supreme Court had rejected for equal protection voting rights reasons. And the Republican dominated North Carolina legislature had come to the Supreme Court saying, you should rule that state legislatures are essentially insulated from this kind of check by state courts because of the constitutions that election clause, which says that state legislatures are responsible for the time manner and place of elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, six-three vote, once they got to the merits, I think this was understandable because North Carolina was pushing such a hard argument said judicial review is such a part of our country, our constitution for both state courts and federal court judges and we are not going to eliminate it now.

[12:20:00]

BASH: So to sort of boil it down, what they were listening to was an argument that the legislators in all 50 states can take the votes and change them and overturn them the vote that comes out of the state. And the fact that the court, they have the option to just reject it and not rule on it. The fact that they made the decision to rule on it and did it -- did so with the six to three majority meant that they wanted to, as we said, drive a stake through this idea.

BISKUPIC: Right. And also, I think with 2024 looming, they probably thought do it now because there were challenges coming down the road that were similar. Do it now. Do it outside of a presidential election year, and get it done with and it was very decisive.

CHALIAN: Much better for democracy to not do that in the heat of the election or retroactively but to do it ahead of time. This is good for democracy. I mean, this is good because of the six-three nature of the ruling as well, and that it is from different parts of political corners that you see people coming together. But Dana, think about what you're saying, and think about the argument that Donald Trump was having with Mike Pence when he was asking him to send it back to the states.

Well, if this somehow ruled differently, and this theory that legislature, state legislatures had total autonomy over this, Mike Pence may have come to a different conclusion. And then these different slates of electors not representative of how those states voted, may have been sent, you just unraveled from there. This ruling now continues to keep some guardrails in place for the democracy that are incredibly, incredibly important.

BASH: OK. Please humorous for one second. This is not a humorous exchange. David, I have to ask you about something that happened on our friend Hugh Hewitt's show, radio show. He was asking Francis Suarez, the Miami mayor, who's running for president about the Uyghurs in China.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUGH HEWITT, HOST, AMERICAN RADIO TALK SHOW (voiceover): Will you be talking about the Uyghurs in your campaign?

FRANCES SUAREZ, MIAMI MAYOR (voiceover): The what?

HEWITT: The Uyghurs.

SUAREZ: What's a Uyghurs. You gave me homework, Hugh, I'll look at what was it? What'd you call it a weeble?

HEWITT: The Uyghurs. You really need to know about the Uyghurs, mayor. We got to talk about it every day. OK.

SUAREZ: I will talk about. I will search Uyghurs. I'm a good learner. I'm a fast learner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHALIAN: Wow. You just see they're not ready for primetime presidential candidate, which is not to say this isn't recoverable for him. He's just getting started on the campaign trail. We have seen other moments like this. I remember Gary Johnson having an issue with Aleppo when he was asked to not know it. So, I understand that it may not be something that is talked about on the campaign trail every single day. But it's a huge, huge foreign policy challenge.

When dealing with human rights abuses and genocide. There's no presidential candidate who is serious about being commander in chief that should not be well briefed and understanding what is going on with the Uyghurs and how U.S. policy should be positioned appropriately to fight on behalf of human rights here. That's something he's going to now have to work from a deficit at the start of his presidential campaign going forward. It's not a good look.

BASH: Something tells me that Mayor Suarez is going to be the foremost, the world's biggest expert on the Uyghurs after this episode. Thank you both. Appreciate it. And what the House speaker said about a matchup between the former president and the current one has Trump world up in arms. We have new reporting on that after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BASH: Drama on the campaign trail. Today Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are holding dueling events in the first in the nation primary state. The former president is in Concord this hour, headlining a luncheon with The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. The Florida governor was just 42 miles south in Hollis, where he held a town hall this morning.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is live in New Hampshire. Kristen, what are you hearing?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Look, voters here still really like the former president, which isn't that big of a surprise, given the fact that this is an event that he is headlining. And he is really still considered the front runner of that GOP primary. But the big question is whether or not Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, can make a path for himself, particularly given a series of perceived stumbles in this state.

This is a very unique state with very unique voters who have come to have a certain expectation out of candidates. DeSantis was hit after he didn't answer questions from voters one time when he was here in New Hampshire. We have seen him try to fix that.

We also know that this luncheon, they issued a statement after DeSantis said that he was going to be having an event on the same day, essentially calling him out for that saying that this was unprecedented, and it was going to take away from their event with the former president, and DeSantis himself has a very fine line to walk here.

Trump is wildly popular in the state. And even if there are openings for other candidates, which some voters have indicated there are, it's unclear whether or not they want him to actually attack Trump. So, take a listen to what he said today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS, (R) FLORIDA: If this election is about Biden's failures, and our vision for the future, we are going to win. If it's about re litigating things that happen two, three years ago, we're going to lose. I wasn't anywhere near Washington that day. I have nothing to do with what happened that day. Obviously, I didn't enjoy seeing, you know, what happened. But we've got to go forward on this stuff. We cannot be looking backwards and be mired in the past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:30:00]