Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Nikki Haley Surging in New Hampshire; Secretary of State Antony Blinken Holds Press Conference; Judges Hear Arguments Over Trump Immunity Claim. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 09, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:22]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right, we are watching live pictures here from Tel Aviv, Israel.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken set to speak after critical meetings with officials on the next phase of the war and amid growing concerns of a widening conflict. We're going to bring you his remarks when they begin.

And in the meantime here in the U.S., just a critical question: Do presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution? That is the unprecedented question before the federal courts. This morning, Donald Trump's attorney and a lawyer from the special counsel's team making their opposing cases, over the course of an hour, a three-judge appeals court panel hearing heated arguments and stunning hypotheticals ranging from presidents ordering political assassinations to courts being powerless to review presidential actions.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: This is all part of Trump's legal effort to get his federal election subversion charges thrown out.

Now, the former president was there for the proceedings and so was special counsel Jack Smith. The judges are now set to huddle, and they will get their written ruling at some point soon. The ultimate answer, though, likely headed to the Supreme Court.

Let's get some insight now from CNN's Evan Perez and Paula Reid. They were at the courthouse this morning. They're with us now, along with CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero.

Paula, let's start with you.

Walk us through the Trump team's argument, because it does seem to be shifting a bit.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's an evolution, Boris.

Here, they're arguing that he doesn't necessarily have absolute immunity, that a president can be prosecuted after he is impeached and convicted through the political process. Now, these judges came armed with some pretty wild hypotheticals to test this argument.

SANCHEZ: Right.

REID: Let's take a listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE FLORENCE PAN, D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That's an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six?

D. JOHN SAUER, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution.

PAN: But if he weren't, but if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?

SAUER: Chief justice's opinion in Marbury against Madison and our Constitution and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not immunity.

PAN: I asked you a yes-or-no question. Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?

SAUER: If he were impeached and convicted first.

PAN: So your answer is no?

SAUER: My answer is qualified yes.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

REID: So a lawyer that represents SEALs texted me and assured me that this is not an order that would have been followed.

But legally here, the special counsel rejected this argument. They said, you can't have any sort of justice relying on a political process like this.

They also rejected the Trump team's argument that if you don't grant this quasi-absolute immunity, that you're going to open Pandora's box. And, for example, President Biden could be prosecuted for what's going on at the border. Said -- the special counsel said no. There are charges here because the conduct here is unprecedented. It is extraordinary.

They also pointed to the investigations during the Clinton administration and said, look, no criminal charges were brought there. It doesn't mean that we're going to open this tit for tat. But, really, this argument that you can assassinate your political rival if Congress is cool with it, I mean, that was pretty wild. KEILAR: He seemed, Trump's lawyer, to be saying this was opening

Pandora's box. The special counsel seemed to be saying, no, you're setting a standard that should be followed. And they were describing the same thing in very different terms.

Evan, you were actually in the courtroom.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right.

KEILAR: Seems like it was a pretty wild day. What was it like?

PEREZ: Yes, I mean, it was very -- it was very interesting to me that certainly the evolution that we have seen in the arguments from the Trump team, but also in some ways some of the things that you hear the former president talk about, right, the idea that, if he takes office, he's going to be a dictator, or this idea that President Biden could be prosecuted.

There was an exchange in which Judge Henderson, Judge Karen Henderson, raises this idea of the Pandora's box, the idea that it would be opening the floodgates to future prosecutions of former presidents. James Pearce, the special counsel lawyer who is handling the arguments today, responded that. Listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JAMES PEARCE, ASSISTANT SPECIAL COUNSEL: This notion that we're all of a sudden going to see a floodgate, I think the careful investigations in the Clinton era didn't result in any charges.

The fact that this investigation did doesn't reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive tit for tat prosecutions in the future. I think it reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

[13:05:08]

PEREZ: And during that conversation or that back-and-forth, you saw Trump taking very, very furious notes. There were times when he was doing that during this proceeding.

SANCHEZ: When it comes to the legal perspective, Carrie, it seems like both sides are arguing that there is potentially a dangerous precedent that could be said if either side prevails.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think that's really important because this case is not just about former President Donald Trump. This case is about the presidency and the powers of the presidency.

And I think one -- I will give you one reason why the judges on this panel may have used that really what seems like an outrageous example of the SEAL Team Six conducting a political assassination, because what they're trying to show is that the use of a president's commander in chief power is actually when the president has the most authority that would normally be unchallenged.

And so they're trying to show that the exercise of that particular authority still has a limit for being out of bounds and potentially could involve prosecutorial conduct.

SANCHEZ: What about the argument that some of Trump's lawyers made that he was acting on January 6 as president in the interest of electoral integrity?

Obviously, we know that these claims about widespread election interference are bogus, but if his intent was to secure the election, does that carry any weight with these judges?

CORDERO: Well, that goes to the heart of whether or not the conduct that's alleged here falls under an immunity claim. So, normally, a president has wide authority to conduct their presidential activities.

And what the former president's team is arguing is that his work, his activities in this particular factual scenario were presidential activities. And that is exactly what the prosecutors, the Justice Department, is saying is not true. That's the heart of this case overall.

KEILAR: The thing is, it's really in the American ethos, right, that no one is above the law, Paula, and that includes presidents.

So, to that point, I mean, that's really the crux of what you were hearing the special counsel argue here. And, broadly speaking, Americans understand that.

REID: Yes, and one of the reasons a lot of people were skeptical that Trump would prevail going into today is because what we have heard from other courts and other judges already.

For example, at the trial court level, Judge Tanya Chutkan has said, look, we can't give presidents a get-out-of-jail-free pass. That's not how this works. No one is above the law. And they have also -- there have also been other decisions on similar and related issues, both in this Court of Appeals that found that he is not immune from civil liability.

And then this question of what he was up to in and around January 6, whether that was actually an official duty or something outside of that, that's also something that his former White House chief of staff has lost on that argument that what they were doing was related to their official work and should be protected.

But I think most people agree. The presidency, yes, you should be entitled to certain protections, but it's likely not going to be blanket.

SANCHEZ: The other aspect of this, Evan, that I found fascinating is that they are -- the defense is simultaneously arguing that prosecuting Trump would amount to double jeopardy because of his impeachment.

PEREZ: Right. Right.

And the weirdness of that argument, it just -- it kind of got absurd to a point where what they're saying is, because he was acquitted by the Senate, that therefore he can't be prosecuted.

However, Judge Pan, I think, cornered Sauer into acknowledging that, OK, so if he was convicted by the Senate, now he could be tried by -- in the criminal courts, which is odd for you to say that that's not double jeopardy. It's just one of those arguments that I think is one of their weakest arguments to try to make in this case.

I also thought what was interesting, we didn't hear a lot of the political question, the question of whether what the former president was doing was electioneering or taking care of his own political future, which is something that other judges have kind of delved into. These judges didn't seem to ask that question here.

KEILAR: It's a sort of unprecedented question in a way, talking about a conviction by the Senate and then whether you can proceed with a court process against the president.

What kind of thing is there in the American legal system that is similar to that?

CORDERO: There's not.

I think, in this case -- and that's why I view this particular case and the arguments being made by the former president as really the weakest of all the legal arguments that he's making in various cases.

What his lawyer was suggesting today, that there has to be an impeachment and conviction first before criminal process, there just is not a sound basis in the Constitution, in federal statute, in precedent to make that particular argument.

[13:10:00]

And it's a really odd putting together of impeachment, which is a political process, even though it kind of looks like a legal proceeding, in terms of arguments in terms of arguments and lawyers and the pageantry of it. But it's inherently a political process, not a legal process.

SANCHEZ: To that point, part of the argument during Trump's impeachment from Senate Republicans that voted against actually convicting him made its way into the discussion today.

Let's play a quick sound bite from Senate -- former Senate Majority Leader -- he's still the Senate majority leader -- Mitch McConnell.

KEILAR: Senate minority leader.

SANCHEZ: Or he was. He's the minority leader now, Mitch McConnell.

KEILAR: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Let's play that sound bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation.

And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Does that weigh into the discussion between the judges and ultimately making the decision, these comments from Republicans?

CORDERO: I don't think the particular comments made by a politician on the floor is going to factor into their consideration of the case.

But the concept is applicable. What Mitch McConnell is talking about is the functioning of the rule of law, that at some point even a former president can be accountable under the law. And whether that is not through the impeachment process, but through the criminal justice system or even the civil legal system, there has to be some way for a former president to be accountable.

SANCHEZ: Carrie, Evan, Paula, appreciate the conversation. Thanks so much.

Still plenty more news to come on NEWS CENTRAL, including new CNN polling showing Nikki Haley surging in New Hampshire, cutting Donald Trump's lead there to single digits. It's also coming as the former president ramps up his attacks on Nikki Haley.

KEILAR: And, today, Boeing is holding an all-hands safety meeting just days after an in-flight blowout led to the grounding of dozens of 737 MAX 9 jets. We will have the latest on the investigation coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:18]

SANCHEZ: Nikki Haley got some good polling news today. The former South Carolina governor has cut into Donald Trump's lead in the New Hampshire Republican primary race. That's according to a new CNN poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire.

The former president now leading only in the double digits -- or, rather, the single digits. Look, Trump's still holding a meaningful lead over Haley, 39 percent of likely GOP voters opting for the former president in New Hampshire compared to Haley's 32, the rest of the field lagging far behind, Chris Christie at 12, Ramaswamy and DeSantis in the single digits, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson hash marks. The poll shows that Haley has momentum. Look at this. She's climbed 12

points in just a few months since November. That support appears to be drifting from some of her rivals. You see a slump there for Trump, as well as Christie and, notably, DeSantis down four points.

So who is behind that surge? It's undeclared voters. Haley is up 18 points with that group since November. Trump is actually down seven. And yet, when it comes to conservative voters, Trump actually leads Haley by some 40 percentage points, 60 to 20 there. The inverse is true when it comes to moderates. Haley is up 42 points when it comes to those voters.

Now, roughly how many folks in the Granite State can still be persuaded to potentially switch candidates? Among likely Republican voters, 80 percent of Trump supporters say they are definitely decided. Compare that to Haley supporters. They're at 54 percent. But here is the key part. This is what Haley's team is banking on.

Just 45 percent of New Hampshire Republicans say that they are backing other candidates and that they are decided on that. That means the door is still open for a potential upset in the New Hampshire primary with only two weeks to go, Brianna.

KEILAR: Yes, pretty interesting to watch here.

Let's discuss this further with CNN political commentator Karen Finney, a former senior adviser to the Democratic National Committee, and also Charlie Dent, former Republican congressman for Pennsylvania.

Charlie, how significant is it that Nikki Haley is now within single digits of Trump in New Hampshire?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's enormously significant because Nikki Haley is clearly surging. She has momentum in New Hampshire, and that's not surprising. We expect Trump to win in Iowa. And New Hampshire often goes a different way, but these unaffiliated voters in New Hampshire will make a difference.

And, frankly, New Hampshire is a much better bellwether state for Republicans than Iowa, which really just reflects evangelical support more than anything else. So I think Nikki Haley is well-positioned to win. I'm not saying she will, but she is well within striking distance. And if I were the Trump campaign, I'd be more than a little nervous right now.

KEILAR: What do you think watching this move of Haley's?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Absolutely.

And, look, it says to donors that she's a good investment, which will help her stay in the contest longer. I mean, it's going to get harder for Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie, for example, who are so much farther behind both in Iowa and New Hampshire, to continue to make the argument to donors to say, contribute to me while I try to keep fighting this fight. But, for her, I mean, she can turn around and say, look what happens

when I am in this race. So, absolutely agree with Charlie that it is -- it has quite a big meaning for her.

SANCHEZ: Charlie, when it comes to this translating potentially in other places, Haley obviously doing well with undeclared or independent voters, as we just showed, but that's unique to New Hampshire. Does this potentially carry momentum for her moving forward?

DENT: Well, I think it may. Obviously, they're going to be moving on to South Carolina, her home state. Trump is very strong there.

[13:20:02]

But I do think it gives her a surge of momentum going into Super Tuesday. Again, each state has different rules about who can vote open versus close primaries. But I think what will happen is that a lot of the vote, or the non-Trump vote, may consolidate around Haley. I could see DeSantis probably dropping out. I mean, Iowa is going to be his do-or-die.

Chris Christie is probably going to stay in for a while longer. But it really looks like there could be a consolidation of the vote. And so this all accrues to Haley's benefit. Whether or not that momentum will surge her into Super Tuesday with successful outcomes remains to be seen. But I think it does bode well for her.

KEILAR: I think we're getting a taste today, too, of what it is like to watch Trump navigate between his court dates and these key political dates.

And I wonder, as you see that, Karen, you were thinking about -- we're talking about how significant it is that Nikki Haley is making this move. How do you see that changing potentially things as we get a taste of it?

FINNEY: You know, there's sort of two dynamics, I think, at play.

Number one, he has made this a centerpiece of his narrative. I am your retribution. I am taking these hits for you because I am here to protect our way of life, right? So it feeds into his core narrative at the same -- and it's almost like a campaign event when he comes out and speaks after.

At the same time, we know from that "New York Times" poll that some voters are starting to pay attention and have expressed concern that, well, if he is convicted, hmm, maybe I better have a backup. And so you have to think that, for those voters, they may be taking another look at someone like Nikki Haley, who -- and thinking just in case something happens to Trump who's trying to lock up the nomination by Super Tuesday, maybe I ought to keep an eye out for somebody else.

SANCHEZ: Karen and Charlie, we have to pause the conversation there.

We want to get straight out to the Middle East now, because Secretary of State Antony Blinken is on a whirlwind tour of the region. Here he is speaking from Tel Aviv.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Important progress has been made in increasing the amount of aid getting into Gaza, including by opening Kerem Shalom.

Nonetheless, 90 percent of Gaza's population continues to face acute food insecurity, according to the United Nations. For children, the effects of long periods without sufficient food can have lifelong consequences.

As I underscored in our meetings today, more food, water, more medicine, other essential goods need to get into Gaza, and then, once they're in Gaza, they need to get more effectively to the people who need them. And Israel needs to do everything it can to remove any obstacles from crossings to other parts of Gaza, improving deconfliction procedures to ensure that the aid can move safely and securely, is a critical part of that.

The United Nations is playing an indispensable role in addressing the immense humanitarian needs in Gaza. There is simply no alternative. U.N. personnel and other aid workers in Gaza are demonstrating extraordinary courage by continuing to provide lifesaving services in what are extremely challenging conditions.

I spoke last night with the U.N.'s new senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator for Gaza, Sigrid Kaag, about all of these efforts that are under way.

Now, Sigrid Kaag is someone I worked very closely with a few years ago when she led the U.N. mission that destroyed the Assad regime's chemical weapons in Syria. So I can say from experience she has what it takes to get this job done. She has America's full support. She must have Israel's as well.

Today, we also discussed the phased transition of Israel's military campaign in Gaza. We continue to offer our best advice for how Israel can achieve its essential goal of ensuring that October 7 can never be repeated. And we believe Israel has achieved significant progress toward this fundamental objective.

As Israel's campaign moves to a lower-intensity phase in Northern Gaza and as the IDF scales down its forces there, we agreed today on a plan for the U.N. to carry out an assessment mission. It will determine what needs to be done to allow displaced Palestinians to return safely to homes in the north.

Now, this is not going to happen overnight. There are serious security, infrastructure, and humanitarian challenges. But the mission will start a process that evaluates these obstacles and how they can be overcome.

In today's meetings, I was also crystal clear Palestinian civilians must be able to return home as soon as conditions allow. They must not be pressed to leave Gaza. As I told the prime minister, the United States unequivocally rejects any proposals advocating for the resettlement of Palestinians outside of Gaza. And the prime minister reaffirmed to me today that this is not the policy of Israel's government.

[13:25:00]

We also spoke about the tensions on Israel's northern border with Lebanon, where Hezbollah continues to launch daily rocket attacks on Israel. As I told the war cabinet and other senior officials, the United States stands with Israel in ensuring its northern border is secure.

We're fully committed to working with Israel to find a diplomatic solution that avoids escalation and allows families to return to their homes, to live securely in Northern Israel and also in Southern Lebanon.

Finally, we continue to discuss how to build a more durable peace and security for Israel within the region. As I told the prime minister, every partner that I met on this trip said that they're ready to support a lasting solution that ends the long-running cycle of violence and ensures Israel's security.

But they underscored that this can only come through a regional approach that includes a pathway to a Palestinian state. These goals are attainable, but only if they're pursued together. This crisis has clarified you can't have one without the other. And you can't achieve either goal without an integrated regional approach.

To make this possible, Israel must be a partner to Palestinian leaders who are willing to lead their people in living side by side in peace with Israel and as neighbors. And Israel must be -- must stop taking steps that undercut Palestinians' ability to govern themselves effectively.

Extremist settler violence carried out with impunity, settlement expansion, demolitions, evictions all make it harder, not easier, for Israel to achieve lasting peace and security.

The Palestinian Authority also has a responsibility to reform itself, to improve its governance, issues I plan to raise with President Abbas, among others, when we meet tomorrow. If Israel wants its Arab neighbors to make the tough decisions necessary to help ensure its lasting security, Israeli leaders will have to make hard decisions themselves.

When President Biden addressed the people of Israel days after the October 7 attack, he made a very simple pledge. The United States has Israel's back today, tomorrow, always. The friendship between our nations is truly exceptional. It's our unique bond and America's enduring commitment to the people of Israel that allows, indeed demands that we're as forthright as possible in the moments when the stakes are highest, when the choices matter the most.

This is one of those moments.

Happy to take some questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The first question goes to Simon Lewis with Reuters.

QUESTION: Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, the future of the Gaza Strip has been a theme of your trip while you have been visiting regional countries. I wonder, today, were you able to do -- make any progress on closing the gap between Arab leaders and Israel on specific security reconstruction and governance arrangements for Gaza?

And you talked before leaving Saudi Arabia yesterday about the need for a practical pathway to a Palestinian state as part of any efforts towards regional integration. And, obviously, that's come up today in your meetings with the Cabinet.

Has Prime Minister Netanyahu changed his mind? Is he still opposed to the creation of a separate Palestinian state? Or have you managed to convince him or get any guarantees that this is something that can happen?

BLINKEN: So, one of the things that I heard very clearly on this trip -- and these two questions are actually joined -- is, many countries in the region are really prepared to invest in a number of ways, to invest when the conflict in Gaza is over in its reconstruction, in its security, supporting Palestinians in their governance.

But it is essential to them that there also be a clear pathway to the realization of Palestinian political rights and a Palestinian state. And I think the view that they have expressed is that critical to ending once and for all cycle of violence that is only going to repeat itself at some point in the future is through the realization of Palestinian political rights.

That was a very clear message that I heard everywhere I went, just as I heard again a commitment not only to be engaged in the future of Gaza, but also to take the steps necessary, make the commitments necessary, provide the assurances necessary to give Israel confidence in its security.