Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Haley and DeSantis Spar Before Iowa Caucuses; Closing Arguments in Trump Civil Fraud Trial. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 11, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:33]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: Happening right now in a New York courtroom -- you're seeing the outside picture right there -- closing arguments in Donald Trump's $370 million civil fraud trial, a trial that has put the fate of his business empire on the line.

The former president is in court right now listening as his legal team is laying out their closing arguments.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: And they have until 12.45 p.m. to finish those closing arguments.

Trump's attorney, Christopher Kise, began by insisting that no witnesses testified to any fraud. And he made right at the outset, before saying anything else, really, a political argument, attacking the attorney general's office that brought this case.

This is what Christopher Kise said. He said -- quote -- "This entire case is a manufactured claim to serve a political agenda. It has always been press releases and posturing, but no proof at all."

Again, as we said, Trump's team is making his case right now. I'm down here at the courthouse with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

Paula, maybe not as contentious as some of the moments we have seen before.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this has been more orderly than some of the other days where we have been standing out in front of this court.

Closing arguments are an opportunity for lawyers, usually not the folks who are under investigation, the lawyers, to summarize their theory of the case, in this case, for the judge. And that's what Chris Kise is doing right now. He put it in a political context, but now he's going through his theory of the case.

And he's now insisting that, look, my client had no motivation to lie. He's saying, in his expert opinion, and he's describing his client as an expert in commercial real estate, which, of course, the judge took issue with on a technicality, saying he hadn't been certified as an expert in this case, but he's saying he didn't believe that Deutsche Bank was only going to look at his statement of financial fitness when deciding whether to lend him money.

So this is all pretty dry. This is pretty technical, no real fireworks. But this is what closing arguments are supposed to be.

BERMAN: Right.

This is the legal side of all of this right now. And his attorney is making a legal case. And I'm making that distinction. And it might seem obvious to some people, but a lot of what's been taking place here over the last few months isn't legal at all.

REID: One hundred percent. We have seen the former president show up on multiple days. He has testified.

And during his time here at court, he has acted in a way that is very unusual for most people, but not unusual for a political candidate. He has tried to frame this entire thing as a political, politically motivated investigation, trying to interfere with the election. He has tried to tie the district attorney to his political rival, President Biden.

I will note that the district attorney did promise to investigate and potentially prosecute Trump when she was running for office. So he's not incorrect that she has previously expressed a desire during a campaign to go after him. But this case, the judge has already found him liable for fraud. They have seen witnesses. They have seen documents.

This is a serious proceeding. But, often, he has used it, seized the spotlight, come here, seized the attention to make arguments in the court of public opinion, political arguments really.

BERMAN: In the court of public opinion, really part of the campaign trail, as we have been saying, this courthouse behind us in a way, Iowa's 100th county right now with the Iowa caucuses just a few days away.

(LAUGHTER)

BERMAN: Stand by for one minute, Paula, because also down here outside this increasingly cold courthouse...

REID: Just got a gust.

BERMAN: ... is Kristen Holmes.

And, Kristen, as we have been saying, look, Donald Trump is now running his campaign around these courthouses at some time, making political statements. But, sometimes in politics, you say things that just aren't true.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's absolutely right. And just to be clear, he doesn't have to be here. He didn't have to be

there on Tuesday. He doesn't have to be here. These are choices that he is making to turn these events into campaign stops, so just to start there.

When he came out to the cameras, he spoke earlier today, he mentioned that this is election interference. He said that this was being done at the hands of Joe Biden. Obviously, as Paul just laid out, it is not being done at the hands of Joe Biden. The district attorney did mention this while she was campaigning. However, this has nothing to do with the United States Justice Department -- there are other cases that do -- or the -- or the current president of the United States.

So there's that. The other part of this is that he said that he was being forced to be silent, essentially. That is not -- also not the case. The judge actually agreed pretty readily, it seems in the e- mails that we saw, to allow him to speak in his closing remarks, which seemed actually quite crazy.

[11:05:00]

That's why -- exactly -- as you said, that's why you pay lawyers. But, instead, he said yes, but you have to agree to these restrictions., one of them being you cannot personally attack me or anyone on my courtroom staff. Trump's lawyer said, that's not going to happen, we're not going to agree to any of these restrictions, so, therefore, he's not speaking.

But he's not being silenced. He made a choice.

BERMAN: And, Paula Reid, I am no attorney, but I have watched "Matlock" and "Law & Order" a lot on TV.

REID: I'm a recovering attorney, so I'm here for you.

BERMAN: But my point is, I think a lot of people see this and say, wait a second, we thought people who are being charged with things, they can always deliver their own defense if they want to.

REID: Yes.

Yes, we have to remind people this is a civil trial, right? This is not "Law & Order." This is not a criminal trial. This is about money, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, and the ability to do business in New York. It's very serious, but it's not what most people have seen on TV.

Closing arguments are really just for you to present your theory of the case. The former president, he was called to testify. He also could have taken the stand again.

BERMAN: Right.

REID: He opted not to, but he has certainly availed himself of the media assembled here many times to express all kinds of thoughts, not necessarily to the judge, but to the public at large. So no one is preventing him or restricting his rights. It is highly

unusual for someone to participate in closing arguments. Now...

BERMAN: You just grabbed your phone as if there was news.

REID: I did. I did. I am not texting with friends. I am reading from our colleagues inside the court.

Things have gotten -- taken a little bit of a turn here. They're focusing now on Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer and lawyer, who played an important role in the origin story of this case. If you remember back, I believe it was 2017, when Michael Cohen testified before Congress, he was asked if during his time working for then- President Trump, if he had ever seen Trump lie on applications for loans or insurance.

He said he did. And that is part of what prompted this investigation. Cohen was also a witness here. And Kise, Trump's lawyer here, is talking about Cohen, and, not surprisingly, accusing Michael Cohen of being a lawyer.

I'm going to look really quickly to see what else they're saying about him. Of course, they're trying to undercut his credibility.

BERMAN: Right.

REID: He is not a key witness here. He does -- he does previously have convictions for lying.

BERMAN: Yes.

REID: So calling him a liar is not inaccurate, though Michael Cohen does not like it when people call him a lawyer.

But he accuses Cohen of using his testimony to generate attention for his podcast and for media appearances. I mean, they're attacking Michael Cohen personally here. They're also noting a recent incident that was pretty embarrassing for Michael Cohen, where he used A.I., artificial intelligence...

BERMAN: Yes.

REID: ... to drum up some case citations. Now, he works with a longtime friend and attorney, and he handed over these citations to that attorney, who didn't check them, and then they were submitted to the court. That was highly embarrassing.

It seems quite irrelevant to the case at hand, but Kise is going there because, again, Michael Cohen is really the origin of this investigation.

HOLMES: Well, and also because they wanted to make Michael Cohen the key witness in this investigation...

REID: Yes.

HOLMES: ... so that they could discredit this entire case. That was a plan months ago.

I mean, I was told that by advisers that they believed that, if they made this case about Michael Cohen, they could say Michael Cohen has been charged with lying before.

BERMAN: Convicted.

(CROSSTALK)

HOLMES: He is a known -- yes, he has been convicted. He is a known liar. You cannot base a case around Michael Cohen.

Now, as you said, he is not the key witness here. The case has other witnesses, other evidence. However, that has been a strategy that they have been looking to deploy for months.

BERMAN: OK, it's a very interesting thing that just happened in here, because Michael Cohen, as you just noted before, had to admit that he used A.I. incorrectly as part of a legal brief that was filed before a judge.

And this is really the first time it's come up in a courtroom. It's part of a closing argument, which isn't part of testimony or not, but it's part of a closing argument.

REID: Yes.

BERMAN: So, now we have seen it at least in a case at a certain point.

Again, these closing arguments, Kate, can continue until 12:45 p.m. We will keep listening for new developments.

BOLDUAN: Yes, and we're getting these new developments.

Let's talk about these, the new developments and what the closing argument is that is being made by Chris Kise right now.

Guys, Michael Cohen, this element of it is -- why focus on this as part of closings?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So this is a great preview, by the way, not just of this case, but also of one of the criminal cases, because Michael Cohen was a pivotal witness in this civil trial talking about the inner workings of the Trump Organization.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

HONIG: And he is a pivotal or the pivotal witness in the Manhattan DA's criminal case over hush money, which is scheduled now for March.

And if the other trials move, that could actually be the first one.

BOLDUAN: OK.

HONIG: Here's the attacks on Michael Cohen, and I will give you sort of both sides of it.

What you're going to see from Trump's team is, he's a convicted perjurer. He pled guilty to lying to Congress. He is a convicted tax fraudster. He pled guilty in federal court in Manhattan to cheating on his taxes. He has since claimed that he actually lied when he played guilty to that, that he didn't actually commit the offense, but he lied to the judge when he said he did, all part of the Michael Cohen web.

Michael Cohen has a over-the-top personal animus against Donald Trump. I mean, they mentioned his podcast. Look at his Twitter feed. He...

[11:10:04]

BOLDUAN: But that's not the paper. That's not the paper,.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Right, but it does matter because Michael Cohen's credibility -- this is the other side.

The A.G. is going to say, but what Michael Cohen tells you is backed up by the paper. It is to an extent. It doesn't have Donald Trump's name on it.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

HONIG: But a witness' bias is 100 percent fair game.

And if you have a witness who overtly hates the defendant -- Michael Cohen will tell you he hates Donald Trump -- the jury or the judge, whoever's making the fact-finding, is absolutely entitled to consider that.

But the comeback on Michael Cohen is really two parts. One is, well, ever since he sort of made this break from Trump, he's come clean. He's been a truth-teller. He was the one who started this. He testified in front of Congress in 2019 that they would inflate and deflate their assets. And the other one, Kate, as you said, is, well, he's backed up by the paper, and he is to an extent.

The numbers are different, but it doesn't have -- the person drawing the link between the paper and Donald Trump is largely Michael Cohen.

BOLDUAN: Caroline, what do you think of this? How much of a factor could that -- could this part of the argument be for the judge, who will be the one who ends up deciding the damages here?

CAROLINE POLISI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right. And that's a very good point for another point I want to make.

But, look, I agree. Michael Cohen, I think, is more of a pivotal witness in the next trial, not so much in this one, because -- and we always talk about the distinction between a criminal trial versus a civil standard -- it's less about the intent, the motivation, where live witnesses give you a view inside the mind of the potential defendant.

And there is more paper evidence in this case that Tish James is relying on. But the point about the bigger picture, this is the only case where there's not going to be a jury. This is a bench trial. So we have seen the judge, Judge Engoron there, really be specific about what can and can't be in evidence.

Of course, we're in closing arguments today. Chris Kise tried to describe Donald Trump as an expert in real estate, yes.

BOLDUAN: And industry expert. Why does that need to be corrected?

POLISI: Right. Exactly.

BOLDUAN: Other than, obviously, that would -- that hurts Donald Trump's feelings.

POLISI: Right.

And I think some viewers may think, OK, well, I understand that there are ways to get people qualified as experts, which Donald Trump wasn't for the purposes of the legal rules. But why does it matter? Because it's not a jury trial. Can't the judge just sort of know that in his head and go along with it?

No, every single day, Judge Engoron is thinking about the appeal in this case. And as we have seen all of these other cases play out, this case will be appealed. And he wants to make a pristine record for review. Closing arguments are not evidence. However, he is making very specific rulings here with the knowledge that those rulings are going to be reviewed on appeal and that the record is going to be read.

BOLDUAN: The fact-check in the record is important.

POLISI: Yes.

HONIG: Yes, it absolutely is.

The facts -- speaking of fact-checks, the presence or absence of a jury makes all the difference in the world, right? When we have a jury in these criminal cases, and they will all be jury trials, judges and courts have to be so much more careful about policing what's said.

I will give you an example. Trump's lawyer led off this presentation by saying this is a political vendetta. There may be some truth to that, but that is not an admissible, proper argument in court. Now, if it's the judge deciding, as here, the judge can filter it out. You can say, all right, irrelevant, not considering it.

But when you have 12 civilians, 12 New Yorkers sitting there, the judge is going to have to be much more careful. And there are real consequences if you stand up as a lawyer and throw in irrelevant arguments like that one.

BOLDUAN: That will be a very interesting shift, change, development, evolution, transition, whatever you want to talk about when you move over to these criminal trials, for sure.

Guys, much more to come, much more coming out of the courtroom. John is down there with Paula and more. We're going to keep an eye right there on that door. We have got reporters inside letting us know what's happening there. We're going to bring you all of those developments from inside court.

We're also keeping an eye in California. Hunter Biden set to appear in a federal court in L.A. this afternoon tax-related charges just as the first lady, Jill Biden, is coming out in a new interview and really slamming Republicans who have led the investigation into him, calling it horrible, calling it cruel.

More details on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:19:03]

BOLDUAN: You're looking at live pictures once again outside a courtroom in New York, where the closing arguments in the Donald Trump civil trial are under way as we speak.

He also, on the way going into the courtroom, he spoke last hour. Listen to some of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a very unfair trial. Nobody has seen anything like this. I don't think they have ever seen anything like this.

I really have no rights. And it's -- and nobody thinks it's constitutional. It's interference. It's political interference. And it's something that shouldn't be allowed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Donald Trump repeating what we have heard often as he's going in, making legal misstatements and not telling the truth on the legal case in front of him, saying that he has no rights. Clearly, he does. He's going through this trial process, as it's been going on for now 11 weeks.

But at the same time, we are seeing a collision, truly, of the campaign trail and the courtroom, which at this point for Donald Trump are one and the same.

[11:20:05]

Let's get some perspective on this and some reaction to what we're seeing.

Donald Trump's former deputy press secretary, Sarah Matthews, is joining me right now. Sarah, the legal fight is essentially the entire campaign strategy for

Donald Trump right now. And we're seeing that once again come into focus today. What's your reaction to what you have heard today and the fact that his attorney right out of the gate tried to make the case in closing arguments that this was a political trial trying to further a political agenda?

SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think that's going to be the message that we're going to hear from Donald Trump and his attorneys in all of the cases.

While I do think that some of the cases that he's facing tend to be a little bit more political in nature than others, I think most of them are substantive and have evidence to back them up and warrant the charges. But I think that, in this case in particular, it was interesting to hear him say before he entered the courtroom that it was unconstitutional and that they had no right.

I mean, this just is straight out of his victim playbook where he just acts like the victim, acts like that he should face no accountability for any of his actions. And it's going to be, I think, the message that we're going to see moving forward from him and his campaign on the campaign trail.

BOLDUAN: Sarah, I wanted to ask you, we're getting new details of this new interview that the first lady, Jill Biden, did with MSNBC.

In large part, she spoke very -- attacking Republicans who are investigating and leading investigation into her son Hunter Biden. But also, as part of the conversation. Jill Biden also took aim at Donald Trump for characterizing jailed January 6 rioters as hostages, as we have heard him do, and we have heard other elected Republicans kind of parrot that talking point in the past week.

Here's what Jill Biden said about calling them hostages: "That makes me want to be in the fight even more, because we have to win, we must win," she told Mika Brzezinski in this interview. "We cannot let go of our democracy."

From everything you experienced, the stand that you took, given what you saw on January 6 and around the White House, what do you think of, one, hearing Jill Biden speak out in this way and also in hearing Donald Trump calling them hostages over and over again?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I resigned three years ago on January 6 because I felt that Donald Trump did not meet the moment.

I knew that his election lies were lies. And I felt like, on that day, when we watched all of that violence unfold, he chose to sit back and not take action. And that's because he didn't want to. He saw nothing wrong with it. He thought that these people were fighting for him. And he simply couldn't accept the fact that he lost to Joe Biden.

And so now I think, three years later, to see politicians like Donald Trump and Elise Stefanik and others whitewashing the events of that day and saying things like that these January 6 rioters are -- quote, unquote -- "hostages" is insane, especially when we're seeing actual hostages and Gaza and the things that they are dealing with and then trying to equate that to people who broke the law and illegally entered the Capitol and defaced the Capitol that day and beat up police officers.

I think it's just disgusting and, unfortunately, unsurprising, though, from those two.

BOLDUAN: Maybe we put it also in the category of unsurprising is that, in the CNN debate last night, Ron DeSantis -- Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley having a perfect opportunity to not only talk policy and not only attack each other, but they could have taken an opportunity to go directly after Donald Trump for some of what you're just talking about here, his actions, inactions on January 6, his lies about the election, and so much more.

They did not, instead spending time over and over again just attacking each other. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have said it again, Ron, so stop lying.

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And then she said she never said it. Of course, you're lying.

HALEY: It doesn't change the fact that Ron's lying because Ron's losing.

DESANTIS: I thought he lied a lot. Man, Nikki Haley may -- gives him a run for his money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Sarah, as someone who does not want to have Donald Trump win the primary or be reelected, as a Republican who would like to see another Republican kind of take the mantle, what did you think of last night?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I kind of thought that the debate performances from both of the candidates on stage were a little bit disappointing.

I felt like neither of those candidates were interested in attacking Trump and more interested in attacking each other. So it felt like a battle for second place. Look, Donald Trump is the front-runner, and you need to start going after him aggressively and calling out that he's unfit to be president. That was something that they were asked.

[11:25:01]

They were asked about if Donald Trump had the character to be president. And I thought that Ron DeSantis' response was pathetic. He decided to just talk about policy differences. And Nikki Haley, she at least was a little bit more aggressive in her answer. She said something to the effect that Donald Trump is more interested in vendettas and vengeance and that all that comes with him is chaos.

And while that is true, I think that both of them, if they want to stand a chance that actually defeating Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire, really need to get more aggressive in their messaging.

BOLDUAN: And they are 100 percent absolutely out of time for that. We're four days from the Iowa caucuses. It's a lot. Not a lot of time or any time at all to try to make ground, at least before first votes.

It's good to see you, Sarah. Thank you so much for coming in.

MATTHEWS: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Coming up for us: a familiar story on Capitol Hill, unfortunately, House Republicans revolting over a spending deal that now Speaker Mike Johnson has cut with -- out of necessity with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown.

Will his story end with an ouster, just like his predecessor, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy?

We will be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)