Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Manhattan DA Agrees To Postpone Donald Trump's Sentencing In Criminal Hush Money Case; Trump Not Backing Down On Gaetz As Controversy Grows; Some Senate Republicans Want To See Ethics Report On Gaetz. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired November 19, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:46]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We have breaking news coming in to CNN right now. The Manhattan District Attorney has agreed to postpone Donald Trump's sentencing in his criminal hush money trial. The President- elect was found guilty of 34 felonies in his case.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Like so many things involving the President- elect, this is uncharted territory with Trump being the first convicted felon elected to the nation's highest office. We're covering this from all angles and we begin with CNN's Paula Reid. Paula, tell us what you've learned.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So I've been waiting for this decision because the question is, what happens to President-elect Trump's sentencing that is scheduled for next week? And here what we're learning is that the District Attorney has made it clear they're going to reject and try to defend against any effort to dismiss this case, but they are open to delaying this sentencing for up to four years because they understand that it's going to take time to litigate this issue of the future of this case. So they do not agree to dismiss this case, but while that question is being litigated, they understand that the sentencing has to be paused.

So President-elect Trump will not be sentenced next week, and the next step is the two parties will litigate this issue. And again, they understand that this sentencing, if it goes forward, may not happen for another four years.

SANCHEZ: Paula, please stand by. Let's go to CNN's Kara Scannell now. Kara, this wasn't exactly a surprise given Donald Trump's election, the unprecedented nature of this, and of course that Supreme Court decision from over the summer.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it raises all sorts of complicated legal issues, having the President-elect facing a conviction in state court and then a potential sentencing by the judge, and add on top of that the Supreme Court's decision on immunity. So those are all the factors that the prosecutors say they have taken into consideration. I mean, they say in here that they deeply respect the office of the president, that they're mindful of the demands and obligations, but they say they also deeply respect a jury's verdict.

And it was 12 New Yorkers who delivered that guilty verdict for Donald Trump in May, finding him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. So prosecutors are saying that they are still going to fight to maintain this conviction. So Donald Trump's team, they're saying they're OK with postponing the sentencing, so Trump's team can file their motion to dismiss, and they said they are going to oppose that.

They are still asking the judge to move fairly quickly here, saying that they want to file their response to this motion on December 9th, because they are expecting this case to be appealed, no matter what the decision is, that Trump's team, if they lose, will continue to fight it through appellate courts. And so that is another reason why the District Attorney's office says that they don't oppose postponing the sentencing, because they think that would inevitably happen anyway based on how this litigation is expected to play out.

So for now, Trump's sentencing is expected to be adjourned. We are still waiting for the judge to actually sign off on that. He is the one that's ultimately in control of that. It's possible Trump's team will file a response to this letter indicating if they agree with this timeline or if they're asking for how much time they should have to file this expected motion to dismiss.

So we may hear from them or we may hear from the judge setting a briefing schedule in this case. But it is still the judge's call on whether to adjourn this sentencing. But with the District Attorney agreeing now for the third time that they're OK with postponing it, it is likely that the judge will agree with that as well. Guys?

KEILAR: And Carrie Cordero, you know, a lot can happen. A lot can change in four years.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: A lot can, and this makes a lot of sense. I mean, at this point, there really is no rush from the court's perspective to get to a sentencing given the fact that the president is going to be stepping into office, given the fact that he absolutely was going to appeal this case just on the merits of it itself in terms of the legal questions and the legal theory that the prosecutors brought this case on and then added to that the additional challenges that he would bring based on the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

So even without the immunity decision, I think he would have appealed anyway just on the interpretations of New York law and then added to that the Supreme Court decision that he has immunity now that he is reelected and will step back into office in January.

SANCHEZ: Elie, no surprise here that the District Attorney -- Elie Honig is with us, I should point out. We got the letter from the DA here, no surprise that they're not eager to let this go.

[13:05:08]

And they point out in their letter that there's no law that currently establishes that a president's immunity comes with, that it requires the dismissal of a post-trial criminal proceeding. In other words, there's nothing in the Supreme Court's ruling that gives a president immunity for being found guilty of something before he was president, let alone for acts that may not be deemed official. Suffice to say, this is complicated.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Boris, this is brand-new territory. This is the crazy law school hypothetical come to life. We've never had a situation anything like this.

But to your question, I see two major takeaways from this filing we just got from the DA. First of all, the DA is OK with adjourning this sentencing indefinitely, which means it will not happen before he takes office, if the judge agrees. Kara makes a very important point. This is just the DA's position. Ultimately, it's up to the judge.

But the second thing that really jumps out at me is the DA in this letter says what you just said, Boris, about immunity, that it doesn't necessarily cover post-trial proceedings. And so the DA floats the possibility in their letter. They say we want to look into various options, including possibly having his sentencing happen in 2029, when he's done his second term as president. To me, that is a preposterous suggestion just as a practical matter.

You can't put off sentence four-plus years. I think Donald Trump would have a very strong argument when this day comes, when he's 82 years old and finishing up his second term, that that's just too long to wait.

But again, this is all unknown. This is all brand new. But I found that really interesting to see that the DA is actually floating the possibility of pushing sentencing until January 21st, I guess, of 2029.

KEILAR: Yeah, I was going to ask you what the practical effect was of pushing something four years to when someone's an octogenarian, but it's like you're psychic, Elie.

Kristen Holmes, I want to bring you into this. This is obviously going to be something that is certainly welcome to Trump's ears. I'm sure they would like to completely put all of this to bed. That's not on the table here. But delaying this four years is certainly something he must be pleased with.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, and just to piggyback off of what Elie was just saying, Donald Trump's team believes they do have a strong case that this would not be something that would be feasible to be sentencing in 2029. So they believe that in some ways they have actually won this round.

Now, of course, again, I am only talking about how they feel specifically, not exactly what is being said. And this is the statement that they put out. They said -- and this comes from Steven Cheung, the spokesperson for Donald Trump -- "This is a total and definitive victory for President Trump and the American people who elected him in the landslide. The Manhattan DA has conceded that this witch hunt cannot continue. The lawless case is now stayed, and President Trump's legal team is moving to get it dismissed once and for all."

Now, there are some things in there that are not true, but one thing that is true is that they are going to move to dismiss this case, and again, this is all part of what they saw as an overall tactic, not just with this case, but a number of cases. They wanted to delay everything past the election, and that included that sentencing.

Remember, the original sentencing was supposed to be before the election. They wanted everything to be delayed because they thought that if he could win, which, of course, we now know he did, that it would be a lot easier to get rid of, to dismiss these various cases, whether it be through running the Department of Justice or through now these concerns and questions about sentencing a President-elect, and after inauguration, the president of the United States. So they believe they have a strong case now to actually dismiss this, and they will be moving forward with that.

Of course, as we've been reporting, this is all going to be in the hands of the judge. This is just the first action. However, Donald Trump's team feels very good right now.

SANCHEZ: Now, Paula, you were getting reaction from a source literally 30 seconds before we went on air. What are you hearing?

REID: Yeah, to dovetail what Kristen said. I mean, this is viewed internally as an enormous victory. Remember, this case was defended. Trump was convicted. This case was defended by Todd Blanche, Trump's nominee to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. They have successfully delayed this sentencing, and now they will litigate this issue of the constitutional protections that a President-elect is entitled to, and this parallels a similar conversation that we're seeing related to Trump's federal cases.

Jack Smith is in conversations with top Justice Department officials. He believes that it's pretty clear that based on internal Justice Department guidance, you cannot continue cases against a President- elect, and they're working out the mechanics of winding those down, likely dissolving those cases, before Trump gets into office.

The difference between the federal cases, though, and the state cases, the federal cases, Trump, if he -- once he gets in the White House, he could have his attorney general dismiss them. That is not the case at the state level. So now his lawyers really need to succeed on this constitutional issue if they don't want to face this sentencing, potentially, in about four and a half years.

[13:10:04]

KEILAR: Carrie, I wonder, when voters reelected Donald Trump, did they essentially give him a stay on everything? This was the one case where he had been convicted, and there are a bunch of others that are in various states of being either rolled back or they're just so far delayed, they could be picked up again in four years. But like I said, a lot can change in four years. Did they essentially erase, potentially, the fact that he will ever face the music on anything?

CORDERO: Well, whether that motivated them or not, I'll leave to the political commentators, but with respect to the practical impact, the practical impact is that a President-elect and a president is in a unique position when it comes to prosecution. And specifically with respect to these federal cases, the longstanding Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel assessment is that you cannot have an ongoing prosecution of a sitting president. And so whether or not that is what voters intended, that is the practical result.

KEILAR: And that the punting of it could mean that it is delayed in such a way that he doesn't face the music.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

REID: Look, they succeeded spectacularly.

SANCHEZ: Yeah.

REID: They said for all his two state cases, his two federal cases, I've been talking to his lawyers for years, they just wanted to delay, delay, delay, get him reelected so the federal cases go away, the state cases are on ice. This is the manifestation of that plan they set in motion years ago.

SANCHEZ: To that point, Elie, this plan by the Trump team that they've been pushing now, pursuing for upwards of two years, it worked.

HONIG: For sure, it did. I mean, Paula and Carrie are exactly right. There's not going to be prison time for Donald Trump. Nowhere in the foreseeable future, that's just a reality.

And it is true that Donald Trump's strategy was to delay, but I think it's important to add any cognizant, half-decent defense lawyer would have made the exact same strategy, would have raised the immunity defense that ultimately succeeded to the Supreme Court.

And I know that can be frustrating for people. How can somebody who's been convicted of one crime and indicted four times face no consequences while the clock ran out? And if you want to apportion blame for why the clock ran out, let's remember when these cases were indicted. It took two and a half years, over two and a half years, for DOJ to get these things indicted.

And by that point, I wrote well in advance of that, the clock's already run out. Merrick Garland just doesn't realize it yet. Well, here we are, and the clock's run out. So this is our system in progress. It's highly imperfect. And as Carrie was saying, we like to say no person is above the law in this country. But the fact is, one person largely is, and that's the president, because of the immunity ruling and because of the DOJ policy that Paula and Carrie were just talking about. That's just sort of the cold, hard reality of the way our system works. KEILAR: It certainly is. Everyone, thank you so much for your insights.

Still ahead, there's no signs of relenting. President-elect Trump applying some heavy pressure on Senate Republicans to confirm his embattled attorney general pick, Matt Gaetz, as some in his party push for the release of Gaetz's House Ethics report.

SANCHEZ: Plus, doctors are calling it a life-giving procedure. A suicide survivor who was left severely disfigured getting a second chance at life thanks to a new face.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:48]

KEILAR: Matt Gaetz is personally lobbying to ensure that he becomes the nation's top prosecutor. We're learning the former Congressman is now directly calling Republican senators, urging them to give him a shot as attorney general. President-elect Trump, meantime, doubling down on his controversial pick.

Sources telling CNN that he's also calling GOP senators to support Gaetz despite growing apprehension on Capitol Hill, with some lawmakers saying they want to see a House Ethics report on allegations of sexual misconduct against Gaetz. A lawyer for two of the women who testified for that report spoke with CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOEL LEPPARD, LAWYER FOR TWO WOMEN WHO TESTIFIED ON GAETZ SEX ALLEGATIONS: The testimony before the House was yes, that Representative Gaetz paid my client, both of my clients, for sexual favors throughout the summer of 2017 all the way to the beginning of 2019. She testified to the House that as she was walking out to the pool area she turned to her right and she witnessed her client -- I'm sorry, her friend having sex with Representative Gaetz, and her friend at that time was 17.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The lawyer also said his client did not believe that Gaetz knew at the time that her friend was underage. And Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is back with us now from West Palm Beach, near Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. And Kristen, tell us more about this pressure campaign that is building to ensure that Gaetz gets through despite the controversy over what's happened here.

HOLMES: Yeah, Brianna, moments ago, Alayna Treene and Manu Raju, two of our colleagues, reporting that this pressure campaign is extending to in-person visits, and that Vice Presidential Nominee or elect J.D. Vance is actually taking a number of Trump's cabinet picks up to the Hill this week to meet with various senators, and among them is Matt Gaetz. But as you said, Donald Trump himself has doubled down on this idea that Matt Gaetz has to be Attorney General.

Now, of course it's all coming before we've even seen this Ethics report, it does seem likely at some point we will get at least an idea of what is inside of it with more details. But as of right this second, Donald Trump has told everyone around him that the most important thing that he wants to get done is get Matt Gaetz confirmed. And that's why he has been personally calling a number of senators up on the Hill, trying to lobby for support, asking what their reservations are.

[13:20:08]

And I was told that Donald Trump has acknowledged to allies close to him that he doesn't believe that Matt Gaetz at this point has the actual votes to get confirmed, but that's part of this pressure campaign.

Now, when it comes to some of his other cabinet picks who might be incredibly controversial, talking about RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, some of them are going to be up on the Hill with J.D. Vance. But I'm also told that Donald Trump has said that no matter what happens with other candidates, Donald Trump himself is all in on Matt Gaetz. That to him is the most important pick, and that's not surprising given what we have been reporting since even before Donald Trump was actually elected, that he had always said that if he was to be elected, the most important post in his administration would be Attorney General, and I'm told that because he hand-selected Matt Gaetz, that is part of the reason that he has continued to double down on the efforts here to get him confirmed.

KEILAR: All right, Kristen Holmes, thank you for the report from West Palm Beach.

Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss the latest with Republican Congresswoman of Florida Anna Paulina Luna. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us.

Let's start with this pick to lead the Department of Justice, Matt Gaetz. This is a pick that you've celebrated and defended, even against criticism from fellow Republicans. I want to get your response to this attorney for the two women who testified before the House Ethics Committee saying that Gaetz paid them for sex over ten times during a two-year period.

One of them alleging that Gaetz unknowingly had sex with an underage woman at one point. All allegations that he has denied. Have you been able to review their testimony? How much of it have you seen?

REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): I've been able to get first-hand knowledge from the Department of Justice and FBI once they came out and acquitted Gaetz and actually dropped their investigation into him because they found that all those allegations, as you had just stated, were actually unfounded. You know, I really would appreciate it if networks would cover the fact that this was also tied to a $25 million extortion scheme against Matt Gaetz and his father.

And to furthermore, you know, I find it interesting that these actual allegations come out at peculiar timing. While he's being nominated to be the Attorney General, to be clear, I do think Matt Gaetz is going to be an incredible Attorney General. I think this baseless smear campaign, frankly, is abhorrent that it's happening to someone like Matt Gaetz who's done so much to fight the government corruption. And there's a reason why President Trump won not just the popular vote, but also the electorate vote. Frankly, people trust President Trump's judgment more than any news outlet out there.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, I just want to clarify something. You said you got direct firsthand accounts from DOJ and the FBI when they declined to prosecute him criminally. Were you able to review the testimony yourself?

LUNA: What I can tell you is they came out in a public statement and actually had dropped charges against Representative Matt Gaetz. That's what I mean by that. And frankly, what I'm finding is these baseless allegations, when people go out there and smear reputations, this happened to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, this happens to a lot of male Republicans or people that are nominated to positions of power.

And frankly, as someone who knows Representative Gaetz, you know, when I was first elected to Congress, I think it's incredibly important for women out there to know, I was only a few months pregnant. I had a reporter come up to me and ask me how many members of Congress I had had sex with, also alleging that I had a relationship with Matt Gaetz, which was categorically false.

But the reason why they did that is because I was standing up against the machine that exists here in Washington, D.C. So be aware that these types of smear campaigns do exist. That's why I've been so adamant about getting the facts out there. And I still back him. Frankly, I think that if the DOJ and the FBI had evidence, they would have prosecuted, because Matt Gaetz is a thorn in their side. But that's exactly why I think it's important for your network, especially to put the facts out there, and that's why I chose to came on today.

SANCHEZ: Well, we appreciate you coming on, Congresswoman. As you know, the DOJ declined to prosecute Gaetz because they had doubts about whether the central witnesses would be perceived as credible by a jury. Shouldn't the Senate, as it weighs this nomination, have access to the testimony of these women, to see it for themselves, to gauge for themselves whether these accusations are credible?

LUNA: You know, I will say this. I think Representative Gaetz would be incredible at explaining this to the American people, and I think he has -- I think he's anticipating on doing that. But what I don't want to have happen is there to be a political, intentional release of information that's false and only done to smear someone.

And I think that's exactly what you have happening now. You know, it's not by coincidence that you had someone apparently hack the emails or hack into the system to receive some of that testimony, but if the DOJ and the FBI had issues and questions of credibility, then why would we then even allow that person to have a platform?

I'm sure you know, being in the public eye, that you've probably had people say things about you that are simply not true. And I think that that's what's happening in this instance. What's really unfortunate, though, is that the American people are not being given the facts. And the facts is that this man, Matt Gaetz, was actually extorted for over $25 million with his family.

[13:25:09]

His father had to wear a wire that the FBI advised him to do so, and as a result of that, the people that were trying to extort him ultimately were saying that they were going to make these allegations go away.

So if you have that type of corruption that exists out of the Department of Justice, I could not be happier that President Trump is putting someone like Matt Gaetz in charge, because I know that he's absolutely going to weed out the corruption.

And mind you, Merrick Garland defied subpoenas to Congress. He broke the law, and he's in the sitting seat of the Attorney General. If you have someone there, how can you have a truly equal system in this country? Frankly, no one is above the law. I'm sure that my friend Matt Gaetz would say the same thing, and that's exactly why I continue to back him and President Trump's choice --

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Sure. Congresswoman, you're claiming that the Department of Justice is corrupt, though they declined to prosecute Gaetz. They also declined to go after President Biden over his classified documents, and during that chapter, you demanded transparency. You pushed to get the Robert Hur tapes released.

You wanted to actually hold Merrick Garland in contempt, and you wrote, quote --

LUNA: I did.

SANCHEZ: "For Congress to legislate effectively, we must have access to the information that will enable us to make informed decisions. When Congress is denied this crucial information, we are left to navigate complex issues in the dark." Can the Senate make a proper decision about Gaetz's nomination without weighing the testimony that is in this House Ethics Report?

LUNA: I think that when you run the risk of having an uncredible witness that not just the DOJ, but the FBI declined to prosecute Gaetz on, I think that you then open up a can of worms to having any Joe Schmoe out there bringing forward testimony that might not be credible against any cabinet --

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: This isn't just -- Congresswoman, respectfully -- respectfully, this isn't just any Joe Schmoe. This is testimony that was given to the House Ethics Committee. This is a report, a bipartisan report that's been compiled that Republican Senators are now asking for, should it not be released?

LUNA: This is -- yeah, this is the same testimony that was, again, dropped by the DOJ and the FBI because these people were not credible. And I will say that for the Senators that are coming forward and stating that they need to read this testimony, let's look into these people's stocks, portfolios, and how they're becoming multi- millionaires off of $175,000 a year.

The reason why people want outsiders, the reason why people are not buying this Gaetz smear campaign, and that is exactly what it is, is because of the fact that they understand that there is a two-tiered justice system.

You know, you mentioned earlier that I do think the DOJ is corrupt. Absolutely. When I find that they're giving special treatment to the Attorney General, that he doesn't have to testify to Congress, yet if any single other American does that, they go to jail, that is absolutely government corruption. But when you're then talking about cabinet picks, you're talking about an Ethics investigation.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Matt Gaetz has also been investigated for campaign -- or misuse of campaign funds that were also dropped. So the fact is that Matt Gaetz has, again, time and time again, stood up to the swamp.

Frankly, I know him as a person, I know his family. And I have been able to be privy to the conversations behind closed doors of members looking forward to this leaked Ethics report because they know that it's going to smear him.

I'm not going to state who the members are, but what I will state is that that type of behavior, putting this forward to the American people, smearing Matt Gaetz's reputation, and then also undercutting the credibility of President Trump, who, again, the American people trust to lead this nation, I'm not going to play that game.

Frankly, I hope that Congress can get back to focusing on why we're avoiding a war with Ukraine and Russia.

SANCHEZ: I do want to go back to something you said, Congresswoman, because these are Republicans -- the Republicans asking for this House Ethics report to be released, it's people like Senator John Cornyn of Texas. It'd be hard to describe him as anything but aligned with MAGA. Are you suggesting that there's something in his stock portfolio that's questionable?

LUNA: I'm suggesting that John Cornyn to my knowledge made statements that was actually anti-MAGA about President Trump and same with the new elected Senate leader, but I will say that Thune has since changed his tune and it seems like he's more aligned with MAGA and President Trump.

So I will say that, you know, it's interesting that people -- (CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: When they ask for -- when they ask for the House Ethics report, do you think that there's something corrupt about that? When they're asking for testimony, when they're asking for this report, again a bipartisan report, do you think there's something unethical about that?

LUNA: I think that what's unethical about it is that this has been shut down, that they're not requesting reports on other people who are knowingly under investigation currently, and that those people from the get-go have not wanted Matt Gaetz to be the Attorney General pick.

So in my mind, yes, it's absolutely a smear campaign being that that actual investigation per the DOJ and also separate agency of the FBI were dropped, that they're not covering the fact that there was an extortion claim tied to it, and the fact is, and I believe that Matt Gaetz is innocent.

SANCHEZ: We do have to leave the conversation there. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, thank you so much for joining us. Look forward to having you on again sometime.

LUNA: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead, 1,000 days of war, and now a major escalation. Ukraine hitting Russian territory with U.S.-made missiles as Vladimir Putin broadens Russia's nuclear doctrine, hinting at a potentially devastating response. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)