Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview With Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY); Special Counsel Ending Trump Election Subversion Case; Menendez Brothers Set to Appear in Court. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired November 25, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Just minutes from now, the Menendez brothers are set to appear in court for the first time in nearly 30 years, decades after they were sentenced to life in prison for murdering their parents. We will have the latest on their bid for release.

Plus, a controversial past making for an uncertain future. Some of the president-elect's picks for key administration roles are facing a serious battle to get confirmed. We have some new reporting on how the Trump team is preparing.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And how do you go about hiding more than $150 million in expenses? A former Macy's employee did just that. How the retail giant found out, and now what happens next?

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: We begin this hour with one of Los Angeles' most infamous murder cases back in the spotlight today.

Just minutes from now, Lyle and Erik Menendez will be facing a judge for their first court appearance in nearly 30 years. The brothers have been serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for killing their parents in their Beverly Hills home back in 1989. But their lawyers want the court to consider new evidence, which they say bolsters the defense's argument that the pair feared for their lives after suffering years of sexual and other abuse at the hands of their father.

SANCHEZ: The two men were last seen in public in 1996 during their joint trial, where a judge excluded much of the sex abuse evidence. They were previously tried separately, which ended in two deadlocked juries.

CNN's Jean Casarez joins us now with more on this.

Jean, what can we expect from this hearing today?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, just to have it happen is a very, very significant factor here, because, just as you said, it's been over two decades, well over two decades, that they have appeared in court at all.

And according to the upcoming district attorney, and George Gascon, who is outgoing as the district attorney of Los Angeles County, there are various roads to have them gaining their freedom. First of all, it's what is going to be the focus today.

It's a habeas corpus petition that was filed in 2023 by the defense. George Gascon's office did not act on it, did not mention it, but now finally it has come into a courtroom. Now, this is a status hearing.

And so a status hearing can be, let's just check to see where everybody is until we get to the main hearing, or it could go farther because it's up to the judge where he wants to take this today. But the habeas petition is really focused on two main issues, number one, a letter that Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin the months before the murders, according to the defense.

That letter, they are alleging, was undiscoverable at the time of trial, so the jury did not get to see it. But in that letter, he says: "I'm scared of my father. I'm scared he's going to come into my bedroom at night."

Now, the cousin actually did testify in the trial, but the letter did not come into the trial. So they're saying that, if there was a new jury, that they could find them not guilty because of this letter.

Number two, a member of the group Menudo has come forward saying that he was sexually assaulted by Jose Menendez, the father of Erik and Lyle, when he was a young boy, because Jose Menendez was a record executive. He dealt with Menudo. And they are saying once again, if a jury had known this, that there could be a different verdict.

So that's what the issue is with the habeas petition, which we understand, according to upcoming DA Hochman, will be focused on today in court.

KEILAR: It's also just so many years later. It's a different time when it comes to understanding of sexual abuse of men and boys. So you also have that as well.

And there's this other hearing, Jean, for the Menendez brothers that's set for about two weeks from now, December 11. Tell us about this one.

CASAREZ: Well, this one is the other road, and this would be on rehabilitation.

Now, next week, Nathan Hochman becomes the district attorney. He's a different district attorney, he's going to be, than Gascon, because he campaigned on tough sentencing, smart sentencing, but fair sentencing. He says that he hasn't even begun to look at the record yet.

But this one is based on rehabilitation, which California law has focused on, saying that both of these brothers have really participated in programs inside the prison. First of all, Lyle Menendez, he has gotten his bachelor's degree from the University of California-Irvine while he's been in prison. He's created programs inside the prison, rehabilitation through

beautification, adverse childhood experience to help counsel and talk with other inmates, and then also the juvenile life without paroles, because he can understand that better than anyone to counsel those that are sentenced to life without parole.

[13:05:15]

Now, Erik, he got his associates degree. He actually learned and got a certificate in sign language to help those that are profoundly deaf in prison. He created other programs, victim impact, victim sympathy for vulnerable populations.

So that's going to be the focus. But we have to remember one thing. This was a premeditated double murder, because the father, they alleged, sexually assaulted them, but at the time of trial they thought their mother knew, but they weren't sure.

But there are two life sentences here that we can't forget. The second thing that I think is important, is George Gascon publicly said that, within his office, there's all these associate and assistant district attorneys. He said there was a lot of division, that a lot of them did not believe they should be released.

So how does that factor in to where the prosecution with the upcoming DA will actually have their position?

SANCHEZ: Yes, it'll be fascinating to watch.

Jean Casarez, thank you so much for bringing us up to date.

Let's discuss with Dominic Patten, who is executive editor of Deadline Hollywood, and Brian Claypool, a criminal defense and trial attorney.

Thank you both for being with us.

Brian, what are you anticipating today from this hearing?

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, ATTORNEY: Yes, hey, Boris. Great to be with you.

Look, what I think this judge is going to do is, he's going to consolidate the two matters that Jean just talked about. You have got a habeas corpus petition and then you also have what's called a request for resentencing. That's what she was talking about, where the Menendez brothers legal team has said to the judge, look, there's a law in California that says that if you commit a murder and you're under 26, that you are eligible for parole after 35 years, so 35 to life, not life without the possibility of parole.

And the Menendez legal team is also arguing that the court needs to consider what Jean talked about, that note that one of the Menendez brothers wrote a month before the second trial happened, and that would be used then like a mitigation factor, right, to then have this judge eventually rule, yes, we will resentence.

And then if he says yes to that, then it's got to go to a parole board then too. So this thing is not going to be wrapped up today or any time soon. I expect there to be probably a consolidation of both these hearings and then a new court date set probably a few weeks later to allow the new DA, Nathan Hochman, also to weigh in on what his recommendation is going to be.

KEILAR: And, Dominic, there was so much drama around the trials. People may not even remember. There were multiple. There were two trials, one that ended without a verdict, the second one that did, the first one that allowed testimony about the alleged sexual abuse.

The second one, according to the defense, did not, and obviously a very different outcome. And then you also had just the time in which this was happening, of course, which was the proximity to the O.J. Simpson case in California. It's hard to overstate how much was going on and how much of a focus and how much drama revolved around these trials.

DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD: Yes, absolutely, Brianna.

And I would say, Jean's excellent introduction segment really laid out the stakes here, but I would also say -- excuse me -- one of the things we have to consider here is internal California politics. We have talked about the new DA. We have talked about the old DA. We have talked about the fact that the lawyers for the families, members of the families want these two released.

And this will be in a virtual appearance, what we understand, the first time the Menendez brothers have been seen together in public in decades. But we also have the overriding factor of Governor Gavin Newsom, who has been asked for clemency in this, has been requested.

And he has said, as Deadline reported last week, he said, I'm not doing anything until the new DA gets in. So there's a lot of hurry up and wait here. I agree with my co-guest here. We might see a consolidation, but we are -- and I also agree with my co-guest here -- we are not going to see this resolved today.

KEILAR: Yes, certainly.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

And, Brian, as Jean talked about, there are several pathways for the Menendez brothers that could lead to their release. There was discussion over a new trial, the resentencing, and then obviously the potential for Gavin Newsom to step in and grant clemency.

Which do you see as the most likely path?

CLAYPOOL: Yes, great question, Boris.

The most seamless route for the Menendez team is a resentencing hearing. They don't want to go do a new trial. These two young men at the time of the murder, they admitted they committed the murder. So the best you're going to get if you go to trial again is exactly what they're speaking in the resentencing, which is 35 to life. And so that's the easiest way to get there. And I think they have got

a decent chance. I have represented over 150 victims of child sexual abuse. Many of those victims now are adults. And I will tell you, Boris and Brianna, that these people are living in a different bubble.

[13:10:15]

They have a lot of PTSD. And each victim of sexual abuse responds to the abuse and the PTSD in a unique way. And I think that's a factor that this judge is going to consider. One last point I want to make is, Gascon actually made a good point at his press conference a couple weeks ago.

He said, look, I have resentenced over 300 criminal defendants in my four-year term. Of those 300 that were resentenced, only 14 had a recidivism rate or committed another crime. That's less than 5 percent. So I think that's a compelling factor that the judge will -- I think the judge will ultimately take this up, will set a new hearing date.

And I think you're likely to probably see a resentencing.

KEILAR: OK. So, Dominic, they have a chance. But what are the things -- and you mentioned the internal politics, for instance, the local politics, and that may have also played as well in their initial conviction.

What are the things that they have, sort of the winds in their face that could mean they don't actually ultimately see any kind of reprieve here?

PATTEN: Oh, sorry, Brianna, do you mean that you -- are you saying that there might be a case where they may not get out early?

KEILAR: That's right.

PATTEN: Well, I mean, I would say a lot of things.

I mean, I think that Brian, Jean mentioned it. You guys mentioned it as well. There's a new sheriff in town, figuratively, and Nathan Hochman has got elected on a be tough on crime in a city that's been greatly worried about crime rates rising.

This was something that came up during the DA debates earlier this year, where the now incoming DA said to the incumbent, look, man, you're just doing this for P.R. You have had this on your desk for over a year. You have done nothing.

And we have seen, we should talk about this, the power of Netflix in this. There was the Netflix series, the drama by Ryan Murphy, "Monsters," that was about the brothers. There was a documentary on Peacock last year which revealed this new evidence from the cousin who got the letter.

Who have now -- we have obviously, as Jean mentioned, seen the member of Menudo who talked about being abused by the elder Menendez. All those factors are important. And I have also -- as I mentioned earlier, there are members of the family who want the siblings released.

But let's be clear. There are also members of the family who do not want them released. And, as Jean said, this was a double murder. To talk about Jose Menendez, that has been pretty strongly established. And we do live in a different time when it comes to talking about male sexual abuse.

Kitty Menendez, on the other hand, let's be clear. Those boys -- and they were not boys at the time. They were young men. They followed their mother down the hall with shotguns. During that second trial, photos of her were shown in the courtroom day after day after day, photos that were a horrific scene of what had happened.

That has to play a factor. No one denies these killings happened. We have to ask ourselves, in changing culture, in changing times and changing DAs, will those pieces of evidence sway either way?

KEILAR: Yes, and yet, as you mentioned, divided family members, including relatives of Kitty Menendez. It really is fascinating, so many moving parts here to watch.

Dominic, Brian, thank you so much to both of you.

CLAYPOOL: Thank you.

PATTEN: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

KEILAR: And to you as well.

Ahead this hour on NEWS CENTRAL: preparing for a battle and maybe a few battles. What we're learning about the Trump team's strategy, as some of the president-elect's Cabinet picks face confirmation hearings.

SANCHEZ: Plus, a major step in a potential cease-fire in the Middle East, the Israeli Cabinet set to vote on a deal tomorrow with Hezbollah. We will take you live at Jerusalem with the latest on these negotiations.

And a new study that says vaping can seriously affect your health, and the impacts can happen almost immediately. Details in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:18:27]

KEILAR: All right, we have some breaking news.

Let's straight to our Paula Reid.

And, Paula, we understand that Jack Smith, special counsel, has weighed in on the status of one of Trump's cases. what can you tell us?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's right.

Special counsel Jack Smith is saying that he is going to move to dismiss one of the two criminal cases against president-elect Trump. Here, he is referring to the election subversion case that he filed against president-elect Trump two years ago.

He is saying that -- quote -- "The country has never faced the circumstances here where you have a pending criminal case against a president-elect."

There is internal Justice Department guidance that says you cannot indict or prosecute a sitting president, and here Jack Smith saying that -- quote -- "This also applies to this situation, where you have a president-elect."

So he is moving to dismiss the election subversion case against Trump. Now, of course, Trump is facing two federal cases, both brought by the special counsel, Jack Smith, this election subversion case, and then also the classified documents case down in Mar-a-Lago.

Now, we have reported that the Justice Department and the special counsel's office have been in conversations about exactly how they want to wind down these cases. Now, we have not heard specifically about the Mar-a-Lago documents case yet. That is a little more complicated in terms of winding down, because, of course, Trump has to co-defendants there who are not presidents-elect.

So we will be watching to see what the special counsel does here. But in terms of the special counsel's case against Trump related to January 6 and his alleged efforts to interfere with the outcome of the 2020 election, here, Jack Smith asking to dismiss this case.

[13:20:05]

Now, this is not a big surprise. A short time ago, a couple weeks ago, Smith has asked the court for more time to -- quote -- "assess the unprecedented circumstances" of having a pending case against a president-elect. And they asked the court for more time to assess what they should do.

And, again, not a huge surprise that they were going to ask to dismiss this case, because the president-elect has made it clear. Once he's in office, he intends to fire Smith and get rid of his entire office. It's also expected he would get rid of the two cases against him. He can do that as president. He can have his attorney general fire the special counsel, dismiss cases.

But, here, it looks like Jack Smith trying to beat him to it and asking this case to be dismissed. And we're watching and waiting to see if we get a similar filing related to that other federal case pending against the president-elect down in Florida related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents.

SANCHEZ: Paula, as you said, these filings not coming as a surprise, given that Donald Trump won the 2024 election. But stepping back, put this into context for us more broadly, because

this is the closure of one of the most significant chapters of the legal woes that Trump has faced. These charges were filed more than a year-and-a-half ago, and a lot of work went into this.

REID: Yes, I mean, this must be devastating for the special counsel, Jack Smith.

He was brought in to handle these two cases. But the fact is, is that there is internal Justice Department guidance that says that you cannot indict or prosecute a sitting president. And they had to discuss with the leadership of the Justice Department, well, what do you do with a pending case against a president-elect?

And a source familiar with this thinking tells me, look, Smith is a rules guy. He wants to follow the procedures, the practices of the Justice Department, which is why he is moving to dismiss this case.

Now, what's also interesting about this case is, this is the case where the Supreme Court had to answer the question of whether the former president at that time, former President Trump, had any immunity to shield him from some of the charges in this case, because his lawyers argued that some of the allegations were related to his official conduct.

And the Supreme Court took roughly seven months to weigh in on that question. And, of course, they did rule that he had some immunity to protect him from prosecution. But if the Supreme Court had weighed in when Jack Smith initially asked them, roughly a year ago, last December, it is possible that the special counsel could have had time to bring some case, depending on what would remain after the Supreme Court's analysis.

But the Supreme Court, again, waiting seven months to reveal the answer to that question making it virtually impossible that the special counsel could bring this case. And this was really the only federal case that they could have realistically brought against Trump before the November election.

People on both sides of the aisle have told me that the classified documents case was going to take longer, no matter who the judge was, but, again, the special counsel definitely hindered by the Supreme Court taking so long here.

But, look, the Trump lawyers, they also deserve credit. They have very aggressively litigated on behalf of their client. Pretty much every conceivable constitutional claim that he could make, they have made it. And they were successful even beyond their expectations with the immunity argument at the Supreme Court.

But once he became president-elect, they made it clear they were going to press to have all of these cases tossed out. And if they weren't, Trump was going to have his attorney general do it once he or she got into office. So this is not a huge surprise, the special counsel moving to dismiss this historic case.

KEILAR: All right, Paula Reid, thank you so much.

SANCHEZ: Yes, please stand by, Paula.

We want to discuss this and more with Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman of New York. He sits on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Congressman, thank you so much for being with us.

Just right off the bat, your reaction to Jack Smith announcing that he will file to dismiss the charges in the election subversion case against former President Trump.

REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D-NY): Well, look, I certainly understand why he did it, given the Department of Justice policy that you cannot prosecute a sitting president.

I think it is a shame for justice in this country. It establishes that Donald Trump is above the law. The Supreme Court put him above the law in that opinion that Paula just mentioned. But now he appears to escape full accountability for what were crimes charged by a grand jury.

And I would just add one other thing that we ought to pay close attention to. We cannot normalize the fact that Donald Trump as the president-elect should not be held accountable for crimes that he committed before.

If he were to have fired the special counsel, that would be a gross abdication of the independence of the Department of Justice. And if the shoe were on the other foot, for example, and Joe Biden were to have fired David Weiss, who clearly had a politicized investigation, because the House Republicans effectively scuttled a plea agreement, everyone would be up in arms.

[13:25:02]

So let's make sure that we don't normalize Donald Trump's political partisan behavior that has no place under our rule of law.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, you know that the American people were well aware of the charges that Donald Trump is facing, was facing in this case and several others.

What do you make of the argument that they essentially served as a jury and by reelecting him and now making him president-elect, they have weighed in on these matters?

GOLDMAN: I don't give any credence to that argument.

I think what was very clear is that people voted for Donald Trump because they thought that he was going to improve the lives of the middle class, and perhaps, in addition, that he would secure the border. They did not vote for him to dismantle our democracy, to attack the Constitution, to politicize all of our agencies, and certainly not as a referendum on his criminal cases. Those cases should have been played out in a court of law. I believe

the attorney general should have started the investigation a lot earlier. I believe the Supreme Court should have moved much quicker in its opinion, and this shouldn't -- that Donald Trump should not have been able to run out the clock on these charges.

But I certainly don't think anything that came from the election was a reflection of support for Donald Trump getting rid of these cases, largely because the American people, as you and I as well, we don't know what the actual evidence is.

SANCHEZ: I mean, I imagine that a lot of voters had to know that those cases would go away if he were president, given what you said about the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity. That doesn't change the way you think about this at all, the fact that voters must have known that he wasn't going to prison or to be convicted of some of these crimes if he was going to be elected?

GOLDMAN: Well, look, I think ultimately the majority of voters who voted for Donald Trump decided that what they're dealing with in their day-to-day lives, understandably, matters a lot more than what's going on in a criminal court with Donald Trump.

I think it's sad. I think it should be disqualifying. But I certainly understand why people are more focused on their price of groceries, on their job prospects, on the affordability crisis.

But I do expect, Boris, that the special counsel will release a very detailed and exhaustive report outlining all of his evidence. That is the ordinary course for a special counsel when they wind down. And I would expect that the special counsel will do that before he leaves office.

SANCHEZ: And, Congressman, before we let you go, I have to ask you about this. You recently introduced a resolution to clarify the Constitution's two-term limit for presidents. Do you think that there's a serious push among Republicans to change federal law to allow Trump to run in 2028?

GOLDMAN: Well, let me just give you the example that I just mentioned, which is that it appears to have been completely normalized that Donald Trump could either pardon himself or dismiss criminal charges against him if he becomes president.

At one point, that was anathema, and everyone was like, oh, my God, that's crazy. That can't possibly be. It's the same thing now. This is how Donald Trump operates. He floats it. He normalizes it. And then it just becomes part of the common parlance.

And so we wanted to lay down a marker to say and put everyone on record, Republicans included, that the Constitution is very clear that he cannot serve another term. And what my fear is, is that, with him floating that, with some of his Cabinet picks, which clearly are prioritizing political loyalists, that Donald Trump is well on his way to dismantling our government and the way that it operates. And we in Congress, the Republicans especially in the Senate, need to

be a check and balance to ensure that our government continues to function for the people, not for Elon Musk and other billionaires.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Dan Goldman, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate you joining us, sir.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: We want to go back to CNN's Paula Reid, because I believe, Paula, you have a statement now from the Trump team about this news that the special counsel is ending his election subversion case.

REID: That's exactly right.

President-elect Trump spokesman Steven Cheung writes -- quote -- "The American people reelected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to make America great again. Today's decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump and is a major victory for the rule of law. The American people and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country."

Now, we should all bookmark that, Boris, because one of the big questions for Trump's attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, is whether she will try to weaponize the Justice Department. And that's a big question, because that's something Trump made clear on the campaign trail he wants to do. He wants to go back after his political rivals and use the Justice Department to target people that he is unhappy with.