Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Limits Obstruction Charges In January 6 Rioters Case. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired June 28, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: That has already been leveled against Donald Trump.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: That case will go forward either with all four current charges or with only the two non- obstruction charges. The question for them is do they keep them in? Or they try to go forward? Or do they take them out take a very conservative kind of careful course. I think there's a very strong argument to be made that Donald Trump's conduct in on January 6th, and related to January 6th, is fundamentally different to that of someone who just simply showed up to the Capitol engaged in violence and obstructed the proceeding in that way.

There are many pieces of evidence that they can use to tie Donald Trump's alleged conspiracy back to documents or to the effort to essentially delay the proceedings, to obstruct them in process, all that sort of stuff. So I think there are many arguments to be made to leave those charges in, but it will require really changing the sort of evidence that they think about putting in front of the jury.

BLITZER: So bottom line is basically a very encouraging good day for Donald Trump.

MCCABE: No question. Donald Trump benefits from this ruling, even if it's just in the context of creating numerous issues for him to challenge the indictment, to challenge the charges before this case ever goes strong.

BLITZER: And the process delay any criminal trials, which is what he's trying to do right, Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. I mean, the other thing, obviously, we're still waiting for is the immunity decision. So --

BLITZER: That has not come today?

PEREZ: That didn't come today. We're still waiting for it. But I think the context is important to sort of understand what Jack Smith and the Special Counsel are dealing with, they're going to be dealing with not only perhaps they've been preparing for this possibility, Wolf, we know that certainly for the last few weeks, the Special Counsel has been preparing for how to deal with it's not only with those other charges that the U.S. attorneys always has for some of the defendants, but also for Donald Trump.

And so what this means is, as I think Andy is alluding to is that, you know, they might have to refashion this indictment, you know, because they don't have that much time. If they want to try to go to trial, they may have to just drop certain things, both for this case and possibly the immunity decision, because that's going to look at official acts. So both of those things, I think our thought processes that they're going through at the Special Counsel's thought.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Could just real quick, we are all waiting on the immunity decision. We now know when it will come. It will arrive Monday morning because the Supreme Court announced that Monday is the final day for opinions in this term. It is one of the immunity decision is one of three that are remaining. So we will get that tune in 10:00 a.m. Monday, somewhere in the 10:00 to 10:30, 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. range Monday morning, we will have the answer on immunity.

BLITZER: Right. We will find out Monday morning then that's going to be a huge, huge moment indeed. I want to go back to CNN's Pamela Brown, she's over at the Supreme Court watching all of this unfold. I know you've got Paula Reid over there with you as well. Pamela, for viewers who are just tuning in right now here in the United States, or indeed around the world, update our viewers on the decision that has been released by the U.S. Supreme Court just now.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: A big decision coming out from the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is that the Department of Justice overstepped when it charged hundreds of January 6th rioters with this obstruction charge stemming from this 2002 law. So bottom line here is that this is a big blow to the Department of Justice and Special Counsel Jack Smith, and a win for January 6th defendants and potentially Donald Trump himself. This could benefit him too.

I want to bring in my colleague, Paula Reid, to really break this down. And we know that two of the felony charges Donald Trump faces in the election subversion case stems from this 2002 law that the justices are saying, that the Justice Department is essentially should not have used that it overstepped. How could this work to Donald Trump's advantage of this case?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is a question that his lawyers right now are trying to figure out. I've been in touch with his legal team. They have to read this opinion. It's actually quite an unusual sort of fractious opinion, with different people weighing in, sort of from different angles a little bit unexpected. And you can tell the Chief Justice John Roberts did not want this to be perceived as a Trump case, even though he knows that's exactly how it's going to be analyzed.

For example, he barely mentioned the attack on the U.S. Capitol that precipitated the charges in this attack, instead really focusing on the law at the center of this particular challenge, because this case was brought by a January 6th defendant, a former Pennsylvania police officer who said that the obstruction law that he was charged with one of seven counts he faced was not meant to apply to the conduct of January 6th. Instead, it was supposed to focus on congressional investigations of tampering with evidence.

Here, the Chief Justice who wrote this opinion just wrote that, you know, he's looking specifically at the text of the law and saying that the breach on January 6th of the Capitol caused members of Congress to evacuate the chambers and delay the certification process. So he's trying not necessarily to focus on the larger political analysis, instead he is focusing on the law itself and whether this is what it was meant to apply to.

[11:05:05]

Now the majority of the court finding that prosecutors have overstepped here. And this is something that is going to potentially impact a significant number of cases beyond just Trump's. But it is interesting to see in this case, they did not release it along with the other big question related to former President Trump. His question about immunity but even Trump's lawyers right now, they are reviewing this to figure out exactly how they can use it. I'm sure they will try to attack their client's case.

Now, as some of our colleagues said, I would expect that the special counsel would say, OK, the Supreme Court decided a case about January 6th, folks who were at the capitol that is completely different than what we have charged the former president with. So they're going to argue that this was about a different type of conduct, and maybe their case can still go forward. I know there are questions about whether the former president can still be charged at this trial can still go forward.

Look, I think that's possible. But Pamela, I think it's highly unlikely if you try to take the official Republican candidate for the presidency to trial in the months ahead of an election. We're going to be right back here before the Supreme Court with another unprecedented constitutional question. So right now, it's unclear what this means for the Trump case, specifically, but it's clear that the Chief Justice wanted this to be seen not just as something that could impact Trump, but a larger analysis of the specific obstruction of Congress law.

BROWN: Yes. And just to help our viewers further understand what you just so eloquently broke down. Basically, these January 6th defendants they were charged with this with physical intrusion, right? They said, look, this, this law was overly broad the way it was interpreted using this case, when it comes to Trump, the two felony charges he's facing similar to this law has to do with a fake slate of electors nothing having to do with physical intrusion, right. But the bottom line is he could use it to undermine the case, he could use it to try to further delay a trial.

And, you know, viewers at home might be thinking, oh, this is Trump's court, and they're wheeling in his favor. But there's actually some interesting and interesting concurrence from Justice Jackson, for example, right?

REID: Yes, who also agrees that this isn't what -- this is not the type of conduct that the specific statute was meant to criminalize. And I also want to talk beyond Trump about the other people who could -- who are most directly impacted by this. Approximately 250 cases involve this obstruction charge, and then they're still pending. Now 52 people have already been convicted and sentenced with this as their only felony, and 27 of those people are currently incarcerated. So you would expect there dozens of challenges attempting to overturn those cases.

So again, this has a direct impact on people who have been charged with obstruction related to January 6th, but it's a little less clear exactly what impact this will have on the former president. But yes, certainly not an example of a so called, you know, Trump PAC court or a super conservative majority helping Trump out, though I will say the fact that they have taken so long to take up his immunity question and taking so long to decide it, we expect on Monday, we'll get that decision, because that'd be the last day of opinions, that has helped the former President certainly, even though this specific opinion, does -- it's not clear how much it'll help him.

BROWN: Yes, because it comes down to a trial, potentially, right? And he could hold it off until after the election, you know, that obviously could really determine whether or not he ever goes to trial if he becomes president, if he does win the election, he conspired himself, or he could tell DOJ dropped the case. So it all factors into that, including this ruling here today. Paul Reid, thank you so much. Wolf Blitzer, back to you.

BLITZER: All right. Pamela and Paula, to both of you, thank you very much.

I want to bring in Tim Parlatore, our a CNN legal commentator, to get your assessment, and specifically what it means let's start off smaller picture what it means for Trump.

TIM PARLATORE, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So I think that does have a significant impact. You know, this is something where the indictment as written right now can't proceed. I just want to look at it real quick --

BLITZER: Four criminal charges leveled against Trump by the Special Counsel Jack Smith.

PARLATORE: Right, not the entirety. But the two of those counts, the way that they're written right now, I think it has to be amended, because he does actually right in the indictment. This exact same theory about the delay -- the attack on the capital cause, you know, obstructed by delaying the certification. And so at a minimum, they're going to have to go back to the grand jury and get a superseding indictment if they want to proceed on these two charges.

If instead, they want to go forward and try and get to trial as quickly as possible, then the smart thing to do is just simply drop them out and dismiss those two charges. But moving forward with the indictment as it sits right now, I don't think it's something that's viable. And that's not even considering the immunity. One of the interesting things I found about the immunity argument is because it potentially is going to separate the conduct of, you know, being the chief executive from being the candidate, one of the things to me is these obstruction counts always relied upon his conduct as a candidate, as opposed to the chief executives.

There's not really an argument to apply immunity to these two counts. So taken together that can, you know, have a significant impact whereas if this decision had gone the other way and there was a partial immunity at least the obstruction counts will go forward or the other way around so it does kind of cut up the indictment in a very interesting way. And either way, I don't see how Jack Smith can really push this thing forward to trial without taking it back to the grand jury.

[11:10:17]

BLITZER: These obstruction charges, they're felonies, right?

PARLATORE: Yes, they are.

BLITZER: So that's serious misdemeanor, it's a felony.

PARLATORE: Correct. And in fact, with a lot of the protests or cases, it was the most significant felony that they use, they took something where they had a lot of good solid misdemeanor counts, and elevate it up to a felony by adding this.

BLITZER: And --

PEREZ: And also the vast majority of people who were charged with this, were also charged with committing violence.

PARLATORE: Oh, sure.

BLITZER: They either pleaded guilty, or they're serving time right now in jail. They were convicted.

PEREZ: As Tim has pointed out, you know, just over 50 people have only this charge, but the others and including Fisher, you know, accused of other, you know, other charges, so.

HONIG: DOJ now has a couple of really difficult and important decisions to make. First of all, as Tim was saying, what does Jack Smith do with the two obstruction charges? If he drops them, it's really the cleanest way to do it, then he can maybe still get to trial on the conspiracy charges. But it's worth noting, they're the most serious charges in the case, the two obstruction charges both carry 20 year maximums, the other conspiracy charges carry 10 and five year maximums.

Bigger picture, DOJ now has to decide what do we do with the 300 or so cases where we have charges? I think the right thing to do just the ethical thing to do prosecutorially to say, OK, we were wrong. We give all those convictions back. There's a way DOJ could try to argue it and say, well, it doesn't apply backwards or something like that. But I think DOJ is going to have to give up those other 300 cases, at least the obstruction charges.

BLITZER: As soon as we get word from the Department of Justice, Evan, let us know what they've said.

PEREZ: Right. I mean, and I think, you know, the other problem for the Justice Department is that, you know, the amount of manpower it took and more manpower it took to do these cases in the first place. They don't have many of those people still to do this, if you're going to relitigate 200 plus cases. I mean, it has been a gargantuan task for the U.S. attorney's office to do this so far.

BLITZER: Kristen Holmes, our CNN national correspondent covering the Trump campaign is in Chesapeake, Virginia for us right now. What are you hearing? What's the reaction? What are you getting so far?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So talked about the campaign and some of the legal advisors that talk to campaign and there's lawyers on a regular basis. And here's what they are looking at, just a reminder, everything is tied together when it comes to Donald Trump in terms of legal and politics. So when it comes down to legal, as Paula said, they are really reviewing this now with a fine tooth comb coming up with what exactly this means for that Jack Smith case.

In the best case scenario, they dropped two of the obstruction charges. But what I'm hearing from these legal advisors is that they also would be happy if this just weakened some of those obstruction charges. That's what they're looking at carefully. And they also believe that no matter what this ruling says about those people who participated in January 6th, that Jack Smith is likely to come back and say this doesn't apply to the former president, who I believe, as Evan said, did a lot of different actions and went further than a lot of these people on January 6th.

Now, part of this that is political is the fact that Donald Trump has really run on this idea that not only he but his supporters are victims of political persecution that the Justice Department under Joe Biden has gone too far. Obviously, as we know, Joe Biden does not control the Justice Department. But if you are looking this at this, particularly and specifically just as spin from Donald Trump, you can imagine he is going to be celebrating this particularly or probably here in Chesapeake today, where he'll be later, when he gives his first rally post-debate.

They want to be able to say, look, we have said time and time again that this was law fair that they were targeting Trump supporters on January 6th. And now the Supreme Court is agreeing with us that the Justice Department went too far. Now whether or not you believe that or not, that is not the point that I'm trying to make. The point that I'm trying to make is that Donald Trump has built an entire campaign, this cycle in 2024, of saying that his legal issues and supporter's legal issues are all linked to the Biden Justice Department going too far. And they will now use this to say this is evidence of their argument.

BLITZER: And then Kristen, and I take it the people marching behind you are heading to that Trump rally in Chesapeake, Virginia, is that right? HOLMES: Yes. There are hundreds of people here in Chesapeake, Virginia. He's going to be here around 3pm to deliver a speech again. It is his first speech post-debate. It's really interesting. I've talked to a number of his advisers, obviously, as we've been reporting all morning, his advisors are celebrating last night's debate. But the other part of this that was fascinating to me was that a lot of his allies hope that he doesn't focus too much on attacking Joe Biden here, that he takes the win, that he does a victory lap, but then lets it go because they believe that the debate itself speaks for itself.

Again, Donald Trump often can't control himself and what he does up on that stage particularly in a crowd like today, where they say they are expecting hundreds if not thousands of people. We obviously we'll wait and see who shows up. It will be hard for Donald Trump to stay on message. But that's the hope is when you talk to a specifically those in Trump's orbit, people who are close to him, and particularly those donors who want to see him be the next president.

[11:15:18]

BLITZER: Yes, so we'll see what happens at that rally today what Trump has to say, that's the first time he's going to be speaking out on what happened at the debate last night. Is that right?

HOLMES: It'll be the first time he's speaking out on the debate. He'll be up on that stage. And we really have not heard from him that much at all. There was rumor and speculation that he would show up in the spin room at one point talk -- or deliver interviews. That clearly didn't happen. When asked the senior advisor what the plan was, they said, why would we need a plan? We feel really good right now in this moment. We don't want him out there talking more.

They feel like they again are celebrating what happened last night. They've been watching the social media reactions. Obviously the reactions that we've been reporting on both on the record and on background from anxious Democrats who are concerned about Biden's performance, they want to ride this wave as long as they can.

BLITZER: Lots going on right now. Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for that report. We're going to squeeze in a quick break. We'll get back to all the breaking news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:55]

BLITZER: We have breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court, a major ruling about the January 6th rioters at the U.S. Capitol. I want to bring in our senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic. Joan, first of all, give us your reaction to this decision. It's a significant move. It affects a lot of those rioters who've already been convicted, pleaded guilty. Some of them are even serving time in jail right now. And this could have a big impact and potentially could have an impact on Donald Trump as well.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Right. Jack Smith's Special Counsel case against former President Donald Trump. Let me just tell you what happened in the courtroom when Chief Justice started reading this. It came at the end of an incredibly dramatic hour already where the justices had gone through cases involving homelessness claims to who were being ticketed in a city for sleeping out in public encampments. And then a major, major decision having to do with the power of federal agencies, both of those dissenting justices read statements from the bench.

And then suddenly, you know, we never know when we're in the room, how much else is coming in, and who's going to be the author. The chief says he has one more opinion to read. And that's when he announced his case. It's a pretty important case for the -- I think it's a statement in and of itself that the Chief Justice of the United States took this opinion, because, you know, there's a good chance he could be playing a strong hand in the opinion that's to come, and whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for many more charges.

So he starts reading this from the bench, and dissecting this provision that I know you've gone through already, you know, this provision that makes it a crime to corruptly obstruct, and official proceeding. And just what was the history of that proceeding. That statute and why Congress would have wanted it more narrowly read to only involve situations where there was some evidence involved destruction of evidence.

And he said, it's both the way the language of the statute works and the history, the post-Enron history that had related to this provision that Congress enacted, and also just the fact that to the courts usually embody a principle of more narrowly interpreting a statute that's going to apply to a defendants rather than reading it expansively. Instead, what the federal government is asking for here, in its interpretation of this criminal statute to not just Donald Trump in part of his charges, but so many January 6th defendants would potentially make lots of other conduct demonstrations, other protests potentially vulnerable to this.

And I just want to make the point after the chief goes through all the reasons why this statute cannot be read the way the government wants it read. No one dissented from the bench. And notably, we had a little bit of cross ideological support here. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, our newest justice liberal, joined the Chief Justice in the outcome of the case. And dissenting was, again, a bit of a surprise. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump appointee, and then the two liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, predictably dissented here, because we could tell from oral arguments that they really thought the government had good grounds to interpret the statute the way it was read.

And Justice Barrett, in her dissent, noted that, you know, the majority just doesn't want to read into a statute what Congress wrote into it, it's turning its back on it. So --

BLITZER: It was a six to three decision, right?

BISKUPIC: Exactly. Yes, yes. BLITZER: All right. Standby. I want to bring in former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. He served on the January 6th Select Committee. So congressman, what's your immediate reaction to this ruling?

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all, I think Monday if that's when the broader immunity question comes out, that's the one I'm most interested in, because to me, the one that really bears responsibility and the one that has to frankly, I don't know, I guess pay for his sins is the way to put it is Donald Trump. This one look, I mean, it's a little disappointing but at the same time, you know, as you guys were talking about this crosses ideological perspectives in my mind it is the role of the Supreme Court to make these interpretations.

[11:25:11]

And I respect the interpretation they make. I mean, we can't just as Americans pick and choose times that we respect what the Supreme Court is saying. And so in this case, I look at it and go, look, if this is their interpretation, great. It means Jack Smith obviously has to make decisions, maybe the drop counts against some people or to find a different way to charge other people. But I think there should be no doubt that people are still being held responsible for January 6th, as they shouldn't be.

BLITZER: The Chief Justice John Roberts, Congressman, hardly mentioned the attack on the U.S. Capitol in his majority, in the majority opinion released today by the Supreme Court. What do you make of that?

KINZINGER: Well, that doesn't really bother me too much. Because, again, I think and the Chief Justice, I really do trust to say, you know, look, he's trying to do what he thinks is right. I mean, this is a guy that's gone, liberal and conservative at different times. He's hard to predict. So I think he looks at this and says, it's less about bringing the idea of January 6th into this law. This is about let's just interpret what this law is and whether the government could use this in the way that they have charged the defendants.

And in my mind, that that is probably the right way to do it kind of agnostic of the emotion of that day, just to say this is what the law is or what the law isn't. But again, you know, I certainly hope Jack Smith finds a way to continue to prosecute these people that committed January 6th, including and ultimately Donald Trump.

BLITZER: And, Congressman, before I let you go very quickly, you were a Republican, and but now you've endorsed President Biden for reelection, give us your analysis, give us your reaction to the debate with Trump last night.

KINZINGER: It was not good. I mean, look at that -- the President had one job to do, which is show the American people that he was up to the task, and he fell short of that. I'm going to leave it to Democrats to figure out what to do next and how to go about it. I'll just say that, you know, they praise me a lot for doing the tough things on behalf of democracy. And Donald Trump in November is a real threat to democracy. So whatever needs to happen to make sure he doesn't win, that's what needs to happen.

BLITZER: So you think it would be a good idea for the President Biden to drop out and let some other Democrat challenge Trump?

KINZINGER: Look, I'm not going to go there because that's going to be a messy process. Democrats have to figure out how to put up the best candidate and that may be you know, Joe Biden, but how to put up the best candidate to defend democracy because the risk in November is not a joke. People need to remember what it was like under Donald Trump and what he's promised to do. Whatever it takes for us to make sure he doesn't win is what needs to happen.

BLITZER: Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, thanks so much for joining us.

KINZINGER: You bet. Take care.

BLITZER: And we'll be right back. More news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)