Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Manafort Defense Rests; Trump Former Aides Disputes Omarosa's Claim; Trump Bashes Omarosa. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired August 14, 2018 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00] REP. JERRY NADLER (D), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Of a very ugly president.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Congressman, I do have to cut in because we do have a little bit more breaking news coming in.

Thank you very much for your time.

I'm going to wrap up here.

NADLER: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: We have breaking news, the defense has just rested in the Paul Manafort trial. And with that, I'm going to think you right now. That's outside the courthouse. I'm going to hand this over to my colleague John King. "INSIDE POLITICS" starts right now.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King. Thank you for sharing your day with us.

Big, breaking news this hour. A big development in the Paul Manafort trial. Just moments ago, the defense resting without presenting a case, without calling any witnesses.

Also, Judge T.S. Ellis throwing out a motion by Manafort's lawyers. They hope to dismiss bank fraud and other charges against the former Trump campaign chairman.

Let's get straight to our crime and justice correspondent Shimon Prokupecz. He joins me now.

Shimon, this is a big risk taken by the defense team here deciding, no witnesses, no case.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, it's a huge risk. You know, this just happening moments ago, so we're sort of digesting it. Certainly we were not sure if Paul Manafort was going to put on a defense. Attorneys had not indicated to us that they would. We did not expect Manafort, of course, to take the stand.

But, nonetheless, you know, there is overwhelming evidence here by the prosecutors here, the special counsel team, and its evidence and the testimony that they put forth. So it is a little surprising that there is no case here, that they're not putting on any kind of a defense. It is a risky move. We'll see what they argue in closing arguments.

You know, of course, as you know, they've been making a big deal about Rick Gates here and how he was the person who was really responsible for this. And it looks like that's what they're going to stick with and they probably will just use information that they gathered during the trial on cross-examination of Rick Gates and other witnesses to sort of establish that. But it is, John, absolutely a huge risk not to put on any kind of defense. It'll be interesting, you know, once this trial is over, to see how jurors react to that and what they were thinking. Usually, you know, you're told by the judge -- jurors are told, if a defendant has not put on a case, you shouldn't view that negatively. But, nonetheless, you know, jurors perceive things. So that's going to be interesting.

And I guess now we'll just -- we'll have closing arguments and perhaps, you know, a verdict in the next day or two. But certainly this case is now over. Closing arguments will begin. And this is, John, no doubt, a huge risk by the defense.

KING: Shimon, stay with us.

I want to go to our correspondent, Joe Johns, who has been in Alexandria, Virginia, for the trial.

And, Joe, I understand, as this played out, there was some interaction between the defendant, the former Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and the judge.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, but very little. The judge essentially asking him if he wanted to testify, and he said no. And Shimon is absolutely right, it is a risky move for the defense, not only because jurors expect to hear from the defendant, but also because the defense loses the opportunity to humanize this defendant who has, through the prosecution's case, been demonized to some extent. Also important to say even the judge himself, in a gentle way, I would say he's not a very gentle judge, but in a gentle way encouraging earlier in the trial Paul Manafort to testify, suggesting that if he did, the judge might have been more likely to allow in evidence that the Internal Revenue Service never audited Paul Manafort.

So there are a lot of reasons why Manafort might have wanted to get on the stand. But if he did get on the stand, certainly he would have been subjected to a very harsh cross-examination, which might have not only hurt him in this trial, but could potentially also hurt him in the trial that is at least scheduled for September on related but different charges. So Manafort will not testify.

They're now working on instructions to the jury. And after that, they'll move toward closing arguments.

Back to you, John.

KING: And then after closing arguments, of course, jury deliberations.

Joe Johns, appreciate it. Keep us posted on any developments. Shimon is standing by as well.

But I want to bring into the conversation our CNN legal analyst Michael Zeldin, who has worked with the special counsel, Robert Mueller, in the past.

Michael, I want to be clear up front. There is absolutely no requirement for a defendant to present a defense. Give me your analysis of this decision by the Manafort defense team. So they're not going to come up with any witnesses of their own to say to his character, his integrity. Obviously no new witnesses to challenge the prosecution's case. They simply are resting on the prosecution and the big decision, obviously, not to put Paul Manafort on the stand.

What do you make of that?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): I think it was foregone that Manafort was not going to testify. He could not survive cross-examination. His best hope was that Gates would be so bloodied by the cross-examination that they'd be able to say to the jury, you should have a reasonable doubt as to his voracity and therefore as to the government's case as a whole. So he can't testify.

[12:05:14] If he puts on character witnesses, they get to cross- examine them in terms of, did you know that Paul Manafort was this? Did you know that Paul Manafort was that? Again, it's an effort to bloody up Manafort's reputation.

So, really, this case should have been a guilty plea. That said, you know, you could get a non-guilty verdict.

But the defense is left with just closing argument to say, essentially, we damaged Gates. We impugn the integrity of a few of the financial witnesses. Therefore, one of you guys, please, have a reasonable doubt and either hang this jury or all 12 of you acquit him.

But this was pretty foregone, Paul, that this guy was not going to be able to testify, and there was no defense to the documentary case.

KING: And as we watch this, important to note for anybody watching who hasn't tracked it on a daily basis, these charges have to do with Paul Manafort's work before he joined the Trump campaign, before 2016. However, there has been some suggestion that he tried to use his influence in the Trump campaign to get a bank loan, to maybe promise jobs to people who were helping him get what the government says are fraudulent bank loans.

Michael, just a quick observation from you. On what we learned about Bob Mueller's special counsel team, their prosecution style here, you're right, the defense went after Gates very hard, but then the prosecutors came back in after that with more clinical witnesses, if you will, saying, here's the documentation, here are the financial experts to back up what Rick Gates told you.

What's your assessment? What did we learn about the methodical approach, the evidentiary approach of the special counsel as we move from this trail into other cases?

ZELDIN: Right. As I watched the case unfold, I liked very much the way the prosecutors told their story. They started out with Manafort has lived a luxurious life with high-end purchases of jackets and houses and the like. Then they said, but that money was not declared as taxes. (INAUDIBLE) financial witnesses.

Then they said his business partner can corroborate that. And then they closed with additional people saying, this is what Rick Gates told you. We are confirming what Rick Gates told you. And we are the bankers who were defrauded by it.

So, as a story, you want to tell the jury something that they can understand because it's a complex matter. Taxes and foreign bank accounts and the like. I think they did a very nice job in telling that story. I think they were very well prepared. And I think it's a portend of the future of anyone else who wants to go to trial against these guys. Because Downing and Company, Manafort's lawyers, are themselves very good lawyers. He had very able representation, and I don't think they were able to do much with the prosecution's case.

KING: Michael Zeldin, appreciate those insights.

With me here in studio to share their reporting and their insights, Julie Hirschfeld Davis with "The New York Times," Molly Ball with "Time." Tarini Parti with "BuzzFeed News," and Jackie Kucinich with "The Daily Beast."

We're waiting for the judge to give instructions. Then it goes to the jury. Sort we're at sort of the pause button as to what happens here.

But to Michael's point, no expectation of Paul Manafort to testify? Did anybody at the table think he would take that dramatic risk?

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I mean I think it was going to be very difficult for him to testify. And then the question was going to be, what kind of a defense were they going to put on without him on the stand. And would they be raising the question even more prominently in the minds of the jurors of why they weren't hearing from Manafort if they were hearing from defense counsel and from his defense team. So I think, you know, I would have been surprised to have seen him take the stand and I think that this decision was probably made with all of that in mind.

And that said, I think -- I think what your previous guest said was important to keep in mind, the prosecution put on a very orderly kind of methodical case that is going to be very difficult to take apart. And so it seems that the defense counsel calculated that their best play was to try to raise as many questions as they could about what was being said about Paul Manafort by Rick Gates and others and sort of rest on that as their best hope of getting him acquitted.

KING: And, again, nothing in these specific charges has anything to do with Russian collusion, with the Trump campaign, with the president himself, with Paul Manafort, even when he worked for the president, with the exception of him after he left the Trump campaign apparently trying to help somebody get a job. That somebody being a bank president, who Manafort was trying to get a loan from. So there appeared to be a quid pro dough, if you will, excuse me.

But as a building block -- as a building block here, if you're the president, you're watching this. If you're the other people facing charges or still being looked at by the Mueller investigation, you're watching this. How important is it for the special counsel to get a win here?

MOLLY BALL, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "TIME": Well, I think if we're sitting on this set the day after or the day of the verdict and it appears to be an easy conviction, I think we're all going to be saying, OK, this is a win for the special counsel, and this shows that, you know, this case, this very first case that they brought was a slam dunk.

[12:10:03] Now, if that's not the case, it will raise a whole host of questions about, I think, first of all, whether the president's political attacks on the special counsel have made it impossible for any jury to consider these charges fairly. And then, second of all, about whether they know what they're doing, having brought, you know, what seems to be a case on tax charges supported by a mountain of evidence and witnesses. And if they can't land that, I think it will raise other questions.

KING: And, Shimon, you're still with us, I believe.

At one point the prosecutors objected successfully to defense questioning of the star witness, Rick Gates. And they -- we did see a small portion in which they said you can't ask him those questions because that would disclose sensitive information about an ongoing investigation. The tease there being that Rick Gates is cooperating on additional potential cases that go beyond his work for Paul Manafort, that ostensibly because the questions were about his work in the Trump campaign do include 2016 forward, if you will. The judge said that would be eventually unsealed. Do we have any idea when?

PROKUPECZ: No, we don't know. And, in fact, there's been a couple of these moments where the judge has sealed the courtroom, has sealed bench conferences. This morning that's how court began.

We had expected that we would begin summations. There would be closing arguments this morning. And then around 9:15, the court informed folks in the courtroom that the judge was closing the courtroom, that he was going to conduct another sealed hearing. We don't know what that sealed hearing was about.

And then the next news we got out of the court was that the defense was resting.

Rick Gates, we don't know exactly his entire cooperation. We will eventually probably learn it once other cases are brought. But it's clear, based on what prosecutors have said in court, at the bench conference, that they're using him for other parts of this investigation that they do not want to be public. And that's why they objected to the questioning from Paul Manafort's attorney when he started getting into, well, you've met with the special counsel 20 times, right? And Rick Gates said yes. And then he wanted ask him questions about what he may have said regarding other investigations, right, because they're attacking Rick Gates' credibility.

And there's no doubt that Paul Manafort's attorney probably has a good idea of the kind of cooperation Rick Gates has been providing because he has certain statements that the special counsel had to give him. So he may have some idea of what that investigation is. You know, maybe that's why he wanted to bring it out. Who knows?

But, yes, certainly Rick Gates is a key part of this investigation, John, for the special counsel.

KING: And if, to that point, if you're the president's legal team or anyone else, Roger Stone, whose friends are being called before the grand jury right now, the idea that Rick Gates is still cooperating, stuff that involves 2016 or, you know, forward looking, you know, windshield, not rearview mirror. That, to me, was the most -- if you're watching this from the outside and if you're team Trump and you're trying to say this is isolated, it's pre-campaign. OK, so Paul Manafort turned out to be a bad hire, not a nice guy, but it has nothing to do with the president. That part there makes you think, what is going on, right?

TARINI PARTI, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, "BUZZFEED NEWS": Right. This is something that we know the president is very closely watching, as is Rudy Giuliani because Rick Gates was still part of Trump world for so long --

JACKIE KUCINICH, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "THE DAILY BEAST": Right.

PARTI: After, you know, the president might claim that Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were only involved for a few months, but that is really not the case. And so whatever happens on that front and their -- you know, the level of cooperation for -- that Rick Gates is doing with the special counsel is probably part of the reason why the president has been on the attack as much and calling Bob Mueller out by name in tweets more so in the past few weeks.

KING: It's -- go ahead.

KUCINICH: No, I was going to say, it also -- it plays into -- I mean, basically the same thing, about how they're using this as their PR campaign. And they're probably really glad that Paul Manafort is not testifying so he couldn't give any more insight into perhaps how this would weave into the 2016 campaign since, at this point, it is not.

KING: He has another trial after this one, when jury fades (ph) on this one here. And then we continue to move on. You're right, the president's attacks continue, but we shall see. Big test for the special counsel. We'll keep tracking that.

Up next for us here, the president and his staff escalate their attacks against a former aide. She says she's got more ammunition.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [12:18:19] KING: More developments today in the explosive showdown between President Trump and his estranged former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman, whose tell-all book, of course, releases today.

President Trump's campaign says it's now taking legal steps against Omarosa, saying she is in breach of a 2016 nondisclosure agreement she signed with the Trump campaign. Back to that in a moment.

President Trump, meanwhile, escalating personal attacks against her today, tweeting, when you give a crazed, crying low life a break and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just doesn't work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog.

Thanks, Mr. President, for making me repeat that.

It's important to mention here that while President Trump is fond of insults, saying someone was fired like a dog, or begged like a dog, it's less common that he actually calls someone a dog. It is obviously a dehumanizing insult, leveled in this case at an African-American woman.

The president is angry because, among other things, Omarosa claims President Trump used the "n" word -- he was businessman Trump then -- on the set of "The Apprentice," and that the "n" word, uttered by Donald Trump, she says, is captured on tape. President Trump's former campaign spokeswoman told CNN last night, never happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATRINA PIERSON, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SPOKESWOMAN: That is absolutely not true. I have no sources with that tape. I have no connections to anyone at "Celebrity Apprentice," other than Omarosa. And, in fact, she was the only one that brought this tape up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Today, though, on CBS, here's Omarosa releasing a new recording she says it has several campaign aides, including Katrina Pierson, discussing allegations Trump used that word. Pierson voice is the first one you'll hear.

[12:20:00] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATRINA PIERSON, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SPOKESWOMAN: I'm trying to find out at least what context is this used in to help us maybe try to figure out a way to spin it.

LYNNE PATTON: Well, sure (ph), can you think of any time that this (INAUDIBLE) in the past and then he said no.

OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN: Well, that's not true. So --

PATTON: He goes, how do you think I should handle it. And I told him exactly what you just said, Omarosa, which is, well, it depends on what scenario you're talking about. And he said, well, why don't you just go ahead and put it to bed. I --

(CROSS TALK)

PIERSON: (INAUDIBLE), no, he said it (ph). He's (INAUDIBLE).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Pierson and Lynne Patton, whose voice is also on the tape there, released this statement a bit earlier today saying, in part, no one ever denied the existence of conversations about a reported "Apprentice" tape. The pair go on to say, we clearly confirm the fact that President Trump himself denied ever using such derogatory language.

And this just in to CNN. Pierson says, during the 2016 campaign, we heard rumors about an alleged tape from "The Apprentice." It's clear now that these rumors were always being circulated by Omarosa herself, and her alone. In her secret tape recording of me, it was one of many times that I would placate Omarosa to move the discussion along because I was weary of her obsession over this alleged tape. To be clear, I never organized a conference call with Jason Miller to confirm Mr. Trump.

I'm going to stop reading the statement because it has information that we haven't discussed in the program. Essentially Katrina Pierson now saying Omarosa is wrong, crazy, whatever you want to say. She'll be on Erin Burnett "OutFront" this evening, Katrina Pierson, to explain her side of this. Watch that.

Let's go to CNN's Jeff Zeleny at the White House.

I was going to ask you to help untangle this, Jeff. I don't think it can be untangled.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: John, what it speaks to is the fact that that new statement there from Katrina Pierson that did just come in moments ago, now she says she acknowledges that there was a secret tape recording. She said she was trying to placate Omarosa at the time.

What this all boils down to, let's take a step back. This boils down to who President Trump, then candidate Trump, decided to surround himself with. At the time he brought Omarosa on to the campaign, it was unclear that he was going to become the 45th president of the United States. It was unclear that she would end up here at the White House. But that is what happened. So this is a huge mess, largely of everyone's making.

So as we untangle this, as we get to the bottom, there is potentially some legal action here. There has been an action filed in New York State, potentially with the Trump campaign, seeking arbitration. What that means is to have a judge or a legal representative essentially handle this and see if Omarosa essentially violated that nondisclosure agreement she signed with the presidential campaign.

More controversial, though, is a potential disclosure agreement she signed with the president when she left, at least discussion of that here. That's highly unusual.

So, John, when you break down all of this, I assume this will be the subject of the White House press briefing this afternoon. It is a huge mess by all sides. Now we, I think, have a reason why General Kelly was trying to fire her or certainly remove her. And this is the fallout from that. And, of course, let's not forget, someone here is trying to sell a book.

John.

KING: Yes, indeed. Someone here is.

Jeff Zeleny at the White House, appreciate it.

Let's bring it in the studio.

You've got a he said/she said between the president and Omarosa. Now you have a she said, she said, she said, she said. I don't think we're ever going to sort this out. And I think we do know that of these cast of characters, a lot of them have said things in the past that we can document as not being true. The president primarily among them. Omarosa among them.

To Jeff's point, isn't this more about -- we were just talking about Paul Manafort, who was known not to be a Boy Scout when brought in by the Trump campaign. The president himself in this tweet essentially says, I know Omarosa was a crazy, wacky person, but I gave her a job with $170,000 a year of your money, watching at home, but I did it because she said nice things about me. This is the president's best people, right?

DAVIS: I mean it's extraordinary. He's essentially admitting here that he, you know, when he was thinking about who he wanted in the White House, he was OK with the idea of hiring someone that he knew to be dishonest, that he thought was crazy, that he thought was wacky, essentially, because she was on his side. And the whole entangled situation that we have now about the tape or was there a tape or wasn't there a tape and what was on the tape, I mean, I think that it's clear the president wants to quiet Omarosa down. He wants to deny these charges that are in the book. And that's part -- I assume that's the reason that they -- that they have filed this arbitration.

But it also is the case that everyone else that worked on that campaign, including Katrina Pierson, and everyone else who's a part of this discussion now, probably also signed one of those nondisclosure agreements and then -- with a non-disparagement clause. And so it's a signal to them and everyone else around the White House still and around, you know, in the diaspora of people who have left the White House or who never went into the White House after the campaign that they will come after -- that he will come after them if they say what they heard or what they saw in this particular way.

[12:25:03] And it's extraordinary as well because this is a person, Omarosa is a person, who actually worked in the White House. And public officials are typically not subject to this kind of confidentiality agreement. They have to sign something that says, I will not disclose classified information to someone without the proper clearance. But they don't -- it's kind of -- it's the opposite when you're a federal employee. You are supposed to say what you saw and what you witnessed if you see something inappropriate or you see wrongdoing.

KING: And if you're the president of the United States, and if this is -- if this never happened, if he never used -- there's a lot she says. But the one thing that people say has his back up particularly is the idea that there's a tape of him on the set of "The Apprentice" using the "n" word.

Let's assume the president -- well, let's assume the president's telling the truth and that never happened. You would understand why he would be angry about that. But does that give anybody, but especially the president of the United States, to call any human being, and in this case an African-American woman, a dog?

KUCINICH: No. I think that's the easy answer is, no, there isn't an excuse. You shouldn't be name calling anyone because he's the president and also he's a person.

But it -- she has really gotten under his skin. He tweeted about this, what, eight times today, the last time I counted. I don't know that he's tweeted that many times about North Korea, let alone something that is gossip from a book. So the rumors of this tape has been -- have been out there for quite a while. I know we've looked into it. I know a lot of other news outlets have looked into it. And nothing has come of it.

The other thing the president is dealing with is the fact that he doesn't really have a good track record on how he deals with African- Americans. Look at what he said about LeBron James last week. I mean there's a whole litany of things that he said. So one of the things that he's going to have to deal with going forward is the fact that this isn't out of the realm of possibility, the fact that he said this. I don't think if we found out that there was a tape anyone at this table would be shock, shock, shocked because of how he has treated particularly black athletes, but also just Omarosa, again, a whole litany of people.

PARTI: Yes, and the racial undertones have been there, you know, since we first learned about the possibility of Omarosa having any tapes and Trump allies already going after her. And this sort of fight has, you know, in the last few days, we've seen kind of words being used, especially when the president talks about not just black athletes but people who have worked for him and people like Katrina Pierson and Lynne Patton are being put out now by the -- by Trump allies to defend the president because they're the other most high-profile African- Americans in Trump world. And I think Kellyanne Conway got called out on that this -- just this weekend because there's no one really out there who can defend the president strongly on racial issues. And he's just kind of digging a hole for himself by clearly tweeting things like dog and other words.

BALL: Well, it's something if President Trump really wanted to silence Omarosa, he could have ignored her. I know that we all have -- assume at this point that that's not a possibility for this president. But had he ignored her, this story would have gotten way less oxygen. Instead, he explicitly acknowledged the allegation. I think had he chosen to rise above, take the high road, not at all even acknowledge that this was happening, it would have been much less of a story and -- and, you know, it would have been noted that this was unverified and everybody would have moved on. The book isn't even selling particularly well. He has chosen to magnify this feud and to put it in the spotlight. So to the extent that this has become a bigger controversy than it needed to be, it's because he's called attention to it.

KING: Exactly right. He had the reality TV response, shall we say, not the more --

BALL: The World Wrestling Federation response.

KING: Yes. Right. We'll continue -- we will, I will say this with certainty, we will continue to follow this story, much to at least my dismay, but we will.

Up next, Trump looms large in the Wisconsin primaries today. Why some Republicans are running toward the president, others steering clear.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)