Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
New: Jury Instructions Written, Both Sides Have A Copy; Special Counsel Asks For Gag Order In Trump Documents Case; Three Missionaries, Including U.S. Couple, Killed By Haitian Gang. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired May 24, 2024 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: And I can tell you, at the Jewish deli, earlier today--
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Yes.
ENTEN: --I spent a lot of money on food. It was actually my friend, Noam's (ph) money.
But the big thing when it comes to holidays, and Memorial Day is, of course, you're grilling, baby. You're grilling. You're putting food on that grill.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
ENTEN: So, what are you grilling? What's the number one thing? What are you?
SCIUTTO: So listen, I'm actually a pretty good griller.
ENTEN: OK.
SCIUTTO: Even though I'm a city boy.
ENTEN: Yes.
SCIUTTO: So typically, I mean, I'll grill -- I'll grill a steak. Hanger steak is my favorite.
ENTEN: Yes. That beef--
SCIUTTO: Yes.
ENTEN: Beef is number one. I am more in the fish category.
SCIUTTO: OK. Which is far--
ENTEN: That's way--
SCIUTTO: --fundamentally harder, we should say, yes.
ENTEN: It's harder. But if you're truly a skilled chef, you can grill that fish. Or how about some veggies? That's also down on the list. But I like my healthier things, unless it's the Jewish deli, in which case I go red meat, all day.
SCIUTTO: Harry Enten, you're skilled at everything you do. Enjoy your holiday weekend.
ENTEN: You as well, my friend.
SCIUTTO: All of you please do enjoy the holiday as well.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden's campaigns are prepping for a verdict. The question that still remains, guilty or not guilty? We are potentially days away from knowing as the presumptive Republican nominee is lashing out on social media.
He calls himself the law-and-order president. But of all the people to invite on stage, last night, Donald Trump picked two rappers, who are awaiting trial on murder conspiracy charges. We have the details.
Also, three missionaries, who were gunned down in Haiti, including a married couple from the United States. We're learning new details of their tragic deaths. And we'll speak with one of the victim's fathers tonight.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We're really finding ourselves on the cusp of history tonight, because by this time, next week, we may finally know whether or not Donald Trump will be a convicted felon, or whether a jury of his peers, here in Manhattan, will find him not guilty.
It's hard to think of a more memorable, or really, a more stressful Memorial Day weekend. It's hard to even imagine what it's like, for this jury that is made up of seven men and five women, all 12 of whom are about to decide the former President's fate.
Both the defense and the prosecution are now preparing for their closing arguments that they'll deliver this coming Tuesday.
And we've just learned tonight that both parties now have in their hands, the jury instructions. It's a crucial document given -- it's what jurors will hear from the judge, before they begin to deliberate, and make their decision. It'll outline what they should consider, when they're determining if Trump is indeed guilty or not.
And all of that is certainly on the former President's mind tonight. It's not hard to tell, because he is posting up a storm about the case. In one post, tonight, he's ranting that the judge blocked him from having an election expert testify.
But that's not true. We were there. We witnessed this discussion that happened inside the courtroom. Trump's attorneys, in the end, chose not to call that election expert, because the judge refused to broaden the scope of what he could testify to. He was worried it would become, as the judge put it, a battle of the experts.
As we know, Trump also could have testified in his own defense here. He said that he would, at the beginning. But in the end, he opted not to, as is his choice.
So, what happens if Trump is convicted next week? The possibility of prison time, we know, does exist. But prosecutors aren't expected to ask that of the former President that he be taken into custody immediately if he is. And of course, that is a big if, tonight.
I'm joined by a pair of legal sources.
Retired New York City Criminal Court Judge, George Grasso, and who has been sitting in that New York court. I've seen him in there every single day that I've been in there.
As well as jury consultant, Renato Stabile, who has been here many times as well.
I mean, we are really in the final countdown of what we've been talking for six weeks about what these jurors have heard, what the two sides have argued. With these jury instructions that both side got, we confirmed last night, both the prosecution and the defense got, what the judge heard. And you were in the room as they were arguing about this.
GEORGE GRASSO, RETIRED NYC CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE: Yes.
COLLINS: Because it's not something that got a lot of attention, but it may be one of the most important moments in this trial, what the jury is going to hear.
GRASSO: Absolutely. Absolutely.
From what I saw, I have not seen the final instructions. But from what I saw, as has been the case throughout, Judge Merchan has been incredibly fair. There was an issue if -- were you there at the time of the -- at the time of the conference?
COLLINS: I was there in the morning.
GRASSO: OK.
COLLINS: I was not there in the afternoon, but.
GRASSO: So, there was an issue with respect to cause, whether or not how the jury would be instructed, on whether or not Trump actually caused the business records to be falsified.
COLLINS: Which is important.
GRASSO: It's crucial.
And what the D.A. was arguing for was a standard of reasonable foreseeability that based upon the generalized evidence that it could be concluded that people acted in general ledgers and with respect to invoices, based on what they thought Trump wanted. And the defense was arguing well, that means the standard is going to be quasi the causer.
[21:05:00]
And the judge indicated that he wasn't thrilled with the reasonably foreseeable standard, and he was looking for a more clear-cut causation. And assuming that's what he did, it just showed to me at the time that the judge was listening to both sides, and making indications that he was going to be fair.
COLLINS: Because it seemed like the prosecution was fine with a broader kind of definition of what the jury was going to be presented with, while Trump's attorneys wanted it to be pretty clear-cut and specific.
GRASSO: Right.
RENATO STABILE, ATTORNEY & JURY CONSULTANT: Here's the bad news, for everyone.
And the judge did an excellent job of explaining the legal issues.
I have watched hundreds, if not thousands of jurors deliberate, in trial simulations, and mock trials, and focus groups. Here's what happens. They barely pay attention to the jury instructions.
COLLINS: Really?
STABILE: I know everybody says they're crucial. They're -- first of all, they won't have a copy. And when we run simulations, when we do mock juries, we give every juror a copy of the jury instructions. You know how frequently they look at them? Almost never.
COLLINS: But why don't they get a copy of that?
STABILE: Because under New York law, they're not entitled to have an actual physical copy of the jury instructions. They can ask for read- backs. They can ask for a copy of the statute. But--
COLLINS: OK. So, that's like if you're a student, and you're taking a test, one of the most important tests of your lifetime, and the teacher is going to read you the prompt, but you don't physically get to look at the prompt.
STABILE: Correct. And you can take notes. But the notion that they're going to have a real grasp, on the legal issues, that they need to decide, is just a fiction.
GRASSO: But there are--
COLLINS: Then why do they argue over it so much?
GRASSO: There are two lawyers on the jury. So that may--
STABILE: Two civil lawyers.
GRASSO: But--
STABILE: Neither of them are criminal experts.
GRASSO: --but they're still lawyers. And I think they will uniquely appreciate the importance of the destruction -- of the instructions.
But having said what I just said, and taking into account your expert views, I think Donald Trump's -- Defendant Trump still has a major problem.
Because even assuming that the judge did not go -- Judge Merchan did not go with the reasonable foreseeable standard, and the D.A. is going to have to jump through more hoops, with the general ledger aspect of the counts, this 34 counts, and then there's the -- there's the voucher, the vouchers that were submitted, the invoices, and then there's the checks.
COLLINS: Right. But given that, and given what you witnessed on, as they were debating this, how does that shape what is happening, right now, which is what the prosecution is doing, and what the defense attorneys are doing, to shape their closing arguments, based on that, to tailor it to the jury--
GRASSO: Well this is what--
COLLINS: --in these instructions?
GRASSO: --this is what -- nine of the counts on nine checks Donald Trump signed. So, on those nine counts anyway, whether it's reasonable foreseeable standard, or a more direct quasi, he caused those nine, if the jury believes the evidence, which I think is abundant.
STABILE: Yes.
GRASSO: When he signed each of those checks, he was -- he was taking direct action, to falsify the document.
STABILE: I think the only jury instruction that I've seen that is going to make any difference, and it is very crucial, is that the jurors do not have to be unanimous, as to the underlying crime that he was--
GRASSO: That's another gray--
STABILE: --supposedly--
GRASSO: That's another gray part.
STABILE: --trying to conceal by falsifying -- they don't have to be unanimous. So, you could have three jurors think it was a tax crime, three other jurors could think it was some New York election crime, other jurors could think it was a federal--
GRASSO: Think-- STABILE: --campaign finance crime.
COLLINS: Is that typical?
STABILE: It's not typical. But we've never had a prosecution like this. So, we have legal issues, in this case that are untested. They haven't withstood appellate review. So, I mean, even if he is convicted, this is going to go on and on and on. And of course, you could have a scenario, where he gets convicted, loses the election, and his conviction gets reversed on appeal.
GRASSO: There's a lot of permutations.
But right now, we're looking at what we think is going to happen going into next week. And my fundamental point, is, I believe very strongly, that the strongest of the 34 counts are the nine checks that Donald Trump signed, for $35,000.
COLLINS: Because it's--
GRASSO: He, by the way, listed on these checks as retainers, when there was no retainer. Furthermore, there is a very -- a piece of evidence, in this case, that if it's not a smoking gun, it's very close to a smoking--
COLLINS: It's the document with the handwriting.
GRASSO: Number 35.
COLLINS: Yes.
GRASSO: Exhibit 35. Not just the handwriting of Weisselberg.
COLLINS: But--
GRASSO: But it's the bank statement.
COLLINS: Can we talk about this though?
GRASSO: From First National.
COLLINS: Because you talk about how important that is. This jury, though, is just had a week off. They will, by the time they're back in the courtroom.
GRASSO: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, they're about to have the entire Memorial Day weekend.
GRASSO: Right.
COLLINS: They have plans, I imagine. How does--
STABILE: What are they talking about at those barbecues?
COLLINS: How does the jury avoid?
STABILE: Right.
COLLINS: Exactly. How do they avoid not talking about this?
STABILE: They don't. They -- they don't.
COLLINS: Certainly, everyone knows they're a juror.
STABILE: They don't. This is very surprising to give a jury this amount of time, to sort of marinate in the evidence, before they're going to come back, hear summations.
[21:10:00]
I'm being serious. Like, they're going to see friends and family members, who are going to say, oh, what have you been up to? I know that their names are not known to the public, to us. But obviously, their friends, their families, their work colleagues, their neighbors, everybody knows where they are.
So, even if they're not violating the judge's order, aren't people going to say things to them? Aren't people maybe going to say--
GRASSO: I don't know.
STABILE: --I hope you do the right thing. I hope you convict him?
COLLINS: Do jurors--
GRASSO: I--
STABILE: Even if they don't do anything.
COLLINS: Do jurors ever get caught? They're not supposed to look things up. They're not supposed to research this case, or watch TV about it, or go on social media. But do they ever get caught actually having done that?
GRASSO: Well, ever. Of course, there have been circumstances, where jurors haven't been -- done the right thing, and they've been caught. There have been cases, where jurors have been bought off, and things of that nature. I mean, we've -- a lot of things have happened, in the amount of time that we've been trying cases, in New York and around the United States.
But I have to say, I've been in that courtroom, every day. I was there for all of jury selection. I think this is a very diligent and dedicated jury.
And Judge Merchan had a masterstroke in the beginning, when he had like the first panel of like, 96 jurors, and he said, anybody who doesn't think they can be fair, this isn't the case for you, raise your hand. Right there, half the jurors left. Well I just want to finish. So, I believe that the jury that was ultimately selected is a
dedicated jury. They're paying attention to everything. I haven't taken a lot of notes, but I'm watching them. And every time, I look at them, they're all zoned in. And I think they're going to go another way, if they hear people talking about this, over the weekend. I think they are going to do everything they can to be buttoned up.
COLLINS: Yes.
GRASSO: And I think they respect the judge.
STABILE: But the temptation is there--
(CROSSTALK)
GRASSO: Of course, they're all human.
COLLINS: Judge George Grasso. Renato Stabile.
GRASSO: Yes.
COLLINS: It's a fascinating few days for them. And so, we will be watching it all closely.
Of course, don't forget, I will be anchoring special coverage of this trial, when these closing arguments begin. That starts Tuesday morning, at 9 AM, here on CNN. So, be able and be sure that you are tuning in.
With this trial winding down though, there is a question about how President Biden is handling this. And apparently, he is winding up the next phase of his campaign against Trump, we know, now with some help from Hollywood.
Also, the former President's decision to indict -- to invite two indicted rappers, on the stage, at that rally, last night, here in New York. By the way, we found out they are facing murder conspiracy charges.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:16:57]
COLLINS: Some breaking news, just in tonight, as we are learning that the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, and his prosecutors, are now asking a federal judge, in Florida, for a gag order, on former President Donald Trump, in the classified documents case. What they want is to limit his ability to comment about law enforcement that searched his Mar-a- Lago resort, two years ago.
The request is a first, in this case. But here is the important context. It comes after the former President, and many of his Republican allies, have been repeatedly exaggerating, and falsely criticizing the FBI, for the use of deadly-force policy that was in place, during that search of his Mar-a-Lago resort, for the classified documents, after he did not turn them over, in response to a subpoena. Now, we saw Attorney General, Merrick Garland, pushing back on this,
this week, and talking about how dangerous he believes it is, because of course, this is a standard operating procedure for the FBI, when this search happens.
They actually went into Mar-a-Lago, with a much lighter presence than even authorized by a search warrant that was authorized by a magistrate judge in the State of Florida. They did not have their guns drawn. They were not wearing FBI shirts, and instead wore normal clothes.
But that does not stop the former President from repeatedly going on social media, and targeting these law enforcement officers, who were there. Of course, they have their names, given they have the documents. They've been redacted in the filings that we have seen.
But this is a notable first, in this case.
We have our legal experts back here with us, as this news is just breaking.
And Judge, I mean, this isn't Trump's first time with a gag order. We'll see if it actually gets authorized. But it is remarkable that Jack Smith feels the need to ask for this.
Because it's not just Trump. We've also seen Senator Ted Cruz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, all of these Republicans, going after and saying -- it Trump's fundraising, saying that they had authorized for the FBI to assassinate him.
GRASSO: Right. I mean, I'm reading these documents here as you are.
So, I was a judge almost 13 years. Before that, I was NYPD for 30 years. So, reading this not only as a judge, but as a proud former member of law enforcement, this is outrageous.
I mean, just reading from the document. The next day, Trump publicly claimed he was just shown reports that crooked Joe Biden's DOJ, in their illegal and unconstitutional raid Mar-a-Lago, then in all-caps, "AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE."
Trump also sent an email stated the government was authorized, in all- caps, "To shoot me now."
I'm thinking this through. And I'm obviously drawing the parallel to what Judge Merchan was just -- has been dealing with, in the New York trial, to protect witnesses, and the jury, and everybody else involved in this process.
Now, sooner or later, I would imagine, in this case, FBI agents are going to be called to testify. People are going to know who they are. Now, this isn't just some crank (ph) Trump. This is somebody who just put something on Truth Social. He brags about it. Millions of people see it simultaneously. And there are a subset of people in that group, and potentially are dangerous that they're going to take this, and believe this. [21:20:00]
So, I think Jack Smith, from what I'm seeing, is absolutely right. And I think that Judge Cannon should take it quite seriously. He's right to pursue this. And she should take it seriously.
And I'm thinking in terms of a former law enforcement officer, as much as I'm thinking in terms of a judge--
COLLINS: And those--
GRASSO: --as I look at this now.
COLLINS: Those law enforcement officers were just doing their jobs.
GRASSO: Doing their jobs.
COLLINS: Renato, standby. I want to get your thoughts on this as well.
STABILE: Yes.
COLLINS: We also have, joining us by phone, Katelyn Polantz, who is a Senior Reporter for Crime and Justice, here at CNN.
And Katelyn, you and I've been reporting on this case, for months now, is this is remarkable. We have not seen Jack Smith ask for something of this nature, and the fact that he feels compelled to do so now.
You've been reading through the filing. What else stands out to you?
ON THE PHONE: KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: There's a couple things, Kaitlan.
And you're right. We haven't seen this, in this case. It's going to be a real test, for the judge overseeing it, Judge Aileen Cannon, who has moved extremely slowly, to respond to many of the things that have come into this case. We're going to have to see how she responds now.
But the things that jump out at me, from the filing, are that the Justice Department is being so explicit, about how dangerous this sort of language is. Attorney General, Merrick Garland, just yesterday, said that as much, he said it was extremely dangerous and false what Trump was amplifying.
And he -- they are now saying, in their filing, in federal court to a judge, Trump's repeated mischaracterization as an attempt to kill him, his family and Secret Service agents, has endangered law enforcement officers involved in the investigation. On top of that, they say there is the possibility this could harm the jury.
But Kaitlan, another note here, is that the prosecutors here, talked to Trump's lawyers about this, and told them they were going to go to Judge Cannon about his statements, including things he was putting on Truth Social today.
The response from Donald Trump's lawyers, according to what the prosecutors say today, is that they wanted to wait till Monday, to talk more about it. They didn't think that there was any imminent threat.
COLLINS: That's what Trump's attorneys said, according to prosecutors, in this -- in this filing?
ON THE PHONE: POLANTZ: That's right.
COLLINS: I mean, clearly, Jack Smith feels differently. It's 9:21 Eastern Time, on a Friday night, and he feels the need that this is such an imminent threat that they needed to ask for this now.
ON THE PHONE: POLANTZ: Absolutely. It is one of the things that they are saying, in a way with language that you rarely see in court filings, about the possibility of harm. And we've seen these sorts of filings before.
We have a gag order on Trump in the federal case in Washington, D.C.
There is a gag order on Trump in the case in New York that he has violated 10 times, been held in contempt of court, fined for those violations, commenting about witnesses and jurors, of the jury pool there.
But this is something that is clearly has really set off a response within the FBI, the Justice Department, the Special Counsel's Office, to respond to Trump, and say, no, this is not something that is apart from any search, including the search that had taken place at Joe Biden's Delaware home, consensually, that there was always this sort of standard protocol in place for law enforcement because these searches can turn dangerous. This was nothing, out of the normal, for the search of Mar-a-Lago, in August of 2022.
And the sort of amplification of Trump saying there was lethal force that they were -- may have been authorized to shoot me, that it could have been deadly, that that is so inflammatory, it endangers law enforcement, writ large. And they want a response from the judge.
COLLINS: And just a reminder for our audience. I know you know, this, Katelyn. But Trump was not at Mar-a-Lago when this happened.
The FBI coordinated with Secret Service. Secret Service let the FBI onto the Mar-a-Lago property. When you -- if you drive down in Palm Beach, it is a long drive, and then you turn into Mar-a-Lago, there's a security gate right there at the front. They let them in, to come and execute this lawful search warrant that had been authorized by a judge.
Trump was in New Jersey, I believe. He was not even there, as all this was happening.
ON THE PHONE: POLANTZ: Yes.
COLLINS: And Renato, I'm reading through this. And they're talking about how Trump cited the warrant and the operations form as exhibits for his motion. But they misquoted it by getting -- omitting the crucial word, only, before, when necessary, without any ellipses reflecting the omission, leaving out language that deadly force is necessary only when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
Basically, this is authorizing deadly force, but it was limiting what force they could use, saying only in the most insane of circumstances may you use this.
STABILE: Understood. But keep two things in mind.
Number one, this is totally different than the gag order in New York, which is designed to protect jurors and witnesses in an ongoing trial. This is a very different thing.
[21:25:00]
But also, let me just remind everybody, you can agree or disagree with what Donald Trump has said, and the way he is misquoted, or not misquoted.
There are certain First Amendment rights that we all have. You don't have to like what somebody says. You're allowed to lie under the First Amendment. You're allowed to misquote under the First Amendment. You're not allowed to incite violence.
But I'm sure that's what his lawyers will be arguing that he has a right to give his interpretation, of what he thought was going on, and that he shouldn't be bound by a gag order.
And there's no, you know, there's -- I understand that this is designed to protect law enforcement officers. But this is not a jury poison issue, in my view.
COLLINS: Yes. It's just not--
GRASSO: May I just add something?
COLLINS: Yes.
GRASSO: Additional language. After it was authorized to shoot me, just reading from the paperwork, here, was just "Itching to do the unthinkable," and was locked and loaded, to take me out and put my family in danger.
And then those -- some of those officers on that raid, we may -- FBI agents, we may expect are going to be called as witnesses and identified. This is an attack. This type of thing, in my opinion, is a continued attack, on the judicial process and the rule of law.
And I can certainly understand why the Attorney General of the United States would authorize Jack Smith to do this. I think he would have been remiss, if he didn't take this on directly.
I have no idea. I'm not a federal judge. I never was a federal judge. How it will come out. But I'm certainly supportive of the Attorney General of the United States, and Jack Smith, backing their FBI agents in the field, over this type of garbage.
COLLINS: We have to take a break. We are covering this breaking news.
I do want to talk more about this, because what Katelyn said there was important that Trump's attorneys thought they could wait to sort this out later on, not on Tuesday, after the holiday. Clearly, Jack Smith felt otherwise.
Stand by. We're continuing to follow this breaking news.
We have much more on this, going on this breaking news that Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, and his prosecutors, are now asking for a gag order in the classified documents case, something we have not seen yet today.
And it is all because of comments that you just heard the judge cite, right there, that Trump made in fundraising emails, that he has made on Truth Social, and then his allies have repeated on their own social media websites, and on television.
Stay with us. We'll be right back with the breaking news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:31:49]
COLLINS: More now on the breaking news that we are getting in, just this hour, tonight, in the Trump classified documents case.
As Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, and prosecutors, are asking Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida, to place a gag order on former President Donald Trump, in the wake of his quote, "False and inflammatory statements," suggesting that law enforcement agents were authorized to assassinate him, when they executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.
They had a standard deadly use of force policy. They had the exact same one, when they conducted that search for documents at President Biden's home, I should note. That is something that Attorney General, Merrick Garland, reminded everyone of this week, when he was asked about this.
Jack Smith, in this filing, tonight, is arguing that Trump's comments has endangered law enforcement officers, involved in this investigation and the prosecution of this case, and that it threatens the integrity of the proceedings as well.
This is an extraordinary step, by Special Counsel, Jack Smith, one that we have not seen him take yet.
And for more on this, I want to bring in the former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
And Andrew, let me read you part of this filing that we're truly just reading as we're on air right now. But Jack Smith's team says, you know, they're talking about the
implications of Trump's comments, and that it's echoed by his Republican allies. And they say professional law enforcement officers and agents in this country put their lives on the line every day and carrying out their duties to enforce the law.
And they're saying that when executing court-authorized warrants, those professionals face many uncertainties and potentially grave risks. And they're saying, to minimize that, agents here are just planning for all contingencies. That is part of their job. And that is why you could read about that deadly use of force policy in this search warrant.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: That's absolutely right, Kaitlan.
So, this is, I mean, important to understand the context. This is an Operations Plan, which is required for the execution of every search warrant, and arrest warrant that FBI agents engage in. This is part of FBI policy.
And the Operations Plan includes tons of information, primarily for the other agents, who are going to take part in that operation. It tells them where to go, when to be there, who's going to be driving, which vehicles, all sorts of things like that.
This particular section is required. It's not -- it is part of the form, like it's not even something that agents have to type in on every plan, because it's baked into the form. And that is a recitation of the DOJ's authorization to use legal force -- I'm sorry, lethal force.
The reason it's there is to make sure that every agent, who goes out on this operation, understands the limits of using lethal force, that they're only authorized to use it, to protect their life or the life of someone else.
It is not an authorization, or some sort of statement of intent or direction for the operation. It is the legal limit, on how agents can use lethal force, in the course of their duties. And it's the same on every single operation.
COLLINS: I mean, I just wonder what it's like for you, to see these comments that Trump's fundraising off of this, saying the FBI was, quote, in all-caps, "AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME" that they were "Itching to do the unthinkable," and that they were quote, "Locked and loaded ready to take me out and put my family in danger."
[21:35:00]
MCCABE: Yes. Well we've known for a while that there's absolutely no limit to the lies and the slander that the former President will say and use against the FBI, and its people particularly. He's been doing this for years.
But this actually, for me, reaches an all-time low, right? He's -- he is quite literally putting those agents, and the people who supported them, on this mission, in mortal danger, right?
This is a direct effort to inflame his supporters, to inflame his base, some of whom, not the majority, but some of whom we know, listen to these directions, and these lies very carefully, and then take action, based upon what they hear the former President say.
So, I think that the Special Counsel's doing absolutely the right thing, and the necessary thing here, to try to put some restraint on him, that will potentially keep these agents from getting harmed.
COLLINS: I also have George Conway, here, joining us, Andrew, on this breaking news.
And I mean, George Conway, obviously, I don't think it's any secret to anyone, who's watching, you're not a fan of Donald Trump's.
But for something like this, for someone who declares himself the law- and-order president, and talks about how he's there, to back the Blue, and attend memorial services for officers, here in New York?
And then to see how he's talking about these law enforcement officers, simply because they work under the umbrella of the FBI, and how he feels about the FBI, is quite remarkable, when you read how Jack Smith puts it in these stark terms here in this filing?
GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE LAWYER: Yes, and I don't think you -- I mean, I don't think there are terms that are stark enough, to describe what Donald Trump has done here. I mean, he's a pathological liar. He lies about everything.
But this lie is just an exceedingly dangerous lie, as the Attorney General, and Mr. McCabe, has pointed out. And it's an attack on the entire system of the legal system, as Judge Grasso put it before the break.
And to emphasize how dramatic this is, this message is going out to tens of millions of people, who are on the campaign mailing list.
I have the email right here, the campaign email. "I nearly escaped death," from Donald Trump. And again, you know they're fishing -- they're -- they're just "Itching to do the unthinkable." There it is. He's basically accusing the government of trying to take him out.
And 10 million people get this email. I don't know how many people get this email. All it takes is one or two of them to shoot somebody, saying, thinking that, hey, I -- the government's trying to shoot my president, I'm going to -- I'm going to fight back. And that's -- it's absolutely appalling.
I want to point out one other thing about this motion, which is a little -- kind of a lesser aspect of it. But this is -- this really puts Judge Cannon on the spot.
COLLINS: Yes.
CONWAY: This woman has absolutely completely shown an absolute bias against the government. From day one, in multiple ways, she's dragging her feet on this case.
And if she does not do something about this, I think the -- I think the Special Counsel may use this as the opportunity, to try to get the Eleventh Circuit to get rid of her. So, she's really on the spot here. She's actually going to have to--
COLLINS: Do you think she will, George?
CONWAY: Do you think that she will do something? I don't know. But she better, because this is just -- this is just completely outrageous.
I mean, it is really an attempt to incite violence, against government agents, based on the complete pathological lie, and misreading and gross, I mean, just absolutely obscene misreading of a standard document that limits the use of force.
It's absolutely -- the notion that so many people had to participate to send this email, and are beholden to Trump, and are doing these things, just shows you the level of just moral depravity, that Trump emanates and that surrounds him. It's, I can't -- words cannot describe that level of depravity to send this message out.
COLLINS: Yes. And I think it's safe to say it's an intentional misreading.
We'll see what Judge Cannon decides here. Obviously, this is now in her hands.
George Conway, thank you for jumping on this breaking news with us.
Also to you, Andrew McCabe.
I really appreciate having both of your perspectives on this tonight.
We will continue to follow this breaking news, of the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, asking for a gag order for Donald Trump, in the classified documents case, given his misrepresentation of the deadly use of force policy that is standard operating procedure, and was part of the search warrant of his Mar-a-Lago club.
[21:40:00]
Also ahead, here tonight, we're tracking another story, as the three missionaries, who were gunned down in Haiti that included this American couple that you see here. They were ambushed by gangs.
The father of one of the victims will join me in moments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, more harrowing details are coming in, about how three missionaries, including a young American couple, were killed, in Haiti, last night.
Davy and Natalie Lloyd were among the victims. And according to Davy's father, the couple was ambushed by gang members, twice. The first time, Davy had been tied up, and beaten, as gang members stole the mission group's trucks. He had been on the phone with his dad, during the attacks.
[21:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID LLOYD, SON DAVY KILLED IN HAITI: He was -- he was injured. So, he was hurt, and he was very nervous, and very scared, because I asked him why they tied him up, and he's like well because you're the only one that's got strings that we have to worry about. And so, they wanted to make sure he couldn't put up a fight back.
And then, he was begging me to find somebody, to get in there, and to help him. And I did all I could, but I couldn't locate anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: According to his father, more armed men arrived, after they had been on the phone. Someone shot one of the newly-arrived gang members, and it sparked a violent backlash.
The couple, and the Missions Haitian director, Jude Montis, was -- also spent their final moments, holed up, trying to call for help, before being killed, according to Missions in Haiti, which is the organization that was run by Davy's parents, including his father that you just saw there.
Jude was a pastor, who now leaves behind a wife and two young children. And Natalie and Davy had joined the mission, after they got married, two years ago.
Joining me now is Natalie Lloyd's father, Ben Baker, who I should note is also a State Representative in Missouri. And her mother, Naomi.
And first off, I think it's probably difficult for anyone, right now watching, to even understand the pain that the two of you must be feeling. And I just want to thank you for being willing to come on, and talk about this.
And Ben, Natalie was just 21-years-old. Can you tell me about your daughter?
BEN BAKER, FATHER OF NATALIE LLOYD, DAUGHTER NATALIE LLOYD KILLED IN HAITI: Natalie was special. She was a very loving person, and she was very talented. She's a very good singer, plays the piano. But she was also very determined, and a very organized person.
She loved Davy, and their relationship was beautiful to watch play out. It's been very difficult for us to cope with this.
And really, the only reason why we're doing this is because we feel like their story is worthy of being told, because of who they were and what they represented and their selfless service to people, and specifically, the people of Haiti that they loved so much. COLLINS: And they're so young. And what they were doing was so amazing. I mean, I was -- Missions in Haiti runs a school for nearly 450 children and, I know, churches as well and a children's home.
And I wonder what Natalie loved, about working there besides, you know, I know her husband had a real love and passion for it as well.
NAOMI BAKER, MOTHER OF NATALIE LLOYD, DAUGHTER NATALIE LLOYD KILLED IN HAITI: Natalie -- Natalie loved the children. That's who she, when she first visited, that's who she fell in love with, was the kids.
She visited for two weeks, before they actually decided to get engaged, at our request, because we wanted her to know what Haiti was like. And she came back, and she had fallen in love with the people, the children. She was -- she was there for the kids.
COLLINS: I mean, just as parents, it must have been scary for you to have -- to have her there.
N. BAKER: Yes.
COLLINS: And to find that that's the important work that she cared so much about.
N. BAKER: Yes.
B. BAKER: It was. It was something though that I've always taught my kids that doing something for people, putting others in front of you, is so important. And they lived that out, in what they did there.
I don't think you could find a better example of people, who truly had a deep love for the people of Haiti, and had a vision to help them in any way that they could. And it made such an impact there, among the different ministries that they were involved in.
Of course, it was dangerous. It was something that, being there, just the way that unfortunately, Haiti operates, and the situation there is just, it's awful. But they made the decision to remain, even when it got worse, because they felt like if they left, then those kids would have nowhere to go.
They had more than 30 kids that they're caring for there, that some of them truly orphans, and many of them, just their parents in situations that couldn't take care of them, or unable to. And so, they felt responsible for those kids. And so, they decided to stay. And I commend their bravery and their willingness to do so, even though it was very difficult for us. But they did it out of love.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: It must be a special thing, as parents, to know that your young daughter, you know? A lot of 21-year-olds aren't doing things like this. So, it must be really special, to know that, that she had a heart for doing that.
N. BAKER: She and Davy were both exceptional in that way. They just wouldn't hear of leaving those kids behind. At one point, Natalie was given the opportunity to leave. But she chose to stay. And we didn't -- we didn't know at that time that this is where we would be, with that decision. But here we are.
B. BAKER: They're both exceptional. Davy was a brilliant young man, was wise beyond his years. Natalie as well. Always an overachiever, always with -- looking for a challenge. And so, we're so proud of what they accomplished in, through short time there. I think their legacy will live on.
COLLINS: It absolutely will. And you have a right to be so proud of them.
And Ben and Naomi, I just want to thank you, again, for being willing to speak about something that obviously is so difficult.
N. BAKER: Well, we want to tell their story. So, thank you for having us.
B. BAKER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Absolutely. Thank you both.
And we'll be right back, after a short break.
(GRAPHIC IS SHOWN OF MISSIONARIES KILLED IN HAITI)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:35]
COLLINS: Senator Tom Cotton, you might want to call your office. The New York Times reporting tonight that the Arkansas Republican has now emerged as a top contender, for Donald Trump's vice presidential pick.
Trump himself even making clear who's in the mix.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You could take people like Ben Carson. You could take people like Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance. I mean there are so many -- Elise is doing a fantastic job.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any word (ph)?
TRUMP: But -- but I could go on for quite a long time. We have many people that would do a really fantastic job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My political sources, tonight, a pair of CNN Political Commentators.
Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona.
And Republican strategist, and also pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson.
Great to have you both here.
And Kristen, obviously, Trump has said he's going to decide around the convention, or at least announce around the Republican convention in July.
But I wonder what you make of the very public nature of this vetting process that's underway, where not only is Trump talking about who he's looking at. They're going to his trial. They're going to rallies. They're on cable news. I mean, very clearly auditioning for this job.
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's The Apprentice Vice President Edition. That's simply what we're seeing. That's why it's playing out in public. This is just how Donald Trump operates.
And frankly, a big piece of what he's going to be looking for this time is loyalty. He has been very vocal about what he feels was Mike Pence's disloyalty. Now, of course, Mike Pence did what the Constitution said he needed to do. But Donald Trump's still very sore about all of that.
And so, he's looking for someone that he thinks will be 100 percent Team Trump all the time. And there's no better way to prove your loyalty than this very public display of it. That's what you're seeing play out.
COLLINS: Well, and Maria, I mean, I'm glad that Kristen brought up January 6th. Because Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, they all voted to actually certify the results, in 2020.
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
COLLINS: Doug Burgum, of course, he's not a senator, but he's governor. He said that he believed Pence did the right thing, on January 6th.
And I wonder if you think that that counts against them, in Trump's eyes?
CARDONA: I do. But also, what you've been seeing, Kaitlan, is that every chance they get now, as they understand that they are part of the vice presidential Republican pageant going on, is that they're either reversing themselves or they refuse to answer the question.
Tim Scott, for example, famously, few weeks ago, couldn't even answer that question, when asked on national television. And he was somebody who, we know, did vote to make the right decision and certify the vote. But he wouldn't say whether he would do it in 2024, if Joe Biden won.
And so, I think that will be a deciding factor. And that's why you're seeing all of these VP candidates twist themselves into pretzels, if they're asked that question publicly. And they're not going to say whether they would certify the election, because that would essentially put a black mark, and kind of take them out of contention.
Because I agree completely, with Kristen, that loyalty is completely everything for Donald Trump. And you have to bend the knee, kiss the ring, come and genuflect at the altar of Donald Trump, make sure he knows that you will be his puppet in order to be in contention.
COLLINS: Well, and Kristen, I mean, obviously, a lot of this has been looming recently around the criminal trial. And I think we have an idea of how Trump will handle this, once the verdict, depending on what it is, and what that looks like. His team is obviously planning for that.
But another question that I have is how President Biden handles it. He has barely talked about this case at all, except in a few jokes or asides. But I imagine he'll weigh in one way or another, on whatever that verdict is.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Well, President Biden has to be careful, because the more he tries to talk about this, and use it to his own political advantage, the more it almost feeds into Donald Trump's argument, which is, this is all political, this is all just to keep me out of the White House.
So, President Biden has a very fine line, he's got a walk in terms of trying to capitalize on this politically. The more he says about it, in some ways, I think the worst both for him and for the country, frankly.
COLLINS: Maria, we got about 50 seconds left in the show. What do you think?
CARDONA: I don't think he has had to do it thus yet, Kaitlan. But I think that if there is a verdict, you might see something from the White House. But I don't think he'll lean into it. He doesn't need to. This is going to be something that is going to hurt Donald Trump, I believe, in the long run. And Joe Biden does not need to help him do that.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Yes. Well, it's just fascinating, because in a month, almost from today, they'll be on the debate stage, together. We will know the verdict, certainly, by then.
CARDONA: Right.
COLLINS: Maria Cardona, Kristen Soltis Anderson, great to have you both here, on a Friday night.
CARDONA: Thanks so much, Kaitlan.
SOLTIS ANDERSON: Thanks.
COLLINS: And thank you all so much, for joining us here, on this Friday night. Hope you have a great Memorial Day weekend.
"LAURA COATES LIVE" starts right now.
