Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Nathan Wade Disputes He Jeopardized Trump Georgia Case; U.S. & Ukraine Expected To Sign Long-Term Security Pact At G7; Port Of Baltimore Fully Reopens Two Months After Key Bridge Collapse. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired June 12, 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]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Investigators say the suspect then threatened others and ordered the driver to get on the road, this, as passengers frantically texted loved ones and called 9-1-1 for help.
Thankfully, police finally stopped the bus, and arrested the suspect. But that's not all. Police now say the man, a convicted felon, was at the scene of a shooting, earlier in the day. He spoke with our local affiliate, alleging he witnessed it, only to be suspected of hijacking the bus, moments later. Quite a story.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We begin with breaking news tonight, as the Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, has just moved to dismiss the appeal that's seeking to disqualify her, and her entire office, from Donald Trump's election interference case, arguing that it should be dismissed due to a, quote, "Lack of sufficient evidence."
As of this moment, that case is completely frozen, until Georgia's Court of Appeals rules on whether or not she should be disqualified.
The issue at the heart of that appeal, her relationship with the special prosecutor that she put on the case, Nathan Wade, who I just sat down with in Georgia, this afternoon.
This was the first time that Nathan Wade has spoken to CNN, on camera, an interview that I should note comes three months, after he resigned, after being given an ultimatum by the judge that Willis had to go, if he didn't.
You're about to hear whether he regrets that relationship, whether he thinks Trump's trial can happen, even if Trump's in the White House next year.
And also, a moment that I wasn't expecting, when his media consultant stepped in, as Wade was answering the critical question, about the timeline of their relationship.
My interview with Nathan Wade starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Here in Atlanta, the Georgia Court of Appeals has just essentially guaranteed that this case that we are talking about, the 2020 election subversion case, in the State of Georgia, with Donald Trump and the slew of co-defendants, will not go to trial before the 2024 election.
What role do you believe that your actions played in that?
NATHAN WADE, FORMER FULTON COUNTY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: I don't believe my role -- my actions played a role in it at all. I think that this is more of the same. It's a -- it's a delay, delay, delay kind of thing.
But let's talk about the process here. So, we understand that there were nine -- nine defendants that were a part of the disqualification motion. They then, after the trial judge issued his ruling, they then asked for permission to appeal. The judge granted that, and then said, well, this does not stop the business of this particular court. We're going to keep moving.
Well now, as you've seen, a few days ago, the Court of Appeals has said, hey, listen, there's a stay -- this -- the proceedings will stop. Then the court says well, it will stop as to the nine defendants that are named in the disqualification motion. But as to the other six, we're going to keep moving forward.
And just on yesterday, one of the defendants, one of the six, decided to file a pleading with the Court of Appeals, and say -- and asked the Court of Appeals to say, wait, listen, trial court, I think that the stay applies to everyone named in the indictment, not just -- not just--
COLLINS: Those who were seeking it.
WADE: --those who were seeking to disqualify.
COLLINS: But Donald Trump is one of those, who is seeking to disqualify the District Attorney, Fani Willis, from this. So essentially, he's not going to trial, before November 2024.
And you don't think that your actions played any role in that?
WADE: I don't. I think that the goal was to have this dog-and-pony puppet show, base it on things that were not relevant to the indictment. I think it's an interesting trial strategy, to attempt to defend your client by attacking the prosecutors involved.
But the four corners of that indictment speak for themselves. I think that the filings should have covered. They were sufficient. The responsive filings were sufficient to cover any question that the court had, and could have given -- the court could have given a ruling, based upon the filings without the need for that entire circus. COLLINS: But initially, the District Attorney, and the office that you were working with, previously, were aiming for a summer trial date, for all of this.
[21:05:00]
And so, when you look at what they are fighting, which is, it's not related to the indictment, it's related to the District Attorney and you, that's at the center of this. Is there any part of you that believes that jeopardized the years of hard work, the investigation -- investigations that you did, the grand jury's work in all of this, because it's not going to happen before the election.
WADE: So, I'm very proud of the things that we were able to accomplish, under my leadership. We were able to investigate that case, thoroughly.
We were able to successfully seek an indictment that speaks to the facts, and the evidence that came out during the course of the investigation. That did take years. Spoke to a lot of people, had a lot of conversations, spoke to a lot of witnesses, saw a lot of evidence, it took years out of my life.
I'm very passionate about it. I believe in the indictment. Certainly, I would have never done anything that I thought would jeopardize that hard work.
But do I believe that my actions caused this delay? No, no, no. I do believe, though, that the timing of a personal relationship that I had, was probably bad. It was bad timing. But you don't pick and choose when those things happen. They happen organically. And you deal with the situation as it comes.
COLLINS: Do you have regrets about it?
WADE: The only thing I regret is the timing of it.
COLLINS: Well, and the timing, of course, is really the crux of this?
WADE: Well, the crux of it is to slow down the inevitable, which is--
COLLINS: Yes. So, what happens, if she gets ultimately removed, from this case? Because that's what they're going to be hearing, the Court of Appeals. What happens to this case, if Fani Willis is removed, as the prosecutor here?
WADE: Well, the case has to be reassigned to another prosecuting entity. Now, whether or not that entity decides to proceed? I don't know.
COLLINS: But do you think there's a chance that it would be potentially dead, if no other prosecutor is ready to step up to the plate and take this case?
WADE: Well, we're talking about a threat to democracy. This case is about democracy. It's very important to you, to me as an attorney. The rule of law is something that we all should take seriously.
I couldn't tell you whether or not there are other prosecutors that are willing and waiting, and excited about accepting this task, particularly, particularly in light of the threats that I've been getting, and the threats that District Attorney Willis has been getting. This is a very, very dangerous role. And it's not to be taken lightly.
COLLINS: What happens to those who have taken guilty pleas here, if Fani Willis is removed from this case? Do you believe that, that they're able to essentially, the District Attorney's office should let them withdraw their guilty pleas?
WADE: No, ma'am. Now, understand the dynamics of these particular guilty pleas. Out of the four, there were three lawyers, who accepted responsibility. That speaks volume. That speaks volume to what they perceive the evidence to be, at least as it relates to the charging document, the indictment.
There are those, who might believe that the indictment is false, or that the indictment is weak. But I would say to those people, look at the actions of the -- at least the three skilled trained lawyers, who've been practicing for a long time.
COLLINS: So, you don't think that they should withdraw them?
WADE: No, I don't. I think it would, you know, certainly it's incumbent upon their counsel, to make those strategic decisions, to attempt to withdraw. But if you're asking me, the practical effect of the disqualification motion, on D.A. Willis, and the effects of them entering their plea, has none.
COLLINS: If Trump wins the election, and the District Attorney, next spring, when this -- when this does go before the Court of Appeals is not disqualified from that, is it constitutional, for a District Attorney, to put a sitting president on trial, and if he's convicted, and jailed, potentially?
WADE: So, let's look at the question in reverse. Is it -- are you asking me, if there's anyone, who's above the law at any point in time, and they're allowed (ph)?
COLLINS: No, but I don't think it's been litigated about a sitting president, of course, going on trial.
WADE: Never. Never.
COLLINS: We've never seen that.
WADE: Never seen it. Never expected to see it, which is why a lot of the questions about experience. No one has ever done this before. No one. This is -- this is a new animal. But if he wins the election, then certainly there are lawyers, out there, who will be charged with figuring out that issue, and maneuvering around it.
COLLINS: So, you're not sure if he can -- if he can go on trial, if you believe it's constitutional or not for him, to actually be on, if he's the sitting president.
[21:10:00]
But you just talked about how important this case is. I mean, personally, how important do you believe it is, for this case, to go to trial, for voters to see the evidence here, of what's alleged in that indictment?
WADE: Oh, it's very important. But let's back up a moment. You said that I'm not sure about the constitutionality of trying a sitting president.
COLLINS: Yes. Do you believe he can -- sorry, if that wasn't clear. Do you believe he can be on trial, if he's in the White House?
WADE: I do believe that he can.
COLLINS: OK.
WADE: I don't -- I don't believe that it -- it looks good to the rest of the world. But certainly, I don't think that there's anything that will prevent that from happening.
COLLINS: What if he's convicted?
WADE: I don't understand the question. If he's convicted, then just like any other defendant, who's convicted, then you go through the sentencing process.
COLLINS: But I don't think people think a sitting president would actually be sent to jail. I mean, it would create a moment, like we've never seen, in this country, with the Secret Service, with who's enforcing that. And, of course, he would be the head of a federal branch of government.
WADE: So, no, that's a much different question. We know that sentencing is totally up to the trial court. That judge that's sitting there, he's charged with -- with making those types of decisions. Special prosecutors are not.
COLLINS: And when you reflect on this, since you've left the D.A.'s office, how have you reflected on how the attention has not been on what's alleged that he did, when it comes to overturning the election, but instead, all the focus is on you.
WADE: I think it's a sad state of affairs, when the American public gets misled and fed information that's inaccurate and cause -- causes them to go down a rabbit hole. That's really irrelevant. I mean, we should be focusing on the indictment, as charged.
COLLINS: Well, I think, critics would hear that and say, it's also about faith in the -- in the legal system, and credibility, and who is prosecuting such a grave case, as this one.
WADE: And that's fair, and that's fair, to the extent that it affects the outcome of the prosecution. COLLINS: You're not worried that it hurts your credibility with people, who look at this case?
WADE: I'm not worried about that. I think that the people, who are looking at it, are looking at it through a lens that's most favorable, to whatever their position is.
COLLINS: And when you're prosecuting the former President of the United States, you know you're going to get a lot of scrutiny. I mean, we've seen it with every single person, who has investigated him, from Robert Mueller, to the District Attorney in New York, to the Special Counsel Jack Smith.
And I think some people would see the situation that you and Fani Willis were in, and say, what were they thinking?
WADE: Sure. Sure.
And I'll say this. The moment that we realized that what we were doing could probably interfere with the work, we took a step back and decided to go a different route. That's what I'll say.
And I think that we handled it professionally. We handled it with -- with -- within the confines of the law. And the Court has said as much.
COLLINS: So, you're saying there was a moment, where the two of you stopped and realized that what you were doing would not be beneficial for the case that you were attempting to prosecute?
WADE: No. No, no, no. No, we -- we know that the profundity of any response, larger than the question. And that question, the premise of that question, I don't -- I don't agree with, right? So, I guess what I'm saying to you is there was a moment, during our interaction, where we decided to make the decision, to step away from that, and focus on the work solely.
COLLINS: Did you ever consider stepping away from the case, and this office, then?
WADE: When?
COLLINS: When you decided to end the relationship, but you still remained in the office on this investigation?
WADE: Again, I want to make certain that I understand the question.
COLLINS: Did you ever consider leaving the Special Counsel's -- or leaving the District Attorney's office because of the relationship that you had had with the District Attorney, when you ended it, but before it became public?
WADE: Ah. Ah. So, again, again, I am very proud of the successes that I accomplished, during the course of my time, with -- as special prosecutor, with the District Attorney's office. I do not believe that anything got in the way of those successes. [21:15:00]
COLLINS: You talked about how much your life has changed, since all of this, not just joining this investigation, but also since then, your relationship with Fani Willis, the District Attorney, became public.
Has all of that continued, since you stepped aside from the case?
WADE: Well what has continued are the threats. There are constant threats on my life.
I can't possibly put into words, how it feels, to wake up daily, and need -- need security around me. Or to do something as simple as go into a grocery store, and have to watch every second, to make certain that there's not someone attempting to do something bad to me.
Or every time my phone rings, and it's one of my children, I'm holding my breath, because I'm not sure that someone hasn't decided to figure out where they are in the world, and do something to them.
This is, you know, I fully understand why people, like the former governor of the State of Georgia, decided that he did not want to accept this role, because of not only the small amount of compensation that he received, but his safety. And he said as much during the course of his testimony, it is -- it is just not safe, because of the thought process of certain people.
COLLINS: You were recently seen at the Election Night party, for the District Attorney, here in Atlanta. What made you go to that?
WADE: Oh, wow. That's a -- that's a show of support. The District Attorney and I are friends. We are close friends, great friends. We will be friends for a long time to come.
But again, that appearing at an election, a successful election bid celebration for a close friend, I don't think that there's anything odd about that. I think that people made a big to-do about it, I guess, because it was me, who decided to show up.
But I will say -- I will say this. Again, I am very proud of the work that I accomplished, as special prosecutor, with that office. I'm very proud of our continued friendship, professionally.
I am, you know, I can't stress enough how important a case like this is to American democracy. And that day of reckoning will come, where he would have to face, or the 19 defendants, will have to -- who were charged in that indictment, will have to face a jury, here in Fulton County.
COLLINS: What is your current relationship with the District Attorney?
WADE: Oh, just as outlined earlier--
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: And you'll hear that answer, right after a quick break, with more of our one-on-one with Nathan Wade, including the moment, when a member of his team, paused our interview.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:22:05]
COLLINS: More now, from my interview, with the former Georgia special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, including the moment that a member of his team, his media consultant, I should note, halted the interview, as he was answering my question, about the timeline of his romantic relationship, with the District Attorney, Fani Willis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: What is your current relationship with the District Attorney?
WADE: Oh, just as outlined earlier, we are great friends. We speak regularly.
The conversation has changed, though. Whereas before, were -- our conversations were about this case. You could -- I'm sure you could imagine and appreciate the amount of time that it takes, that you'd have to pour into a case, trying to -- a case of this magnitude, trying to prosecute those defendants.
But our conversations have shifted to how are you -- how are you handling the threats that are coming your way? Are you being safe? And democracy. The case will live on, kind of thing.
COLLINS: Just to clarify, when did the romantic relationship, between the two of you start?
WADE: Yes. So, we get into -- there's been this effort, to say that, OK, these -- these exact dates are -- are at issue, and these exact dates are -- I'm getting -- I'm getting signal here.
(NATHAN WADE'S MEDIA CONSULTANT INTERRUPTS HIM MID-ANSWER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. We're going to go off-mic for a second?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep rolling.
(NATHAN WADE'S MEDIA CONSULTANT STEPS IN, INTERRUPTS INTERVIEW AS WADE TALKS ABOUT FANI WILLIS ROMANCE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep rolling. Don't stop (inaudible).
(NATHAN WADE GETS UP MID-INTERVIEW TO CONSULT WITH HIS TEAM)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sound's good? Copy?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go rolling.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK a little bit (inaudible). Yes.
COLLINS: Everything OK?
WADE: Yes.
COLLINS: Just to revisit the question. It was to clarify when the romantic relationship started and when it ended.
WADE: Sure. So, I believe that the public has, through -- through the testimony, and other interviews, the public has a clear snapshot that this is clearly just a distraction. It is not a relevant issue, in this case. And I think that we should be focusing on more of the facts, and the indictment in the case.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Well, I asked because obviously this is -- it's still a pending matter. It's going to be before the Court of Appeals. And you talked about how proud you were, of all the work that you did in this office.
And I think the question that people have, when they hear from the Court of Appeals, this isn't happening until next spring is, did the relationship jeopardize that work that you did, in this investigation?
WADE: And therein lies the issue, why we wouldn't touch upon the work of the Court of Appeals, or some higher court, because it's a pending issue before them. I think that we should allow them, take a step back and allow them, to take the evidence that they have, and do their work, make the decision.
COLLINS: Right. But you did testify to this, and you were asked about, on the stand, about when it started, and when it ended.
It just wasn't completely clear, because before it said, before the indictment, which was August 15th, here in Atlanta, and then later, the answer was at the end of, of that year. And so, I think that was the clarity that people were seeking of, of when it started and when it ended.
WADE: Sure. And there again, there's a question before the court. And that is the crux of the question. I don't choose to say or do anything that would jeopardize the case, or the court's ruling. I prefer to allow them, to make their decision, based upon what they have, and accept it.
COLLINS: Do you believe, as you reflect on this, that your relationship with the District Attorney was a mistake? WADE: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. What I believe is this whole conversation is a distraction. That's all. It's a -- it's a tool to stop the train, and to slow down the inevitable, which is the trial of the defendants named in the election interference case.
COLLINS: Do you believe the trial ultimately happens?
WADE: Absolutely. Absolutely it happens.
COLLINS: Mr. Wade, thank you for your time today.
WADE: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: Well, a lot to unpack there.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This will be fun. I have some thoughts.
COLLINS: OK. I want to hear those thoughts.
We're going to take a quick break. We will get back. I have an all- star team here, of legal minds, to break down what you just watched there, after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:31:02]
COLLINS: You just heard that moment, where the former top prosecutor, on Donald Trump's election case, in Georgia, was dancing around the question, about when his relationship, the romantic one, started with the District Attorney, Fani Willis, and when it ended. As a member of his team intervened when I was asking him specifically, about the timeline that is at the heart of all of this.
It's worth noting, the judge, who was, overseeing this case believed that there were, quote, "Reasonable questions" about whether Willis and Wade had, quote, "Testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship."
Here tonight, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elie Honig.
Also, CNN Legal Analyst, and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson.
Retired New York State Supreme Court Justice, Jill Konviser.
And CNN's Political Commentator, and the host of "Battleground" on Fox Stations, S.E. Cupp.
Elie, I mean, let me just -- what was your reaction to that moment?
HONIG: Well, first of all, wow. Second of all, you probably should have been a prosecutor, if you had a chance to go back.
JILL KONVISER, RETIRED NEW YORK JUDGE: Yes.
HONIG: What we just saw is a fundamental refusal, to take any personal accountability. Because, let's face it, this case is in a ditch right now. And the reason is because of Nathan Wade and Fani Willis' conduct.
And you asked him, several times, do you take any responsibility? Do you feel at all personally accountable, for what's happened to this case? And he said, no, I don't. He's very much -- he's a victim. Everyone's out to get him. Everything's unfair.
And here we are. This case is in deep trouble, and certainly not getting tried before the election.
COLLINS: Well, and obviously, Judge, this is important. Because it is the timeline of this that is going to be a question that is raised when and if this goes before the Court of Appeals, in Georgia.
KONVISER: That's right. The timeline is very important.
And looking at that, I have a slightly different take, which is, I think that both Fani Willis and Wade exhibited incredibly poor judgment, in this case, at best.
But at the other end of the spectrum, is it doesn't and shouldn't necessarily affect the merits of what's alleged in this case. Without some connection, that somehow the money that she put in her pocket, made her bring this case, or something along those lines.
The cover-up is always worse than the crime. So, why don't they just say, we fell into a romantic relationship. This was when. We're sorry. And now we've got to deal with this motion. We're going to fight it. And we're going to prevail, at the end of the day. I can be fair. I made a mistake. Let's move on.
COLLINS: Yes. And obviously, Joey, I mean, a lot of this has worked to the defense. I mean, they've been making this argument. It first surfaced back in January. And now, we're seeing how it played out.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think as well as he handled that great interview, by the way, I think there's a general frustration. And the frustration is, to the Judge's point, we have an indictment. An indictment is an accusation.
What judges do, when they evaluate indictments, is they look for legal sufficiency. Did the evidence that you put before the grand jury, was it relevant to the facts charged? Was the information and the other factual allegations supporting what you alleged happen? And was there anything improper, or inappropriate that happened in the grand jury? If not, the grand jury indicted, we move forward.
And I think the general frustration is, and why he's saying it's a distraction, is we're down rabbit holes. And I think the essence is, who cares when I was with her, when I was not, what I was doing, when I wasn't where -- where we were, what we did, how many places we went to. Talk to me about the specific nature of the merits of the case. And if you can't attack the nature of the indictment, how we indicted him, whether there was a quorum that voted to indict them? Leave me alone.
And so, I think as well as he handled it, and as professional as he attempted to be, I think that's his problem. Speak about the case, not about what I'm doing, personally.
COLLINS: Yes. And he acknowledged, at one point, when we were speaking about, prosecutors are held to a high standard, because they have such power with them.
And S.E., I just wonder, politically, or just as a human, what you thought of--
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: As a layperson, you can say it.
COLLINS: --of that moment.
CUPP: As a non-legal expert at the table, sure, I can weigh in on the non-legal stuff.
I just think the expectation of a suspension of disbelief is great, by Nathan Wade, asking us to kind of ignore some of the facts, not hold him at all accountable.
[21:35:00]
While he's defiant and saying well, on one hand, this is the most important case we've ever done and worked on, and I'm really proud of it, and it's so consequential, and democracy is hanging on it. But also, my actions weren't all that bad, and my conflicts here aren't really going to jeopardize it, and the fact that it's in a standstill has nothing to do with me. It's just a distraction.
Again, as a non-legal expert, just as a layperson, that does not ring true to me. And I think, to sort of triangulate what everyone's saying here is, if they had just come out and said, yes, we had a relationship. It probably wasn't appropriate. We regret it. We regret that it conflicted this case. And we'll step aside and let you all get on with this business. I think then it would have been better, for the integrity of the case.
COLLINS: But wouldn't you--
JACKSON: But there's one issue that's a problem to me.
COLLINS: Go ahead.
JACKSON: And that is that you always look at, as a defense attorney, how did it impair my client's rights?
And so, whether you were sleeping with this one on that day, or the other day, what specifically did it do, from an evidentiary point of view, that impaired their constitutional ability, to have a fair trial? And if you give me that issue, then I'll say, hey, you got it. But if you don't bring that to me, then I'm saying, like, who cares?
HONIG: Let me -- if I can give a quick answer to that. You're right. The allegations about the affair have nothing to do with the conduct alleged against Donald Trump, and the others, in the indictment.
But prosecutors have staggering power. Prosecutors are the only people in this country, more than the President, prosecutors can take a person's liberty away. It's a scary thing, to give people that power. And if you don't exercise at the top of the ethics, then you are endangering your own case. Whether or not it has anything to do with the allegations, you're endangering your own case.
KONVISER: I agree.
COLLINS: Everybody stick around.
Judge, I want to get your thought.
We've got to take a quick break.
But we clearly have a lot to discuss, about what you just heard Nathan Wade say. Also there, at the beginning, that he thinks Donald Trump could still be put on trial, even if he wins the November election, and is back in the White House. He also believes he can be punished, if he is convicted in that case.
We'll get the Judge's take on that and everyone else, in a quick moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:40:48]
COLLINS: Back more, with our analysis of our revealing interview, given the near certainty that this Georgia election case, is not going to happen before the 2024 election.
I talked to Nathan Wade, the former special prosecutor in Georgia, about what he believes happens with that case, if Donald Trump is reelected.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you believe he can be on trial, if he's in the White House?
WADE: I do believe that he can.
COLLINS: OK.
WADE: I don't -- I don't believe that it -- it looks good to the rest of the world. But certainly, I don't think that there's anything that will prevent that from happening.
COLLINS: What if he's convicted? WADE: I don't understand the question. If he's convicted, then just like any other defendant, who's convicted, then you go through the sentencing process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal sources still here with me.
Judge, what do you make of that? I mean, because there are people, who disagree with that. I mean, that is certainly his view. And he was very adamant that he does believe it can happen. But are you skeptical that a sitting president could be prosecuted, by a Fulton County District Attorney, while he's in the White House?
KONVISER: Skeptical. Yes, most certainly. I don't think that's the case.
Look, this is unprecedented. We've never been in this situation. There's nothing in the Georgia State Constitution, or the federal constitution that speaks directly to this.
But I have a concern about separation of powers. You have someone, who is an executive, being manhandled, if you would, by another branch of government at that time. I just, I think that the role of the President, the amount of importance that role in and of itself carries, cannot -- we cannot have a trial, at the same time, dealing with. You just -- you just can't.
In fact that in 1973, after Nixon, there was a White Paper written about whether or not that could be done. And the answer was no.
In October of 2000, when Bill Clinton was still president, they reiterated that. That was after the Paula Jones issue. That it would just be too disruptive to the process of democracy, to try a president.
And I think that's probably where we'd be in this particular case.
CUPP: And Donald Trump knows that, right? I mean, I think running for president was, at least in the beginning, this other time around, a shift -- to act as a shield, against a lot of these legal issues, because he knew there would be delays.
If he's running for president, concurrently, people would be very careful about that, that part of it.
And if he became President, that this exact thing would become a constitutional crisis, and he probably wouldn't have to do any of the things that he's convicted -- you know, serve any time, go to jail, be accountable.
COLLINS: Well, let me get this out of the table stake because what we mentioned at the top of the hour is Fani Willis is asking this Georgia appeals court to dismiss this motion seeking. She says there's not sufficient evidence. Is there -- is that likely? What's the outcome with that? HONIG: No. So, just a few hours ago, the D.A. filed the motion, asking the Court of Appeals not to hear the very case that they just said they will hear. So, maybe she can talk them out of it. I wouldn't bet on it.
I mean, essentially, the argument the D.A. makes in the motion is well, the judge below got it right. The judge below said I'm credible.
Not exactly. I mean, the judge said there are, quote, "Reasonable questions" about whether both Nathan Wade and Fani Willis, quote, "Testified untruthfully." The Court of Appeals is going to hear this case.
To this notion that Nathan Wade floated that he thinks a sitting president could be tried? That is a fever dream. That is never happening, on this planet--
CUPP: Right.
HONIG: --in this universe. You are not going to have the sitting president, the Commander-in-Chief, charged with executing our foreign and domestic policy, on trial, for weeks in a courtroom, and potentially locked up. It does the public no good to put that fantasy out there.
JACKSON: Yes. And also, Kaitlan, I mean, back to 1973, right, where you had the Office of Legal Counsel with Department of Justice, they basically said that the President, if you can't be indicted, you certainly can't be prosecuted.
And the essence of it is that it incapacitates the office. And so, to have a president, who has so much responsibility, with respect to domestic and foreign affairs, to now be sitting in a courtroom? This is a RICO case. It'll take weeks, if not months to try. It's just not going to occur.
So, if he wins the presidency, it would have to be deferred, until after would be my view, right?
CUPP: Or Vice President Doug Burgum becomes president. You never know.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: But that's also you know, why the timing here, as he said, the timing was the only thing he regrets. That's why that's so--
JACKSON: Critical.
COLLINS: --important.
Thank you all for being part of my personal watch party tonight. Elie Honig, Joey Jackson, S.E. Cupp, Judge Jill Konviser, great to have you all.
Also tonight, I should note, at the White House, they're not ruling out the possibility of President Biden commuting his son's sentence, after Hunter Biden was convicted, yesterday, in a Delaware court.
A Democratic governor, and a Biden ally and endorser, is going to join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Biden just arriving in Italy, tonight, where he is preparing for a major summit, with world leaders, and looking to draw yet another contrast with his predecessor, on the world stage, especially when it comes to Ukraine.
Our sources are telling us that the United States will sign a long- term security pact, with Ukraine, tomorrow. And that comes as President Biden is also pushing this group of seven leaders, known as the G7, to back a $50 billion loan to Ukraine, of course, amid the upcoming U.S. election that is looming over all of the diplomacy (ph) that we were seeing happening overseas.
I want to talk about, this tonight, with the Democratic governor of Maryland, Wes Moore, who is also a member of the Biden-Harris campaign's National Advisory Board.
And Governor, it's great to have you.
GOV. WES MOORE (D-MD): Thank you.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Because obviously, Donald Trump wants to reverse a lot of what President Biden is doing, on the foreign policy front, should he win in November. How does President Biden talk to other world leaders, about this? Because he can't offer any guarantees about the election.
MOORE: I think President Biden can do what he always does, which is just do the job.
I think that's the -- the benefit that President Biden has, right now, is that President Biden is able to go out, and both speak with world leaders, on one day, and then also speak with small businesses, the next day, that he can go speak with -- with the -- with the -- speak on foreign relations, on one day, and then turn around and talk about how we're going to build up the economy, for working families, the next day.
President Biden is going to be able to campaign uniquely, because President Biden is actually able to go and actually do the work.
And if you think about the trials that the President has had to deal with, over these past months? Whether they be storms in the Midwest? Or recovering from a massive bridge collapse in Baltimore? And he's running against somebody, who is spending his time in his own trials, except the difference is, is those are courtrooms?
So, I think President Biden is going to do what he always done, which is do the job. And I think people will be able to see not just what kind of President, Joe Biden has been, but also the vision for the next four years.
COLLINS: Well, the other trial that he was focused on, during these two back-to-back trips to Europe was, of course his own son's. And he was found guilty, in Delaware, yesterday, on those three counts.
Biden has said he will not pardon Hunter Biden.
But a question, today, about whether he would commute his sentence, any sentence he may get, the White House would not rule that out. Do you believe that they should?
MOORE: I think the President has said that, that he is going to respect the legal conclusion. And he is going to respect the legal process, whether it is dealing with his son, or not.
And I know that the charges against Hunter Biden, they are -- they are troubling, and there -- will go through their own legal process and legal trial. There needs to be accountability, for his actions.
But also, we know that the President has said the exact same thing that the President believes in accountability, for everybody, to include his own son.
And so I know, for all of us, the challenge of having your family member, battle addiction. For so many of us, who've had friends and family, who have battled addiction, and the consequences of it. They are real.
I also know that the President is managing to lead this country, and also being very, very, very clear that whatever happens, and whatever legal processes that Hunter Biden goes through, that the President will respect that.
COLLINS: And of course, the last time we spoke, Governor, was right after the Baltimore bridge collapse, as you were still in the middle of dealing with the immediate moments there.
And the major news that happened today was the reopening of the Port of Baltimore to its full capacity, which I know is certainly welcome news, in your community.
One, can you just talk to us about what this moment means for your community. And also, if you have a better estimate of how long it will take to build the new bridge, which is the next phase, I know, of this whole recovery process.
MOORE: I remember that morning of March 26th, where we now saw a situation, where we lost six Marylanders, where we had a bridge -- where a ship that was a size of three football fields, decimated a bridge that was iconic in Baltimore, leaving tens of thousands of tons of steel, inside the water, and where thousands of people lost their jobs instantaneously.
And I remember, going in front of the people of my state, that morning, and saying, at this point, I have more -- you know, there are more questions than answers. But we're going to work together, and we're going to get through it.
And today was a major milestone after such a tragic and traumatic event, one of the most traumatic events, in our -- in our state's history.
Where, we were told that this could take almost up to a year, to be able just to clear the Federal Channel. And instead of taking 11 months, we got it done in 11 weeks, because we've worked together, and because we worked in close coordination with the Biden administration.
And so, we know that the process is not over. While we were able to successfully recover the bodies of the six individuals we lost, and return them to their families, to give some form of closure, while we were able to take care of the port workers, who lost their jobs and making sure that the work that happened, throughout the state, helped to save 3,000 jobs. And we also know now we're able to reopen the Federal Channel faster than anyone thought imaginable.
This mission will not be complete until we get that bridge rebuilt. And so, we continue working with members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, to ensure that we can get this done, on time and on budget, for the people of our state.
COLLINS: Yes. I know, obviously, this is a huge development, for so many people. But the bridge obviously will be as well.
Governor Wes Moore, thank you for joining us. Thank you for that update, tonight.
[21:55:00]
MOORE: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next, tonight, we are just seeing pictures, from the graduation, with a lot of mixed emotions, tonight, as the survivors of the Sandy Hook massacre, getting their high school diplomas, today.
We're just seeing moments from, of course, an incredibly emotional ceremony. We'll share that with you, right after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It's almost hard to believe that the students, who were just 6-years-old, when horror struck Sandy Hook Elementary School, are graduating high school, today.
It was an incredibly emotional ceremony. We're seeing the first images, tonight, from the high school graduation, at Newtown High, in Connecticut.
[22:00:00]
About 60 of the survivors, of the Sandy Hook massacre, in 2012, are among those receiving their diplomas. They wore green and white ribbons, on their gowns. Each had the inscription, "Forever In Our Hearts," in memory of the 20 classmates, who never got to leave the first grade.
Six educators also killed, in that mass shooting, as they are witnessing a bitter milestone, tonight.
Of course, our congratulations, to the graduates.
And also, may the memories, of those not on that stage, tonight, be a blessing.
Thank you so much, for joining me, this hour.
"LAURA COATES LIVE" starts right now.
