CNN reporter describes tense moment between Judge and Trump s attorney
CNN reporter describes tense moment between Judge and Trump s attorney
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00to be a part of this process.
00:01We'll have more on that in a
00:02moment. But for now, thank you
00:02so much for joining us. We'll
00:05be right back. Judge Tanya
00:07Trotkin is just adjourned
00:09adjourned today's hearing in a
00:11federal courtroom here in
00:12Washington on the federal
00:14subversion case against Donald
00:16Trump. CNN's senior crime and
00:18justice reporter Caitlin Paul
00:19S was inside the courtroom
00:21throughout this entire process
00:22this morning. Give us a little
00:24flavor of what was going on
00:26inside. We saw your reporting
00:26and we were putting on the left
00:27side of the courtroom. We saw
00:31the right side of the courtroom.
00:32Yeah, well, if there were a
00:34couple things to note here, the
00:36first is that moment where
00:38Judge Tanya Trotkin jumped in.
00:40There was a spicy banter going
00:42on between her and Donald
00:43Trump's attorney, John Lauro,
00:45about how long it should take
00:48for everyone to get together.
00:50All of the evidence the
00:51briefing the legal arguments to
00:53talk about presidential
00:53immunity. Trump's team
00:54obviously wanted to slow things
00:57down. They wanted to slow it
00:58down. They wanted to slow it
01:00down. Then they got together
01:01to say Hold on. You're talking
01:03over one another judge and
01:05defense attorney and then John
01:08Lauro said, You know, there's a
01:09very sensitive time in our
01:11nation's history, and that's
01:13when you could see he lost the
01:15judge Judge Tanya Trotkin sat
01:17back in her chair. She sighed
01:18and then she put a finger up,
01:22stopped the banter. Took a
01:24pause and said, Let's discuss
01:26this. And then she said, Let's
01:28talk about this. And then she
01:29said, Let's talk about this
01:31timeline, and that just put a
01:33different flavor across the
01:35courtroom of the discussions
01:35about timing here, and she
01:39pulled it back to say. We're
01:40going to talk about what's
01:42actually needed what I can do
01:43here and how to move this
01:45forward. She didn't put a trial
01:46date on the calendar, and she
01:48didn't put a timeline down yet.
01:50She does say she is going to
01:52set one up for later today.
01:53But she did put a subtext here.
01:56She didn't want that. This is
01:58not about the presidential
02:00election. Donald Trump running
02:01for presidency and whether or
02:03not the Justice Department is
02:06able to put forward evidence
02:08before November. The other
02:09thing I want to point out here,
02:12Wolf is. There was a lightness
02:13to this proceeding. Nobody has
02:14been in this courtroom before
02:17Judge Chuck in since last
02:19October, and even Jack Smith.
02:21We haven't seen him in a
02:22long time. We haven't seen him
02:24in a long time. We haven't seen
02:25him in a long time. We haven't
02:27seen him in a lot longer than
02:28the last time I remember seeing
02:30him. Judge Chuck in her hair.
02:32It's lighter. And even at the
02:33beginning of this proceeding,
02:35she said. Everybody looks
02:36arrested, and there was laughter
02:38across the courtroom. Well she
02:40did. She did underscore what we
02:42all know about Judge Chuck in.
02:44She is tough. She is very, very
02:46smart, and she does not want
02:48any really serious, unserious
02:49business to emerge during the
02:52hearing. Let's talk more about
02:53this now with former federal
02:54prosecutor Elliott Williams and
02:55former Trump attorney Tim
02:57parlatory. Okay, Elliott, who
03:00prevailed more today? What do
03:02you think? We'll see, and a lot
03:04of that is going to depend on
03:06this first wave of decisions or
03:08rulings that comes from the
03:09judge in terms of the timeline.
03:11Now, certainly she's not going
03:12to set a schedule. This is as
03:14Paula had noted. But how are
03:16they going to decide these? Some
03:18of these questions about
03:18immunity and which evidence is
03:20going to be in and out? How in
03:22the process for which she sets
03:23up there is really going to
03:24decide who the big winner is
03:25today. But look, this isn't
03:27going anywhere anytime soon.
03:28There's a lot of big decisions
03:29that need to be made. Tim,
03:31what's your take on who had the
03:33advantage today in arguments in
03:34court? I mean, I agree with
03:38Ellie. It's one of those things
03:40where they made the arguments,
03:41the judge didn't decide. And
03:43ultimately the thing that's kind
03:45of the most immediate concern
03:47is what is the next briefing
03:48schedule going to be? And both
03:49sides have argued over
03:51essentially who's going to file
03:52their brief first on the
03:54immunity issue. You know,
03:55traditionally it is something
03:56where the defense will file a
03:58motion first, the government
03:59then responds, the defense gets
04:00a reply. Here, a special
04:02counsel's office has suggested
04:04kind of reversing the order,
04:05letting them go first and having
04:07the defense reply and then
04:08giving special counsel the last
04:10word. And I think that, you
04:12know, the subtext that they were
04:13trying to get into there is, if
04:15you do it that way, right now,
04:17this close to the election,
04:19you're essentially dictating
04:20which side gets to put their
04:21argument, not only before the
04:22court, but also before the
04:24public, you know, in what order
04:26before the election. So, you
04:27know, ultimately we'll see what
04:29the judge decides on that.
04:31Tim, do you think the judge
04:32seems inclined to accept the
04:35indictment as it is? Or do you
04:37think that the special counsel
04:38is going to have to do some
04:40significant tinkering with it?
04:45Well, she's definitely not
04:46going to accept it just simply
04:47as is without proper briefing
04:49and potentially hearings. You
04:51know, that I think she made
04:52very clear that this is
04:53something the Supreme Court
04:54wants her to go through a
04:56detailed analysis before she
04:57even gets to that point. And I
04:59do think that they have cut it
05:02down significantly. There's a
05:03lot of things that, you know,
05:04were immune under the Supreme
05:06Court case law that have been
05:07taken out. But there may still
05:09be a few things that she decides
05:11to cut out a little bit further.
05:13So I do think that there's going
05:14to be just a little bit more
05:16shaving to go on.
05:18Elliot, on how this is weighed,
05:20it seems like the special
05:21counsel says, we can do this
05:23through legal briefings. The
05:24Trump team is like, no, let's
05:25have hearings. Let's discuss
05:27this further. Obviously, one
05:28would put the case back even
05:30further than it is now, as
05:31Paula pointed out, potentially
05:33into next fall. Is there going
05:35to be a mix? How do you foresee
05:36that?
05:37You know, it's, I think the
05:39judge has acknowledged that
05:41we're not seeing a trial anytime
05:42soon. That's why she's very
05:44clear about not setting a trial
05:45date because of the number of
05:46issues. Now, the prosecutors
05:47have been clear that they can,
05:48that they ought to be able to
05:50just lay out. This is the
05:51evidence that we think ought to
05:52support the indictment that
05:53we've supported here. Let's put
05:55that on paper. And then after
05:56that we can debate what's
05:57immune and what isn't. The
05:58defense wants to drag things
06:00out a little bit more, um, by
06:02sort of, um, having a series
06:03ineffective mini hearings or,
06:05or, or many disputes. Again,
06:06that's all the things that the
06:07judge has to sort out in the
06:08next, we might even see
06:09something today. Uh, you don't
06:11want to get people to get too
06:12excited, but, um, you know,
06:13just at least in terms of a
06:14preliminary, uh, outlining of
06:17what, what the next timeline
06:18is going to be.
06:19What did you think Elliot about
06:20how she said this court is not
06:23concerned with the timing of
06:26the election and how realistic
06:28that is when you can't ignore,
06:30at least politically, that
06:31there is an election.
06:32It's like getting the band back
06:33together, Brianna, because you
06:34know, you and I and Boris, we
06:35talked about this a lot in the
06:37spring and fall, and I, and I
06:38have long taken the view that
06:40we have a political calendar,
06:42but also the legal system
06:43doesn't need to bend the knee to
06:45that. But of course we don't
06:47live in fantasy lawyer land. We
06:48live in a world where there are
06:49elections and people care about
06:51what happens, uh, in, in, in
06:52these legal cases. And so she's
06:54right. Well, anybody, pardon me,
06:56anybody who believes or says
06:59that we ought to think about
07:00elections is right. It's, it's
07:01true. It's, it's reality, but
07:02the judge has a job to do. And
07:03her job is to, is to make
07:05decisions that adhere to the
07:07rule of law and not what's best
07:10for voters on November 5th.
07:12Tim, it seems like one of the
07:13angles of attack for the Trump
07:15team on this is going to mimic
07:18what we saw play out, uh, in
07:20Florida and the classified
07:22documents case. One of the
07:23arguments is going to be that
07:25special counsel, Jack Smith was
07:27unduly appointed that, that his
07:29appointment itself is illegal.
07:31How successful do you think that
07:33argument is going to be before
07:34judge Chutkan?
07:38Oh, it's not going to be
07:39successful at all in front of
07:40her. You know, the DC circuit
07:42case law on this is very
07:43unfavorable to the president's
07:45position. Uh, but you know, the
07:47reason he was successful in
07:48Florida is in part because that
07:50DC case law wasn't binding on
07:53Florida. And so I think that for
07:55that argument to ultimately
07:56succeed, it's not going to
07:58succeed in front of judge
07:58Chutkan. It's not going to
08:00succeed at the DC circuit. It
08:02may succeed in the, um, in the,
08:05uh, Florida case on appeal up
08:07to the, up to the circuit and
08:09then ultimately to the Supreme
08:10Court to where if they prevail
08:13there, then that decision can
08:15essentially be dropped back down
08:17to Chutkan. But as far as
08:19succeeding in this courtroom,
08:20not a chance.