Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith Releases Report on Evidence of Donald Trump Attempting to Undermine 2020 Presidential Election; Senate Confirmation for Pete Hegseth Kicks Off; Santa Ana Winds Bring New Fire Threat to Southern California. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired January 14, 2025 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

JULIE CASTLE, CEO, BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY: -- and it's so heartwarming to see us be able to assist and help in this kind of way.

SIDNER: I know some of your volunteers, some of their friends have seen utter devastation, have seen some of their homes go, and so they're still out there trying to help the animals in the in the area. Thank you so much for the work that you're doing, Julie Castle, we appreciate it.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking overnight, Donald Trump not exonerated. The final report from former special counsel Jack Smith released just happened. Smith indicates he thinks Trump would have been convicted. The new details about some decisions made that we had never heard about.

And then breaking moments ago, a new, very rare, particularly dangerous situation. Red flag warning in effect in California as a new wildfire explodes overnight near Los Angeles.

And a new close call between two flights caught on video by a bystander.

I'm John Berman with Sara Sidner and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: And the breaking news, the final report is out. The conclusion from Special Counsel Jack Smith is in, and here is Smith's take on Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election just days before the president elect is set to retake office after winning the 2024 election. When it comes -- "when it became clear Mr. Trump had lost the election, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power." Jack Smith goes on to say, "but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."

The report dropped while most everyone was sleeping, around 1:00 in the morning, and almost immediately the president-elect responded, calling Jack Smith deranged, insisting the prosecution was all political. Let's start this hour with Katelyn Polantz on everything else that we

learn in this 130-page report. Good morning, Katelyn.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Kate, to sum it up, what Jack Smith is saying here is we think Donald Trump would have been found guilty at trial even after the Supreme Court allowed for immunity around the presidency, even after we rewrote the indictment. And here is all of the evidence we gathered and our thinking. That's how the report is shaped. It goes into quite a bit of detail.

Kate, one of the things that Jack Smith has to look at here is why charge Donald Trump, how to charge Donald Trump, and especially how to handle charges against Donald Trump during an election year when the -- when Trump believes he should have a lot of protections and that he was being under attack from a political perspective.

Smith addresses this head on, though in the report. He writes, "There is unquestionably a public interest in ensuring that elected officials and election workers can carry out their duties without fear of threats and retaliation. Accordingly, the need to promote this federal interest weighed in favor of proceeding against Mr. Trump." They say that they wanted to proceed against Trump in this case because of not just the violence that he was behind and instigating at the Capitol on January 6th of 2021, but the amount of deceit that Trump had publicly in trying to lead his supporters to that moment where he was convincing them of election fraud when he himself knew there was none.

Another thing, Kate, that's important to point out. Jack Smith accompanied this report with a letter defending his team, putting it in the course of history, and saying that you think that this was a political prosecution. It was not. My team had integrity. He writes, "The claim from Mr. Trump that my decision as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable." Kate?

BOLDUAN: Yes, not mincing any words on that one, that's for sure. Katelyn, thank you so much.

Sara?

SIDNER: All right, let's bring in Elie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Just in looking at this and hearing what you heard Katelyn say, is what we are seeing a typical report by a special counsel?

ELIE HONIG, SENIOR CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So in most respects, yes. Sara, when you look at the substantive body of this report, it's what we expect to see from special counsel and from Jack Smith. It is a systematic, methodical laying out of the evidence and explaining how that evidence meets the laws that Jack Smith chose to indict Donald Trump on.

[08:05:00] The part that's unusual, though, is that four-page introductory letter that Katelyn just mentioned. It is an intense, almost emotional defense of Jack Smith's team. Now, it's normal to see a special counsel write something in a couple of sentences saying, my team was very hard working and had high integrity and was not political. But he goes on a rant. He quotes John Adams, he quotes former attorneys general. He says the criticism of him was laughable.

And I suppose one could look at that as an important and necessary example of Jack Smith standing up for his team. On the other hand, though, it's hard to read that and then conclude that everything that follows is completely separate from emotion and completely workmanlike and has nothing to do with his personal feelings. So, as with many things, Sara, it's in the eye of the beholder.

SIDNER: I'm just interested in him saying, look, this does not mean that you, Donald Trump, are exonerated. Have you seen that before?

HONIG: Sure. I mean, Robert Mueller is one example. But this is a unique circumstance because we got to a place where there was an indictment, a grand jury found probable cause, but we never got to a place where a jury had to decide whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So it's zero percent surprising that Jack Smith said, I don't exonerate you. In fact, Jack Smith clearly feels strongly that his evidence was substantial.

SIDNER: I want to get your thoughts, speaking of a jury of your peers, you know, deciding this, ultimately, if it were to go to court, I want to get your thoughts on this part of the report, which said the departments view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind," and goes on to say, "Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."

Is Jack Smith saying that he guarantees this would have ended up in a conviction, even though this would be a jury making this decision?

HONIG: Very important clarification there, Sara. This is not quite the flex that it may seem to be. Jack Smith is not saying a jury would convict. No prosecutor would ever say that. Jack Smith has been a prosecutor for 30 years. Thats not what we do. Thats not what we say. Thats not what Jack Smith says.

What he says here is the same thing that every prosecutor has to say before they charge any case, which is the evidence is sufficient enough that a jury could convict. You have to make that finding as a prosecutor before you charge a first-year drug case or before you charge the former president with a vast conspiracy. So it's a really important nuance, but it matters. He's not making some bold prediction here, oh, if we went to trial, we would have won for sure. What he's saying is the evidence was enough that we could have gone to a trial, and a jury could have convicted. That's different than saying a jury would have convicted.

SIDNER: Fair enough.

I do want to ask you about the other special counsel report, that classified documents case. Why haven't we seen that released? Or will we ever?

HONIG: I'm starting to doubt that. I mean, the Justice Department's position right now is that the public should not see the other report, the classified documents report. The Justice Department's position is because there are still two active defendants here, the non-Trump defendants, Nauta and de Oliveira, all we want to do is provide this behind closed doors to certain leaders of Congress. So even DOJ is not saying we want to put it out there publicly.

Now, Trump's team is still not satisfied with that. Theres going to be an argument on Friday where Trump's team is going to argue DOJ cannot even send this over to Congress, because I guess it might leak from there. Now, I think DOJ clearly has the right to do that. I think DOJ should prevail there, but as it currently stands, even DOJ has no intention to make that other report public.

SIDNER: Elie Honig, thank you so much for walking us through all those details, appreciate it. Kate?

BOLDUAN: And we are standing by for the start of a critical day for Donald Trump's cabinet nominees on Capitol Hill. Pete Hegseth, one of Donald Trump's more controversial picks, is in the hot seat this morning. He's about to sit for his confirmation hearing. It begins next hour, and is likely to face then hours of grueling questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Let's go to CNN's Alayna Treene. She is live in West Palm Beach, Florida, for us this morning. Alayna, what are you hearing from the Trump team heading into today? This is a big day for them.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: This is, and it's a big week. Donald Trump is going to see 13 of his nominees have their confirmation hearings this week, or at least start them. But of course, today is a huge day because Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Defense, is one of the most controversial picks that he has. And it's very clear that Senate Democrats are planning to really grill him in public, finally, today, and try to press him with some of these questions that they've long held.

Now, one thing we know is that behind the scenes, Donald Trump and his team, his allies, some Republican senators have been behind closed doors, really working with different people.

[08:10:05]

We're told Pete Hegseth is one of them, to really prepare them, some of these rigorous behind closed doors mock hearings that they've been holding, trying to get them ready for this moment. We know that Hegseth is going to be confronted with some of his past, the allegations against him of sexual misconduct, of some of his past comments about women serving in the military, gay people serving in the military. All of that, I'm told, has been coming up behind closed doors in some of these practice sessions, really trying to get him ready for this moment today.

Now, I will also note that we did hear from President-elect Donald Trump himself just moments ago, posting on Truth Social. I want to read for you what he said. He wrote, quote, "Pete Hegseth will make a great secretary of defense. He has my complete and total support. Good luck today, Pete."

Now again, this is one of the most high stakes hearings for any of Donald Trump's picks given some of the controversy surrounding Hegseth. Now, when I've talked to Donald Trump's advisers about him specifically, I would note that early on when he was having those meetings one-on-one with senators, Republican senators, I should say, behind closed doors, there were some concerns, especially if more information had come out. However, once they kind of got through that period and now that they've reached this public confirmation hearing and the start of this, there is a lot more confidence that he will be able to get through this, I'm told. But of course, we have to see what is going to happen today and all of that, what will fall out from that later on. Kate?

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Good to see you, Alyana, thank you so much.

John?

BERMAN: All right, with us now is Jane Harman, former nine-term member of Congress from California who served as ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. She is the chair of the bipartisan, congressionally mandated National Defense Strategy Commission and president emerita of the Wilson Center, so well-qualified to talk about this confirmation process today. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us.

Look, Democrats on the committee are complaining, A, that they haven't had full access to the FBI background check on Pete Hegseth, but B, that that FBI background check did not include interviews, they say, with the woman who has accused Hegseth of sexual misconduct, or a former wife, for instance. How important do those interviews, would they be?

JANE HARMAN, CHAIR, COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY: Well, I think it's important for the Senate to have a full picture of who this man is. And what matters is, is he qualified to lead the largest department ever in U.S. history with 3 million people, $850 billion budget, at a time when, as our commission said, the world is more dangerous than any time since World War II with this axis of four countries collaborating against us and with the Defense Department mired in bureaucracy, et cetera.

So it seems to me that the questions to ask are around that. I'm not partisan about this because the employee base in the Pentagon and the targets that would be America are not just Democrats or Republicans. So we have to think about this in terms of, are we equipping America, as our report said, with qualified people and a structure that will keep us safe in the future?

BERMAN: And I'm going to read you a quote from that report in just a second. But I want to stick for just a moment on the allegations of personal misconduct, because how would they impact, how does that impact someone's ability to lead a bureaucracy like the military establishment?

HARMAN: Well, the military is full of women, qualified women, and men who respond to the command of their commander in chief, that's the president of the United States and the secretary of defense, who is approved to qualify to -- carry out those commands. And if they feel less than satisfied that their leader is either up to the task in terms of performing it, or has background issues that are truly concerning, that's a problem.

Weve had good secretaries of defense in the past. No one has been able to absolutely master that bureaucracy, and that's what our report is calling for. But some say the deputy secretary of defense is more important. The current one, Kath Hicks, a woman, is truly qualified. But that's not all that we should be looking at. The Senate has to advise and consent to this appointment, and they need to make the best nonpartisan decision they can make about who will lead the largest -- the largest group to protect our country in the future.

BERMAN: And from that report, which you were just holding up in your hands, there is this quote, "The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945, and include the potential for near term major war. The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today," you wrote.

So we've got to look at Pete Hegseth's opening statement, and what he talks about is the need to return a warrior ethos to the Pentagon. Does that address your concerns?

[08:15:00]

Does that address your concerns? Would a warrior ethos fix what you are laying out here?

HARMAN: I don't think so. I think we have to be prepared for war. But what our goal is, is to deter war, and we have soft power tools that are always talked about. The State Department AID, American diplomacy, our partners and allies that are hugely important.

And so, a warrior ethos to me doesn't cover the whole thing. We talk about all elements of national power, including all the things I just mentioned.

And if we don't, for example, latch the Pentagon to the tech base, which is producing the software, which is a more major component of our military assets than ever before, and we don't understand AI and have guardrails around it, and we don't understand the full potential of cyber, we're not going to be prepared for future wars.

So, are these things that he knows about? He needs to be asked about this. And I'll just say one more thing about the Senate. The Senate has three major functions. Advise and consent is one of them. Passing a budget is another one, not doing well on that more than a decade since they passed a budget on time. And the third, function is well, let's just focus on those because those are the two that really concern me the most.

BERMAN: Rick Perry sends his regards on that.

Congresswoman Jane Harman, it's great to see you this morning. Thank you so much for helping us understand what the Senate is doing today and what Pete Hegseth will face in these questions, appreciate it -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Some of the most powerful winds yet are kicking up right now in Southern California and threatening to undo the progress made by fire crews against the deadly Los Angeles wildfires. We have an update coming up.

And Hollywood is toning down the glitz and glamor, but the awards season will continue as Southern California continues to battle this wildfire disaster, the changes now being made to the award programs, we have that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:21:50]

BERMAN: All right, we do have breaking news. Parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties are now under the highest level. Red flag fire warning. Dangerous winds expected to gust up to 70 miles per hour. Officials warn the conditions could cause explosive fire growth.

At this moment, firefighters are racing to contain a new fire that erupted in Ventura County. Let's get right to CNN's Stephanie Elam. She is in the hard-hit Pacific Palisades.

Good morning, Stephanie.

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John, and the good news about that Auto Fire that they're saying that they're able to stop it from progressing further, even though it is not contained yet. But this is exactly what officials want people to be aware of. The fact that we're going to see these stronger winds, and I can tell you it's starting to pick up a little bit here. We're going to see these stronger winds today and tomorrow.

And just because we have the Palisades Fire burning and the Eaton Fire burning doesn't mean those are the only places where we could see blazes erupt and grow with these winds.

And so, that's why they're asking everyone to be prepared to evacuate. Have your emergency kit ready to go in case you do need to get out. And that was the situation for one couple in the Eaton Fire.

I want you to take a listen to Cheryl Ku. She was coming home from work when she saw the flames in the distance, and it was caught on their RING camera. She was able to tell her husband, Jeffrey that they needed to go. But take a listen to her experience.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHERYL KU, NARROWLY ESCAPED ALTADENA WILDFIRE: We were in the panic mode of just trying to get out as fast as we can. We did see the embers flying. It was almost like a snow flurries, but instead it's fire that's coming around and we did not think about whether or not those embers were going to ignite on a dry brush around us, that it was just a matter of -- we had limited time and we had to go.

But when we re-watched the footage, we didn't realize how many embers were flying around us and it's almost like watching a horror movie in a way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ELAM: Now, the couple did wet down their roof and they did flee from their home and their home amazingly is still standing.

Of course, it is also worth noting that, according to the "Los Angeles Times," investigators are looking into what was going on with one of the electrical transmission towers that was there.

For their part, Southern California Edison, the power company, is saying that their equipment was working at the time, although they have been named in a lawsuit at this point.

But still, all of this, still a very active fire scene and we have more threats today. That's the big takeaway. People need to be prepared -- John.

BERMAN: Yes, a critical 24 hours. People need to remain vigilant, which is hard because people are just exhausted.

Stephanie Elam, thank you very much for your reporting -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Let's get the very latest. Joining us right now is battalion chief with Cal Fire, David Acuna.

Thanks so much for coming back in.

Chief, winds picking back up today. What do 70 mile per hour gusts mean for firefighting efforts at this point?

DAVID ACUNA, CAL FIRE, BATTALION CHIEF: Thank you so much for having me on here, Kate. And as Stephanie mentioned yes, there's so much wind blowing through.

Imagine if you're driving down the freeway at 70 miles an hour, you stick your hand out flat and have the wind press against that. Then you look at it from the point of view of that is the wind that is happening from Ventura to Northern LA and the entire region of Southern California is under this red flag warning.

[08:25:14] That pressure just blows fire in the direction of the wind and will pick up these embers that we've been diligently trying to extinguish, and so, they do not go over our control lines.

BOLDUAN: Will you have to ground planes and aircraft and helicopters once again?

ACUNA: So yes, when it gets over about 30 miles per hour, depending on the aircraft and the pilot's determinations, because they're professionals and dedicated, they want to be up, but over 30 miles per hour, it is unsafe to fly.

It's unsafe for the aircraft, for the personnel and of course, for the people on the ground. Not to mention that if we release retardant at that level of 70 mile per hour winds, it's just going to turn into a mist that blows away without being effective.

BOLDUAN: It's actually an aspect of it that I hadn't even thought about that the retardant, that the whole purpose of having the plane up there is that you can actually target that fire retardant to a specific area and that becomes almost impossible with these gusts.

With all of that in mind, do you think you're going to see kind of -- I'll call it a backslide in containment today because of the conditions you're up against before you can make more progress in containment.

ACUNA: Well, I won't ever -- I don't like saying never say never. But we generally will put down the containment that we're confident. We can prevent it from expanding. However, where our real concern is, is the next fire. So we need the public's help in order to make sure we do not have any additional sparks.

Mowing where you could strike a rock, dragging chains with the vehicle. Make sure your vehicle is in good repair so it doesn't kick out a hot piece of catalytic converter 2,000 degrees, or even just simply having a campfire. Don't do any of that right now in this very, very high wind so that we can avoid another fire.

BOLDUAN: On the Eaton Fire we've seen these images of early flames under an electrical transmission tower. We've seen this RING camera footage. We just played an interview with a couple from a home in Altadena, kind of capturing the small fire on the hillside by the home last Tuesday. And the "LA Times" is reporting that investigators have cordoned off the area around that tower.

How seriously are investigators looking at those images, or do you think investigators are any closer today than yesterday in determining a cause of any of these fires?

ACUNA: Well, the professional investigators working on this are going to stay open to any cause. And of course, they want to look for something that may have been caught in some images. But keep in mind, that is just one perspective.

And so, they have to look at the entire area and see what kind of information they can gather in order to make a proper determination using their investigative methods, ensuring that they're ruling out not only what couldn't have happened, but also making sure that they can determine exactly what piece of any sort of material, or if it was a person or however that may have happened and they're going to make sure that they have that all dialed in before they release a report.

BOLDUAN: The investigation clearly underway, but are you getting a sense, as Cal Fire, their aspect of being involved in it is it's looking more or less like arson?

Well, again, it's really early in the investigation. Where we really want to focus right now is to understand that 95 percent of all fires are started by humans. But that's not all arson, It can be accidental. Again, with the rock strike, it could be a vehicle dragging chains. It can also be just simply not realizing that, you know, they had some sort of combustible material in their grass.

So, it is important for the public to maintain their awareness and to help us not have any more fires.

BOLDUAN: Chief David Acuna, thank you for coming in. Good luck today -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right, ahead, we're monitoring developments out of the Middle East. Both Israel and Hamas signaling they could be very close to securing a cease fire and hostage deal.

And, the FAA investigating after two planes carrying hundreds of passengers nearly collided in the skies over the Phoenix Airport. We'll take you to those stories, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:00]