>>FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP CO-DEFENDANTS IN THE
GEORGIA ELECTION SUBVERSION CASE
FACE HEFTY LEGAL BILLS AS THEY
MOUNT A DEFENSE AGAINST THE
PROWLING R.I.C.O. INDICTMENT.
SO FAR TRUMP AND HAS REFUSED TO
HELP.
HIS ONE-TIME ALLIES HAVE TO
SCRAMBLE TO FIND OTHER SOURCES
OF FUNDS.
JENNA ELLISIS, ONE OF THE
CO-DEFENDANTS, WROTE A POST ON
REBRANDED TWITTER I WAS RELIABLY
INFORMED TRUMP ISN'T FUNDING ANY
OF US WHO ARE INDICTED.
NOW A SOURCE CLOSE TO TRUMP TOLD
CNN, I DON'T THINK ELLIS WOULD
BE ON THE TOP OF TRUMP'S LIST
ANYWAY.
SINCE THE INDICTMENT, ELLIS HAS
RAISED $180,000 THROUGH A
FAITH-BASED CROWDFUNDING SITE.
JOINING US NOW WITH THE
ANALYSIS, CNN SENIOR ANALYST,
ELIE HONIG, AIRERROL LEWIS, SHE
TALL COT AND THE NATIONAL
CORRESPONDENT FOR "THE
WASHINGTON POST."
WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THE TABLE.
I GUESS BEING APART OF THIS
PROCESS DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN
YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE SUPPORT
OF MAGA FINANCIALLY.
IS THAT ALL THAT UNUSUAL?
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CASES
GOING ON.
WHAT HAVE WE SEEN SO FAR?
>> YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S
UNUSUAL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
THIS IS A TRUMP SITUATION,
RIGHT.
BUT -- AND THE LAWYERS CAN
PROBABLY SPEAK TO THIS BETTER
THAN I CAN IN TERMS OF WHETHER
IT'S UNUSUAL FROM THE BROADER
PERSPECTIVE, BUT WHAT I THINK IS
INTERESTING IS YOU HAVE SEVERAL
OF THESE CO-DEFENDANTS TRYING TO
SEVER THEIR TRIALS AND FROM MY
UNDERSTANDING ONE OF THE
BENEFITS OF SEVERING A TRIAL
WOULD BE THAT TRUMP'S LAWYERS
WOULD NOT THEN BE AT THAT TRIAL.
SO ANYTHING THAT COMES UP THAT
IMPLICATES TRUMP, MAYBE IF THE
TRIAL IS SEVERED, THE
CO-DEFENDANTS AREN'T GOING TO,
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ARGUE
FENCE IT.
>> SHELBY IS RIGHT.
ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES TO A
DEFENDANT OF HAVING A SEVERED
TRIAL, MEANING TWO SEPARATE
TRIALS, THE ONES WHO GO SECOND
GET TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE'S
PLAYBOOK.
ON THE QUESTION ABOUT PAYMENTS
FOR AT CO-DEFENDANTS, THIS IS
UNUSUAL FOR A TRUMP CASE BECAUSE
HE HAS HISTORICALLY, DATING BACK
TO IMPEACHMENT, COVERED HIMSELF
BY HAVING HIS PACs AND
ASSOCIATED ENTITIES PAY FOR
LAWYERS FOR CO-COUNSEL.
THAT'S NOT ILLEGAL.
THIS HAPPENS QUITE A BIT.
>> AND PEOPLE SAW IT AS BEING TO
HIS BENEFIT?
>> 100%.
THIS IS A TACTIC THAT POWERFUL
RICH PEOPLE USE.
IT'S LEGAL.
>> AND POWERFUL RICH
CORPORATIONS.
>> EXACTLY.
CORPORATIONS ARE A GREAT
EXAMPLE.
BY PAYING FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S
ATTORNEYS, YOU MAKE IT DIFFICULT
FOR THEM TO FLIP ON YOU.
IF THEY DO, A AND IF THEY HAVE
THE COURAGE TO SAY TO THEIR
LAWYERS BEING FUNDED BY THE
BOSS, I THINK MY BEST INTEREST
WOULD BE TO COOPERATE, YOU ARE
GOING TO LOSE THAT LAWYER, YOU
HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN LAWYER,
WHICH IS REALLY, REALLY
EXPENSIVE.
IT'S PROTECTED TRUMP BEFORE.
NOW IT'S NOT IN THE GEORGIA
CASE.
>> DOES THE PAC HAVE THE MONEY
THIS TIME AROUND TO PAY FOR IT?
AND IF IT DOESN'T, WHICH IT
SEEMS LIKE IT DOESN'T, WOULD
TRUMP HIMSELF, YOU KNOW, I FEEL
LIKE --
>> YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION BEFORE YOU ASK IT --
>> TO PULL HIS OWN FUNDS OUT OF
IT.
I MEAN, HE IS NOT EVEN FUNDING
HIS OWN LEGAL DEFENSE.
>> WE SAW AN EXAMPLE IN FLORIDA
OF A GUY WHO HAD HIS LAWYER PAID
FOR.
THERE WAS A CONFLICT BECAUSE HE
GAVE FALSE TESTIMONY, ACCORDING
TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND IF HE
WERE TO REVERSE THAT TESTIMONY,
HE WOULD IMPLICATE HIS LAWYER'S
OTHER CLIENT.
SO HE IMPLICATED OTHER PEOPLE IN
TRUMP'S CIRCUIT.
THAT'S THE QUESTION, RIGHT.
IT'S VERY CHEAP IF YOU LEAVE
TRUMP'S ORBIT AND TESTIFY
AGAINST TRUMP AND MAKE A DEAL
AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A
CRIMINAL CASE ANYMORE, RIGHT.
TRUMP HAS TWO CONFLICTING
MOTIVATIONS.
THE POLITICAL QUESTION AND LEGAL
QUESTION.
THE POLITICAL QUESTION SO SOLVE
HIS LEGAL QUESTION IF HE IS
ELECTED PRESIDENT.
HE HAS NO INDICATION TO TRY TO
HELP AND SHE FLIPPED AND IS
WORKING FOR RON DeSANTIS RIGHT
NOW.
DO I HELP THEM AND LEGALLY?
WHAT DOES THAT SAY LIPOLITICALL?
DO I LET THEM USE MY LEGAL
CAPITAL?
BASED ON THE FACT THEY DON'T
HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CASH, SO
WILL END UP WEIGHING AGAINST
DONALD TRUMP.
>> WHAT MESSAGE DOES THIS SEND
TO ANY OTHER POTENTIAL TRUMP
SUPPORTERS WHO MAY WANT TO GO,
QUOTE, UNQUOTE, THAT EXTRA MILE?
THIS WHOLE PROCESS IN JUSTICE IS
SORT OF AN EXERCISE IN SENDING A
MESSAGE.
>> HE HAS GIVEN THEM A LOT TO
THINK ABOUT.
RUDY GIULIANI, LONG-TIME
SUPPORTER, FRIEND, GOING BACK
DECADES, NOT GETTING HIS BILLS
PAID.
HAVING TO GO TO MAR-A-LAGO AND
BEG FOR HELP.
APPARENTLY THE REACTION WAS, YOU
KNOW, WHEN RUDY GIULIANI SAYS,
LOOK, I WENT TO COURT 60 TIMES
FOR YOU AND THE RESPONSE WAS,
WELL, YOU LOST ALL THOSE CASES.
>> THAT'S A TOUGH COMEBACK.
>> THAT'S A REAL FOOD FOR
THOUGHT.
AND LOOK, WE KNOW FROM MICHAEL
COHEN, OTHER LONG TIME --
>> TALKS ABOUT IT FREQUENTLY.
>> HE SAID IT WAS BASED ON THE
FACT HE WAS LEFT HUNG OUT TO
DRY.
HIS FAMILY'S SECURITY WAS AT
STAKE.
THAT'S WHEN HE TURNED AND
STARTED TALKING.
AND I THINK WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE
THAT WITH OTHERS AS WELL.
>> TO THAT POINT, AND WE HAVE
TALKED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE
TIMES, WHAT IS THERE TO FLIP
HERE?
THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION, RIGHT?
MICHAEL COHEN KNEW ALL THE
THINGS ABOUT ALL THE THINGS IN
TERMS OF THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION
AND WHAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT
WAS DOING IN HIS BUSINESS LIFE
PRE-POLITICAL LIFE.
YOU LOOK THROUGH THE INDICTMENT,
THE FULTON COUNTY INDICTMENT,
YOU LOOK THROUGH THE JACK SMITH
INDICTMENTS AS WELL WHERE IT
SEEMS LIKE ON THE DOCUMENTS CASE
THAT KIND OF ROLLED UP,
EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE
CROSSHAIRS TO SOME DEGREE.
I AM WONDERING WHAT THE FLIP IS
HERE.
>> YEAH, SO THE GUY WE TALKED
ABOUT IN FLORIDA HAD A CON CRET
THING.
HE SAID THEY ASKED ME TO DELETE
THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO.
OF COURSE, ALLEGEDLY ACCORDING
TO THE INDICTMENT.
THE R.I.C.O. INDICTMENT IN
GEORGIA HAS A LOT OF COMPONENTS,
A LOT OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FACT
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
WE HAVE SEEN THE DEFENDANTS WHO
SAY I DID THIS FAKE ELECTORS
THING, DONALD TRUMP ASKED ME DO.
I DON'T KNOW.
JACK SMITH, FANI WILLIS, THEY
KNOW THE SORTS OF THINGS THAT
THEY ARE GOING TO BE WILLING TO
TRADE FOR, RIGHT.
THERE MAY BE NOTHING.
THEY MAY NOT -- SOMEONE MAY SAY
I WILL DO WHATEVER YOU NEED.
THEY MAY SAY YOU HAVE NOTHING.
SO IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
ESPECIALLY SOME OF THESE CHARGES
ARE VERY COMPLICATED AND
ROOTED -- AND I DON'T WANT TO
SAY THEY ARE -- THEY ARE SORT OF
LOOSEY-GOOSEY, BUT IDEALOGICAL
TO SOME EXTENT.
THERE IS A THEORY OF THE CASE
THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE.
I AM NOT IN AN ATTORNEY.
ELLY COULD SPEAK TO THIS.
>> THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM AND
YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR LAWYERS FOR
ALL OF THEM WHILE RUNNING A
CAMPAIGN.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
IT'S EX PTREMELY EXPENSIVE.
DRAWING DOWN A LOT OF THE
POLITICAL MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS.
SOME OF THESE LAWYERS ACTUALLY
WANT TO GET PAID, YOU KNOW?
DONALD TRUMP IS FAMOUS FOR
STIFFING HIS ATTORNEYS.
NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO GET
THAT KIND OF A DEAL OR HAVE THAT
INFLUENCE.
2020 ELECTION INTERFERENCE CE
AGAINST RMER PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP AND HIS 18 CO-DEFENDANTS
IS GIVING THE GREEN LIGHT FOR
ALL PROCEEDINGS IN HIS COURTROOM
TO BE LIVE-STREAMED AND
TELEVISED.
THE JUDGE SAYS HE IS FOLLOWING
THE PRECEDENT THAT WAS ALREADY
SET BY THE JUDGE WHO HANDLED
PRELIMINARY MATTERS IN THE CASE.
A REMINDER.
TRUMP'S FEDERAL CASES IN FLORIDA
AND D.C. DO NOT ALLOW CAMERAS
INSIDE THE COURTROOM AS A RULE.
SO HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS IT FOR
THIS RULING?
JOINING US WITH THE ANALYSIS
CNN'S SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST ELIE
HONIG AND CNN'S SENIOR MEDIA
REPORTER OLIVER DARCY.
WELCOME BACK.
SO TRUMP, WHO IS LIKE IN A
DEPOSITION OR JUMP WHO IS IN A
LEGAL PROCEEDING, I FEEL LIKE
THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM
THE PERSON PEOPLE SEE IN PUBLIC.
>> IT'S A BIG DEAL TO SEE THE
PROCEEDINGS LIFE.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT GEORGIA
HAS SAID THAT THEY WILL SHOW IT
LIVE.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT TRIAL IS
VERY LIKELY TO BE WELL AFTER THE
ELECTION.
THE TWO THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO
BE BEFORE THE ELECTION ARE THE
TWO FEDERAL CASES, WHERE, OF
COURSE, FEDERAL COURTS DON'T
ALLOW CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM.
I HAVE BEEN OBJECTING TO AND
RANTING ABOUT THIS RULE.
HERE'S WHY.
IF YOU ASK THE FEDERAL COURTS
WHY, THEY SAY WE HAVE A RULE.
WHO MADE THAT RULE?
THE FEDERAL JUDGES THEMSELVES
WHO CAN CHANGE THAT ROLE.
IT'S NOT AS IF HOSTILE ALIEN
OVERLORDS CAME DOWN AND
DEMANDED --
>> IT'S A THING JUDGES ARE OFTEN
AGAINST.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY WANTED.
THE SUPREME COURT TOOK FOREVER
TO EMBRACE THIS.
WHY?
ONCE WE HAVE SOMETHING IN THE
PUBLIC VIEW LIKE THIS, HOW DOES
IT CHANGE?
>> I THINK IT'S ANTIQUATED.
THE ARGUMENT IS THEY DON'T WANT
THE COURTROOMS TO BECOME REALITY
TELEVISION SETS.
WE CAN AGREE THAT'S PROBABLY NOT
GOING TO HAPPEN.
I POINT TO THE ALEX JONES
TRIALS.
THOSE WERE STREAMED LIVE.
IF ANYTHING IS GOING TO BECOME
UNHINGED AND OFF THE RAILS IT'S
ALEX JONES' TRIAL.
WE MANAGED TO GET THROUGH THE
TRIALS STREAMED LIVE ON YOUTUBE.
>> DID WE CARE ABOUT IT THE SAME
WAY WE CARE ABOUT THE FORMER
PRESIDENT?
>> WELL, PROBABLY NOT THE SAME
LEVEL.
I THINK TRUMP'S TRIAL WILL BE
THE MOST WATCHED OF ALL TIME.
IF ANY OTHERS ARE STRIEMD,
PEOPLE WILL PAY ATTENTION.
BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE
DAY, THAT THOSE TRIALS SHOWED
YOU CAN STREAM THIS ON YOUTUBE,
OBVIOUSLY, ALLOW PUBLIC TO SEE
IT AND SEE THE EVIDENCE WITH
THEIR OWN EYES AND I THINK IT
WAS BENEFICIAL.
I THINK IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS,
YOU HAVE A VOID OF INFORMATION
THAT ALLOWS CONSPIRACY THEORIES,
MISINFORMATION TO THRIVE.
AND WITH THE FORMER PRESIDENT,
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S ALWAYS A
FACTOR.
SO STREAMING LIVE LET'S THE
PUBLIC SEE IT, OPENS IT UP.
>> I COULD SECOND THAT.
THE DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL,
CONVICTED OF MURDERING GEORGE
FLOYD.
WE WATCHED THAT LIFE.
KYLE RITTENHOUSE, SAME THING.
THE MAN WHO MURDERED AHMAUD
ARBERY, ALL IN STATE COURTS,
NOTHING WRONG.
ALL THESE FEARS THAT JUDGES
HAVE, OWE MY DECORUM SHALL BE
COMPROMISED DID NOT COME TO
PASS.