Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

North Korea Bomb Fears; Christie vs. Rubio; Alabama Chief Justice Forbids Same-Sex Marriage. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 06, 2016 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:01]

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And the prosecutor makes a calculated assessment. We tried you. It was a hung jury. Now we have to move on to the other officers. So, maybe we don't retry you and we give you this immunity.

The other immunity is called use immunity. That is, you can testify, but anything you say in that testimony won't be used against you, but you're still on the hook because we're going to retry you again.

And so what I'm thinking is, the reason it's also fraught with difficultly is because, remember, there's a pending federal investigation as well.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Yes.

JACKSON: And so to what extent can the state protect his federal rights and to what extent can a state offer immunity for a potential federal prosecution?

So, I would -- I don't think the chapter on this is over. The judge made his ruling today. Let's see what that appeals court says regarding what this judge says, and that is, you have to testify.

BALDWIN: We should know soon enough, because that next trial starts next week. Stay with me. I have more for you.

Let's pivot to this now, more breaking news out of Alabama. It appears the state's chief justice here of the state Supreme Court essentially defying what would be the law of the land, the United States Supreme Court telling judges here in Alabama to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

So, again, we have Joey Jackson here.

But, Pamela Brown, let me just begin with you there, our justice correspondent.

Can you explain to me what exactly -- on what grounds would this chief justice in Alabama have to tell these probate judges not to do this?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, here's the bottom line, Brooke. This is an administrative order from the chief of the Alabama Supreme

Court, Roy Moore. It's not a court order. So, essentially, he's wading back into controversy, Brooke, issuing this order, saying that probate judges in Alabama have a duty not to issue any marriage licenses, contrary to state laws, that ban marriage between same-sex couples, this coming seven months after the Supreme Court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

And in this order from Judge Roy Moore, he writes, "Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Protection Act remains in full force and full effect."

Since the United States Supreme Court ruling, Brooke, some probate judges in Alabama have issued same-sex marriage licenses while others haven't. So Judge Moore is saying this order is necessary to prevent confusion and uncertainty among probate judges while the Alabama Supreme Court figures out the impact of Obergefell on Alabama, the ruling of the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court.

And so same-sex marriage advocates today are saying that this opinion, this order is just an opinion, it's not an opinion of the full Alabama Supreme Court, but rather one judge. This doesn't matter. What matters here is the court's decision, the Supreme Court's decision. That is the law of the land.

However, Roy Moore is saying, look, the Supreme Court of Alabama is still looking at this, that the Obergefell decision was only targeting four states. It didn't address the Alabama ban. So, that is the ground that he's standing on with this.

BALDWIN: Joey?

(LAUGHTER)

JACKSON: The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. I get what the chief justice is doing. Whenever there is some confusing circumstance within a jurisdiction, the chief justice has to weigh in. When you have people who are not issuing licenses, people who are issuing licenses only to same-sex couples, people who are doing various things, the chief justice has to have a say.

However, the Supreme Court, in addressing the issue, it did emanate from the Sixth Circuit, which covers four various states. Since that time, it has been the Eighth Circuit which said, wait, that only applies to those four states, Michigan Kentucky, Tennessee. It doesn't apply necessarily to every state.

The Supreme Court didn't specifically strike down, the Eighth Circuit said, in looking at something that occurred in Nebraska, this statute. In addition to that, the district court in Kansas said, the Supreme Court case doesn't apply to us. It didn't strike down that case.

Let's be clear about this. The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land. There's a supremacy clause, and it's Article VI of the Constitution. That says federal law supersedes state law and state constitutional law.

And so when the Supreme Court made its ruling, it predicated that ruling, Brooke, on something we call the 14th Amendment, equal protection. Everyone should be titled on equal protection. It also predicated it on the due process clause in the 14th Amendment, which says, we have a right to personal autonomy, we have a right to marry who we want, when we want, how we want.

As I read the ruling, it applies to all states, and it references every state within the ruling. So I think this is a hiccup along the way. If the Supreme Court has to issue some declaratory type judgment to make it apply and to have people understand that it applies, I think they will.

BALDWIN: Bottom line, if I'm gay in Alabama and I want to get married today, I should be good to go?

JACKSON: Well, you should be, but based on this ruling, they may not give you it you.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: That person will take it to court and ultimately they will be allowed to get married.

BALDWIN: OK. All right. And so it continues.

Joey, thank you.

JACKSON: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Pamela Brown, thank you as well.

Let's move on.

Donald Trump is going after the man polls say is truly his closest competitor in the state of Iowa, Ted Cruz. Trump is not questioning if Ted Cruz should be president, but rather asking whether Ted Cruz can be president.

[15:05:07]

Remember how Trump went all birther on President Obama some years ago, casting doubt on whether the president was even in fact born here in the United States? Well, now flash forward to this one. The Republican front-runner here, Donald Trump, has again raised the fact that Cruz was born in Canada.

Now, key here, the Constitution says the president must be a natural- born citizen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: People are worried that if he wasn't born in this country, which he wasn't -- he was born in Canada -- and he actually had a Canadian passport along with a U.S. passport until just recently, I mean, within the last couple of years. So, I don't know what it all means.

I know that other people are talking about it. The problem is that if the Democrats bring a lawsuit, the lawsuit could take years to resolve, and how do you have a candidate where there's something over the head of the party and that individual?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Senator Cruz this afternoon responded to all of this without ever uttering Donald Trump's name. Here you go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As a legal matter, the question is quite straightforward. It's settled law that the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen. People will continue to make political noise about it, but, as a legal matter, it's quite straightforward.

I would note that it has occurred many times in history. John McCain was born in Panama, but he was a natural-born citizen because his parents were U.S. citizens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So let's be clear. This is the Texas senator's most recent reaction. Initially, he took a more humorous response, tweeted out this clip from the '70s "Happy Days" when Fonzie jumped a shark, maybe alluding to the fact the whole question of citizenship is just that, jumping the shark, absurd, like this.

With me now, CNN political director David Chalian.

And, David Chalian, if you could channel your inner Ted Cruz perhaps and riddle me this, do you think he should handle this swiftly? Because what I found interesting, Dan Pfeiffer, former Obama chief coms guy, was saying earlier today, listen, you know, I wish when the whole birther thing had happened at the White House, we had come out stronger initially.

Do you think Ted Cruz should do that and done?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Right.

Listen, whenever sort of -- and they're in two different camps here, because the Obama situation, of course, was sort of questioning whether or not he actually was born in the United States and whether or not his birth certificate was real. So there were all of these sort of untruths. And, yes, Pfeiffer was saying they should have dealt with that much more quickly.

And, here, nobody is questioning -- Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Nobody is questioning the facts here. I do think it was smart for Ted Cruz to get out there and start putting some of the legal precedent out there to remind people that there's really not a big legal dispute here. Now, where he was wrong in his comments, Brooke, is when he said that

it is settled law. It's not actually settled law.

BALDWIN: Never been tested.

(CROSSTALK)

CHALIAN: Exactly.

The preponderance of legal analysts have looked at this and said, hey, if this gets tested in court, Ted Cruz would be likely to win this. They do sort of think that is how it will be interpreted, that he is a natural-born citizen. But it isn't settled law yet, because it actually has been tested.

BALDWIN: OK. And even though perhaps it's potatoes potatoes with regard to Obama vs. Cruz, the White House nevertheless is weighing in. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It would be quite ironic if, after seven or eight years of drama around the president's birth certificate, if Republican primary voters were to choose Senator Cruz as their nominee, somebody who actually wasn't born in the United States and only 18 months ago renounced his Canadian citizenship.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: What did you think of that comment?

CHALIAN: Sometimes, they can't resist at the White House to just take sort of the political jibe if you will.

Listen, they dealt with that story, as Josh referenced there, for years, and I'm sure that they are looking back and enjoying this all happening on the Republican side right now. I do think though that you are smart to note, Brooke, the change in tone in Cruz's response.

He went with humor first, but today he was out there really trying to deal with the legal precedent here to try to put it to bed. It's not going away. I'm sure we did not hear Ted Cruz for the last time on this topic.

BALDWIN: How do you think, though -- like, looking ahead to the Iowa caucuses and how this is all playing in Iowa, that plus -- what was it, last month, in a rally, Trump was questioning Ted Cruz's evangelical roots, sort of saying, not many evangelicals come from Cuba. How does all of that play in Iowa?

CHALIAN: Well, clearly, Trump is trying to sow some thought here out there in Iowa that Ted Cruz is other, that he is somehow not one of us.

That is clear in what he's trying to do by bringing these topics up. And I'm not sure that's going to have great effect for him. But it might have some effect. And it will be interesting to see, does he follow this up in future debates with this television advertising?

[15:10:04]

Will Trump or his allies be putting out mailers that hit people's boxes, mailboxes, in Iowa about this? Right now, he just sort of like puts it into the ether. Whether or not he sort of hammers this message again and again I think will determine just how much of an effect it may have.

BALDWIN: OK. David Chalian, my favorite.

CHALIAN: Oh, thanks, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Thank you. Thank you.

So, if it is not Trump vs. Cruz, it is Rubio vs. Christie. The rivalry here between the Florida Senator Marco Rubio and the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, it is definitely ratcheting up. This pro-Rubio super PAC went hard after Governor Christie this week, linking him to President Obama. Governor Christie's latest attack ad makes reference to that attack, but then calls for Republican rivals to unite against a common opponent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Do not be fooled. Any significant division within the Republican Party leads to the same awful result, Hillary Rodham Clinton in January of 2017 taking the oath of office as president of the United States. This country cannot afford that outcome. And thus we Republicans have a duty, I believe a profound moral duty, to work together.

I'm Chris Christie, and I approve this message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: On this angle today, let's go to our CNN senior political reporter Manu Raju, who is following the Rubio campaign there in a very cold Iowa.

What is the response here? Any response from the camp Rubio from the Chris Christie ad?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brooke, they are dismissing the ad, but Rubio is not distancing himself from the attack that his super PAC waged against Chris Christie earlier this week trying to paint him as a liberal Republican out of step on education issues, gun issues, et cetera.

And I should note that Chris Christie is saying that in his ad, but he's not afraid to take his gloves off and attack Marco Rubio when he's asked about it by reporters. And really the reason why these two guys are going back and forth is that it's all about New Hampshire. Both men are trying to become the alternative to Cruz and Trump to try to consolidate support among those center-right/right-leaning Republicans, people who they believe that -- look, from the Rubio camp's perspective, if Christie comes out ahead in New Hampshire, that's going to be a really difficult thing for them to overcome.

They want to be able to say to those Republicans that it's time to unite behind one consensus alternative to Trump and Cruz, after the New Hampshire primary. So, expect these two guys to continue to attack each other as we get closer and closer to that critical February 9 New Hampshire primary, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. Manu Raju, stay warm. Thank you, sir, in Iowa.

Let's dig a little further on this Rubio/Christie rivalry. Christie's ad seems all above the fray, but is that truly the case?

With me now, Philip Rucker, national political correspondent for "The Washington Post."

Philip, great to see you.

PHILIP RUCKER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Hey. Glad to be here.

BALDWIN: You had some great quotes in your piece. You talked to Governor Christie, and I think he said something about slime with regard to Senator Rubio? Talk to me about what he told you.

RUCKER: That's right.

We interviewed him yesterday here in New Hampshire just to get his response to these ads that the Rubio super PACs are running. And he took his gloves off. I mean, he was pretty tough about Rubio. He said that he can't slime his way too the White House. Those are Governor Christie's words.

He also talked about Rubio's change in position on immigration reform, amnesty, and he said that Rubio was naive. He said he's inexperienced and he doesn't really know how to run a tough campaign. I think Christie is trying to be a bit of a brawler here and show some of that strength and reacts...

BALDWIN: This is trademark Christie, right?

RUCKER: ... in the way we have seen Donald Trump take on -- exactly. It's trademark Christie. But we have not seen it yet in the presidential campaign.

He's not really gone after his establishment rivals the way he did with us yesterday.

BALDWIN: And why do you think all of a sudden he's bringing it?

RUCKER: Well, in New Hampshire, there's a bit of a traffic jam, as Manu was talking about there.

Four establishment candidates, Governor Bush and Governor Kasich are the other two, they're all trying to compete for same votes. They're all trying to come out on top of each other. And they're firing at each other. We talked about Christie and Rubio, but Kasich is also attacking Governor Christie. We saw Governor Bush the other day go after Governor Christie as well.

And I think we are going to see this really heat up in the days and weeks to come.

BALDWIN: You said traffic jam. I thought you were going to go in a different direction, a direction Governor Christie would not want you to touch.

Philip Rucker, thank you so much in Manchester, New Hampshire.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Thank you.

The Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, sits down, by the way, with an interview today with my colleague Wolf Blitzer. Do not miss it, just a couple of short hours from now, 5:00 Eastern, with Wolf in "THE SITUATION ROOM."

Next, let's pivot to North Korea. Did this nation just detonate an H- bomb, hydrogen bomb? The world reacting after the leader Kim Jong-un claimed his regime its first successful full test. And the U.S. is definitely raising some doubt. If it wasn't an H-bomb, what was it and why?

[15:15:15]

Plus, as President Obama, part of his executive actions is pushing for more smart guns, what are they? How would they work? We will get a demonstration.

And as many Americans become obsessed with this new documentary on a chilling murder case, Nancy Grace is flipping the popular opinion. Hear why she says she is in absolute shock over the series entitled "Making a Murderer."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: Breaking news here. North Korea is claiming it has -- quote -- "successfully detonated" its first hydrogen bomb.

We actually have some pictures here. These are in South Korea watching this news reports on this particular nuclear test. If true, if true, this would be the most powerful warhead Kim Jong-un has ever tested, but the White House calling his bluff.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EARNEST: This is a serious subject. The initial analysis that's been conducted of the events that were reported overnight is not consistent with North Korean claims of a successful hydrogen bomb test.

There's nothing that's occurred in the last 24 hours that has caused the United States government to change our assessment of North Korea's technical and military capabilities.

Now, I hasten to add that we're continuing the work necessary to learn more about the nuclear test that North Korea conducted last night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[15:20:01]

BALDWIN: Now, there are still some concerns. Josh Earnest also said President Obama would soon coordinate a response to these claims with East Asian allies. And the U.N. Security Council today held this emergency meeting, secretary-general there, Ban Ki-Moon, calling the bomb test -- quote -- "profoundly destabilizing for regional security."

With me now, CNN's Tom Foreman.

Tom, this would be the self-reported nuclear test, the fourth of its kind in North Korea. Why would the H-bomb be the most concerning possibility?

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Because if in fact they did develop such a thing, it would vault them right into the big leagues here. The United States, Russia, France, China, Great Britain, they are the nuclear powers in the world right now that have hydrogen bombs.

The other four nuclear powers might have them, but it's not really clear if they do. And there's a big difference between what we would call a typical atomic bomb and a hydrogen bomb. Let's look at some of the possibilities here.

First of all, scientifically, this is based on fission, splitting of atoms. This is based on fusion, which is the combing of atoms. Either one releases an awful lot of energy out there. An atom bomb is a single explosion. It is complex to make, but, comparatively, it is not nearly as complicated as a hydrogen bomb, which is a two-stage explosion, which is essentially an atomic explosion that then triggers this fusion explosion over here.

This is much more complicated. So, if they have achieved it, it means they're further along in their technology than people thought and they're obtaining things people didn't think they could get. Plus, an atomic bomb is bigger physically as a bomb. It's heavier. It's harder to move around and produces a smaller blast in atomic terms, whereas a hydrogen bomb can actually be made smaller and produce a bigger blast.

This means that you're talking about something that has a better chance of being on top of a smaller missile and being able to strike somebody. In the end, the real issue is the scale of it all, Brooke. If you looked at a 1940s atomic bomb and you looked at the power of the blast like what was dropped on Japan at the time, by comparison, atomic bombs have grown better.

But look at what an H-bomb does. The scale is massive compared to an atomic bomb. So if they did that, then this is a big deal. But I will point out one thing here, Brooke. The reason the government and many scientists think they did not do it is the signature, that seismic signature, suggests something way down in this range, not something out in this range.

That doesn't mean, though, they haven't taken a step in here scientifically toward an H-bomb -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: All right, Tom, thank you.

Let me stay on this and bring in Serena Kelleher-Vergantini. She's a research analyst for the Institute for Science and International Security. And her specialty is satellite imagery for nuclear sites.

Serena, thanks for joining me.

SERENA KELLEHER-VERGANTINI, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Thank you, Brooke. Thank you for having me.

BALDWIN: So, we're waiting for this -- I think it's the isotopic signature to totally know what this was. Bottom line, based upon what you know, do you think this is real or was it a hoax?

KELLEHER-VERGANTINI: We -- overall, we would tend to agree with the White House.

For the moment, we don't believe that North -- we believe North Korea is actually possibly bluffing about having an H-bomb. And the reason for that is simple. When we're talking about H-bombs, we commonly refer to a very specific type of nuclear weapon. We're referring to a two-stage fission/fusion nuclear device, which is a device the Times Square very complicated to build.

And at the same time, the yield associated with that test that happened this morning is a lot lower than the yield you would expect from the testing of this type of weapon, so, the testing of a two- stage fission/fusion nuclear weapon.

At the same time, though, we have two possible alternatives. Yes, North Korea may be bluffing. However, they may have undertaken a test of a device that they have already tested before, so we're talking about a fission implosion device, which is a little bit simpler, and they have mastered so far.

At the same time, though, North Korea could have potentially taken a couple of steps further and developed a little bit more of a complicated device. That device, though, would be more of a one-stage thermonuclear device, which is a lot easier to build compared to a two-stage fission/fusion, but a little bit more complicated than their past models.

However, Brooke...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: OK. Hang on. Can I just jump in? I'm sorry. I'm trying to follow you and all of these phases and everything else.

KELLEHER-VERGANTINI: Yes. Yes. BALDWIN: But when you're looking -- clearly, you are quite bright on

all of this, but when you're looking at all the satellite imagery, what are you looking for?

KELLEHER-VERGANTINI: OK, Brooke, just a quick note.

We just received our first batch of satellite imagery a couple of hours ago. It took us a fair amount of time to get those in. At the moment, what I was -- I was able to peek at one image before running here, and what we're looking for is activity relating to signatures at the site.

So what I can tell you for the moment, through satellite imagery, is that I was able to determine that the test probably was not undertaken using the east portal, which has been closed for several years now. That's where they undertook the 2006 test.

[15:25:03]

But there's a lot of activity or signatures relating to activity such as movement of trucks, cars and personnel at the other two portals at the Punggye-ri site. So, we're talking about the west portal and the south portal.

So we have been up all night, and we have been working all day. We will be soon releasing our satellite imagery analysis of the Punggye- ri site, and hopefully we will be able to give you more details on that.

BALDWIN: OK. Serena Kelleher-Vergantini, research analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security, thank you very much.

KELLEHER-VERGANTINI: Thank you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: You got it.

Coming up next, "Making a Murderer," this is a Netflix documentary hit that has turned into calls for justice for a man convicted of murder. But Nancy Grace says not so fast. In fact, she's not buying it at all. She says the filmmakers are trying to fool you. We will talk to Nancy live coming up.

Also, President Obama's executive actions on guns sparking a new interest in the so-called smart guns. We will show you how they work and find out why they are not available just yet.

You're watching CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: I know so many of you are watching this series here on Netflix.

The question is this, guilty of slaughtering a woman or framed by police for a murder he did not commit? That may well be the question flooding your Facebook and Twitter feeds right now. I'm telling you, viewers, my own friends cannot get enough of this "Making a Murderer" series.

This is the subject of this Netflix docu-series sits right now in a prison right now in Wisconsin. More than 200,000 people have now signed these petitions calling for his immediate release or pardon, this incredible groundswell of support for this convicted killer, all thanks to this documentary.