Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Supreme Court Weighs Presidential Immunity Claim; Rep. Greene Facing GOP Backlash Over Speaker, Ukraine Aid Drama; Bears Take Caleb Williams With No. 1 Pick. Aired 5:30-6a ET

Aired April 26, 2024 - 05:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL)

[05:30:10]

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: A live look at New York City. That's actually a beautiful shot on this Friday morning. What a nice sunrise to wake up to heading into the weekend.

Good morning. Thanks for waking up with us. I'm Kasie Hunt.

Former President Trump has said from the beginning that many prosecutions and lawsuits against him target him unfairly -- it's basically the whole argument -- and it's something that he repeated just yesterday as he left his hush money criminal trial in New York.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is a trial that should have never happened. This is a case that should have never been filed. And it was really an incredible -- an incredible day. Open your eyes. We can't let this continue to happen to our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: A new CNN poll shows that few Americans -- just one in eight -- that's that 13 percent number at the bottom of that graphic there -- think that Trump is being treated the same way other defendants would be treated. Here's the rub, though. This is our divided politics. Just as many think he's being treated more leniently as those who agree with Trump and think that he is being targeted for harsher treatment.

Let's bring in Julia Manchester. She is national political reporter for The Hill. Julia, good morning.

JULIA MANCHESTER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, THE HILL: Good morning, Kasie.

HUNT: So I -- it's one of these things where this is another one of our American institutions -- our justice system --

MANCHESTER: Um-hum.

HUNT: -- our system of courts that seems to now reflect political divisions in terms of trust, right? And we're seeing that over and over again in different areas of American life. This, in many ways, was kind of the last bastion of this but it's clear that these divisions are showing up in the Trump trial.

We can put up also the number of Americans who think that -- who are confident that a fair verdict can be reached in this case. Just seven percent are very confident that this trial could be fair. Thirty-six percent somewhat confident. A good quarter of Americans -- one in four, almost -- are not confident at all that this trial could be fair.

This seems to reflect the reality that Donald Trump does seem to be -- his argument is resonating with his supporters.

MANCHESTER: Right.

HUNT: What's your view of that? Plus, how those who oppose Donald Trump -- you know, there are many people think he's going to be treated too leniently.

MANCHESTER: Absolutely. So I think what you're seeing right now is Donald Trump supporters obviously, like you said, sort of taking what he's saying. And he's saying it a lot. He has this consistent messaging that he is the victim of a witch hunt. We've seen this for years. And he's pinned this on the Justice Department. He's pinned this on the state of New York and other legal entities as well.

And then you have his opponents who say he's not treated -- he's very much being treated fairly. In fact, some would even say he could be treated probably -- maybe some institutions are being too soft on him. So, Trump is very much the -- trying to portray himself as the victim of that and I think there are voters who are certainly buying into that.

The question I have is that how does this impact voters' choices when they go to the polls. I really don't think it does. You know, obviously, there is very low trust in our institution -- institutions this day and age. But at the same time, I don't think voters are tuning into these trials and thinking oh, Donald Trump's -- listening to Donald Trump's campaign messaging, and that's influence their vote.

It's interesting because you have Donald Trump stuck in New York this week while President Biden is on the campaign trail talking about kitchen table issues.

HUNT: Yeah. Well, it's interesting you raise whether or not this could potentially be an issue because we did ask people about that. And it was interesting to learn -- in this poll we asked, OK, if Trump has committed -- convicted of committing a crime --

MANCHESTER: Um-hum.

HUNT: -- does that influence your vote? And we can put that up here. See, look. So, 76 percent say that they would support him no matter what. But 24 percent said well, I might reconsider my support for him. And that -- I mean, look -- MANCHESTER: Yeah.

HUNT: -- it reflects -- we've had -- we've had some variation in our exit polling in the primaries --

MANCHESTER: Um-hum.

HUNT: -- right, where we asked people --

MANCHESTER: Yeah.

HUNT: -- if this was going to -- in some states, there were more than others. But 24 percent is kind of right in the middle there so that does suggest that there might be some movement.

MANCHESTER: The possibility of a conviction is really key here because I think we're obviously in uncharted territory here. Voters don't know what would happen if a former president who is running for office again -- what would happen if he was convicted. So going forward, I think there is a lot of uncertainty.

And I think right now, voters want some sense of stability right now, and I don't think Donald Trump necessarily, with his legal issues, gives them that. If you layer on top this issue of a conviction, that doesn't help him either.

HUNT: So the other piece of this that stuck out to us here is the differences in how voters may consider this hush money trial versus some of the other things that Trump is facing, especially the January 6 questions. I mean, we've been here and we've talked about how this hush money trial, politically, may be the weakest one --

[05:35:05]

MANCHESTER: Right.

HUNT: -- right?

So let's look at this. This is those who think that charges disqualify him for the presidency. Only 28 percent in the hush money trial believe that. Let's now put up the charges related to January 6. You see 47 percent believe that he is disqualified from the presidency based on those charges.

This does seem to suggest that -- you know, we've seen the Supreme Court in their arguments yesterday seems willing to put this off until after the election -- the January 6 case after the election by default -- by potentially extending the timeline here. It seems like Americans are most likely only going to see this hush money trial play out before they have to make a decision on voting for him or not sending him back to the Oval Office or not.

MANCHESTER: Yeah.

HUNT: What's the impact there? MANCHESTER: I think the impact is huge because like I said, it goes back to the possibility of a conviction. If he ultimately is convicted, then you have voters in that area of uncertainty. They don't know what's going to happen. They feel unstable with a candidate or a frontrunner, in some cases, who is facing that kind of future.

At the same time, though -- look, legal experts say this January -- or, excuse me, the hush money case is the weakest out of all of these cases. So if he isn't convicted, then Donald Trump can -- or the other cases are delayed or whatever, Donald Trump can essentially go out on the campaign trail and talk about those kitchen table issues as Joe Biden is.

So I think it really depends on the outcome at the end of the day.

HUNT: All right, Julia Manchester from The Hill. Julia, thanks very much for being with us.

MANCHESTER: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: I appreciate it.

All right. The U.S. Supreme Court, as we've touched on, is now set to rule on Donald Trump's claim of sweeping presidential immunity. The justices heard oral arguments yesterday, much of it surrounding what should be considered official conduct of a president, which in theory might be protected, compared to what is private and what the president may not be immune from.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Petitioner turned to a private attorney was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud to spearhead his challenged to the election results. Private?

D. JOHN SAUER, TRUMP ATTORNEY: As alleged, I think we dispute the allegation.

BARRETT: Of course.

SAUER: But that sounds private to me.

BARRETT: It sounds private.

The petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a verification signed by the petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge.

SAUER: That also sounds private.

BARRETT: Three private actors, two attorneys including those mentioned above, and a political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner and a co-conspirator attorney direct that effort. SAUER: You read it quickly. I believe that's private.

BARRETT: Yeah.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So the court does appear ready to reject the former president's absolute immunity claims, but they also seemed likely to send the case back to lower courts to basically decide what's what -- and that could take months and potentially delay Trump's January 6 trial until after the presidential election.

Joining me now to discuss, former January 6 investigative counsel, Marcus Childress. Marcus, good morning. Great to have you.

MARCUS CHILDRESS, FORMER JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL: Good morning.

HUNT: So you were in court yesterday --

CHILDRESS: Yes.

HUNT: -- for these arguments. Can you just take us inside the room? What did it feel like to be there?

CHILDRESS: Yeah, it felt a lot like our first primetime January 6 committee hearing. I know going back, thinking about myself, we wanted to make sure we were getting it right with the facts that we were presenting to the American public for the first time. And you could tell yesterday the justices wanted to get this decision right.

Sitting in the courtroom, you couldn't help but think of some of the more critical or consequential decisions in American history, such as Bush v. Gore or even Dred Scott -- or, plus, even Ferguson as you were sitting there.

And so that was really the feeling around the courtroom was just like this is going to be an important decision in American history moving forward. And I think the justices -- you could see that they were really weighing the impact of their opinion that they were going to put out as they were asking questions.

HUNT: I think, arguably, that moment right there that we just showed with Amy Coney Barrett might be the one that lasts the longest if, in fact, we do see the -- a trial --

CHILDRESS: Right.

HUNT: -- in this case.

What did you make of the fact that she, a Trump appointee, was the one who did this? What was your perception of how she viewed this when she was sitting on the bench, and what's the ultimate impact of that?

CHILDRESS: Well, I took that line of questioning as going right to the DOJ's fallback position in their briefs. Their fallback position was none of this is in the outer perimeter of official duties. In fact, we could try this case. If you look at all the private actions, we could move forward.

And I think you see Justice Barrett really pressure-testing that theory of OK, well, how much of this indictment does fall outside of the official duties or outer perimeter of the presidential powers. And you saw Trump's attorney kind of concede that a lot of the conduct did fall outside as a private ask (PH).

But I think the chief justice's hypothetical -- I think probably one of the more consequential questions that were asked yesterday when he said can a president be tried for appointing an ambassador and receiving a bribe? Because I think we all agree that appointed an ambassador is an official duty of the president.

[05:40:04]

HUNT: Yeah.

CHILDRESS: I think we also agree accepting a bribe is a criminal activity that should be -- should be prosecuted.

HUNT: That's the theory, anyway.

CHILDRESS: Yeah.

HUNT: So, speaking of hypotheticals, there were a couple of others raised by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Watch -- or listen, I should say, to what they said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that -- for which he can get immunity?

SAUER: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?

SAUER: That sounds like similar to the bribery example, likely not immune. Now, if it's structured as an official act you would have to be impeached and convicted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, I mean, it is interesting to me that he tries to make a distinction between these two that it could be an official act if the president assassinated his rivals, but if he sells nuclear secrets, it's likely private, although it depends on how it's constructed.

What is your sort of overall view of all these various hypotheticals that we heard yesterday? CHILDRESS: I took -- it was pretty jarring to hear in the courtroom those hypotheticals yesterday, and I took it as certain justices really establishing that there cannot be absolute immunity for official acts, right? The absurdity of having immunity for those hypotheticals that were just president -- I think that was really what those questions were meant to do versus just lay down the marker of really just getting rid of this notion that there can be absolute immunity for official acts of a president.

HUNT: Basically, kind of trying to say that it is absurd to argue that well, if this is an official act you should be immune from assassinating the political rival.

CHILDRESS: That's correct. And I think that's why you saw former President Trump's counsel argue for an hour and not really get pushed on the boundaries of those arguments. But then you saw the government's attorney get pressed for an hour and 45 minutes about the different boundaries on an official act and what could be criminally prosecuted.

I think the justices were really searching more for their baseline of the ruling through Mr. Dreeben on the DOJ's side versus through Trump's attorney through those hypotheticals.

HUNT: Really, really interesting. All right.

Marcus Childress, thank you. And you had a long day yesterday. I really appreciate you being up early with us this morning.

CHILDRESS: Thank you.

HUNT: Thank you.

All right. Coming up next here, a former Republican lieutenant governor who says his party has no business being in the majority in the House.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: With the first pick in the 2024 NFL Draft, the Chicago Bears --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: How's that for a tease? The winners and losers in the NFL Draft. Our Bleacher Report ahead.

(COMMERCIAL)

[05:47:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think she's uninformed. She is a total waste of time. She is a horrible leader. She is dragging our brand down. She, not the Democrats, are the biggest risk to us getting back to a majority.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Want to take a guess who Sen. Tillis is talking about there? It is -- I imagine you guessed it -- Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has earned the ire of some of her Republican colleagues after she led the fight to stop Ukraine aid and is trying to oust Speaker Mike Johnson, an effort my next guest calls an "embarrassing spectacle."

Geoff Duncan is from the state that Greene also represents, Georgia, and he joins me now. He's the former lieutenant governor and CNN political commentator. Geoff, thank you for being here.

GEOFF DUNCAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, (R) FORMER GEORGIA LT. GOVERNOR: Absolutely -- good morning.

HUNT: You write in this new piece in The Atlanta Journal- Constitution, "Until Greene no longer has a place of influence within the Republican caucus, our party has no business being in the majority and not much chance of governing. It is an endless doom loop. Without quality candidates, we cannot win elections. Without winning elections, we cannot govern." An endless doom loop.

And you really hone in on the quality of the people who are here in Washington.

DUNCAN: Yeah. Marjorie Taylor Greene is everything that's wrong with the Republican Party just wrapped up in one person, right? She's angry, she's visceral. She does not come to work any single day being serious-minded or wanting to solve a problem. She just simply wants to get likes on Twitter and attention in the headlines.

And that's the problem that we've got. And Donald Trump promised us if -- as Republicans, if you let me endorse you and you do all the things I want you to do and be anger-filled, I'll win a huge majority in the House. That didn't happen. We have a one-vote majority in the House and so nothing can get done. It's just another endless string of lies that he told the Republican Party.

HUNT: Marjorie Taylor Greene, specifically, has said things and seems to -- I mean, in her opposition to Ukraine aid, in particular, is a -- is a policy thing that seems to line up with Vladimir Putin's interests to the point that --

DUNCAN: It doesn't seem to, it does.

HUNT: Right. The point that -- I mean, Russian state TV had Marjorie Taylor Greene featured -- watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSSIAN STATE TV (through translator): Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who the New York Post already dressed in a ushanka hat with a star -- officially putting her in the ranks of Kremlin agents -- called Speaker Johnson a Democrat-elected by Ukraine. Greene also said that Johnson betrayed not only Republicans but the whole of the USA. Nonetheless, the U.S. military aid will be bigger this year compared to the past years. And, of course, there is nothing good in that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: What does this say to you? And also, where do you think this comes from, from Marjorie Taylor Greene?

DUNCAN: So, words matter and stuff like this just really highlights the fact that this is a national security threat. When you -- when you sit there and use language to be divisive, like she's using, there's consequences to it, right?

[05:50:02]

Just to think it's hitting the Russian evening news. Ronald Reagan is literally rolling over in his grave thinking that somebody inside the Republican Party wants to placate to these individuals.

It just shows the shallowness of where the Republican Party is currently. It's broken. And when we watch this Trump stuff play out and all these cases -- I mean, this is just an embarrassment to the party. And I would have thought that two years ago we would have been smart enough to make a pivot and move in a different direction than Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene and those.

I do think there's signs of it, right? This weekend vote with Mike Johnson and him being bold enough and courageous enough to stand up to a loud, angry caucus and say no, we're going to actually do the right thing -- I think it's steps in the right direction. We're just going to need a lot more of that not only in D.C. but also state by state by state.

HUNT: Geoff, what was your reaction to the Supreme Court arguments yesterday? I mean, it does seem like they are likely to make a decision will mean that Donald Trump does not face a January 6 federal trial before the election and voters are going to have to decide whether to put him back in the Oval Office without have that information.

DUNCAN: Yeah. I feel like half of America is going to get an honorary law degree by the time this is done, right? There's just all this legal technical stuff.

HUNT: It makes me feel like I should have gone to law school in my life.

DUNCAN: You know, I got to play -- I got to act like an attorney for 40 legislative days of the year as lieutenant governor.

But certainly, it's concerning that America is not going to hear the full truth throughout this election process.

But look, this is like -- Donald Trump is playing this out like a mafia boss, right? He's -- it's not that he's denying any of these things happened, like January 6, fake electors, documents, hush money -- hush payments. It's all happened, it's just well, I was above the law in that particular sequence and that day and that job description. It's all a series of technicalities.

He still has a math problem with the suburbs, right? The suburbs are listening to this play out day after day after day and he's going to need women, especially in the suburbs, to show up and vote for him. I don't know of a single woman in the suburbs that I live in that says oh, you know what -- that Donald Trump -- he actually is a pretty good guy. And now that I'm hearing the facts of these cases come out, they're just not doing it. And I still think he has a math problem.

Donald Trump does not win in November. Short of some sort of unforeseen health event on either side, Joe Biden wins the election.

HUNT: All right. I'm going to -- I'm going to write that down and hold you to it, and we'll see. Come back in November.

Thank you, Geoff.

DUNCAN: Thank you.

HUNT: I always appreciate having you.

All right, time now for sports. The first round of the NFL Draft is in the books featuring a historic run on quarterbacks at the top of the list.

Andy Scholes has this morning's Bleacher Report. Andy, good morning.

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yeah, good morning, Kasie.

So the first round last night, it was all about offense. The first 14 picks were all on the offensive side of the ball. Five of the top 10 picks were quarterbacks -- six of the top 12. We've never seen that before.

And it started with the Bears at number one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOODELL: With the first pick in the 2024 NFL Draft, the Chicago Bears select Caleb Williams, quarterback, Southern California.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOLES: Yeah, so no surprise there. The Bears are taking 2022 Heisman Trophy winner Caleb Williams first overall. Chicago fans hoping they finally have a star quarterback. The Bears have never had a QB throw for 4,000 yards in their 103-year history.

And the future is here in more ways than one. Williams joining the Bears draft party on stage via hologram. That's pretty cool.

All right. Now, the shocker of the draft coming quickly at pick number eight. The Atlanta Falcons selecting Washington quarterback Michael Penix Jr. No one had Penix to the Falcons at eight, especially since they just signed Kirk Cousins to a four-year, $180 million deal this offseason. So that was certainly a headscratcher.

Here was your top 10 picks. Half of them, again, were quarterbacks for the first time ever. The Vikings traded up to 10 to take Michigan's J.J. McCarthy. Quarterback Bo Nix also went 12th to the Broncos.

And the draft continues tonight with rounds two and three. And look at the crowd they had for night one in Detroit. The NFL says an estimated 275,000 fans showed up, just smashing the attendance record for the event. The previous record was set in the 2018 draft in Nashville that had about 200,000 in the crowd. But man, look at that sea of people.

All right. In the NBA Playoffs last night, Philly getting back in their series with the Knicks thanks to Joel Embiid. The Sixers big man was just dominant. Last night, he became the first player in NBA history to score 50 in a playoff game while taking fewer than 20 shots.

The 76ers would win game three 125-114.

Embiid having this monster game despite being recently diagnosed with Bell's palsy, a form of facial paralysis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOEL EMBIID, CENTER, PHILADELPHIA 76ERS: It's been tough but I'm not -- I'm not a quitter. So I've got to keep fighting through anything. But, yeah, it's unfortunate. That's the way I look at it. But that's not an excuse. I've got to keep pushing. It could be weeks. It could be months.

I just hope that I don't stay like this. I've got a beautiful face. I don't like when my mouth is looking the other way. So, yeah. But like I said, unfortunate situation but everything happens for a reason.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[05:55:07]

SCHOLES: All right. The Lakers, meanwhile, are now on the brink of elimination. LeBron helped L.A. get out to an early lead but they would just run out of gas. Aaron Gordon was just all around the rim all night for the Nuggets putting up 29 points and 15 rebounds. And Nikola Jokic -- his normal dominant self but he was an assist shy of a triple-double.

The Nuggets would win game three 112-105. No team has ever come back from down 0-3 in NBA history.

All right. In the third game of the night, the Magic handed the Cavs their worst playoff loss in franchise history. Paolo Banchero had Orlando up by 16 at the half. The lead only grew from there. The Magic would win that one by 38. The Cavs still lead that series, though, 2- 1. Three games on the schedule tonight with an early start. Bucks and

Pacers are going to get things started with a 5:30 Eastern tipoff. Then you've got Clippers and Mavs at 8:00, followed by T-Wolves and the Suns at 10:30.

And I'll tell you what, Kasie -- my boys very happy to see a 5:30 Eastern tipoff. They never get to see the end of games. They're always yelling at me they want to stay up. But hey, tonight, guess what? You can.

HUNT: I've got to be honest, Andy. I had the same reaction. Look, a game I could watch all of --

SCHOLES: Right.

HUNT: -- and still actually get to bed on time.

Thank you. Have a good weekend.

SCHOLES: You, too.

HUNT: Enjoy it with your boys. Back to you. All right, thanks.

Coming up next here, how a Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trump could actually be a win for the former president.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

College campus protesters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Plus, tense Palestinian protests sweeping across America's college campuses.

(COMMERCIAL)