Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Judge In Trump Docs Case Orders Lawyers To Expedite Obtaining Security Clearances; Trump Camp Claims $7 Million Raised Since Indictment; Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Is Interviewed About Debt Deal; Miami Mayor Francis Suarez Joins Crowded GOP Field. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired June 15, 2023 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[17:00:00]
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Obviously, that typically takes, you know, if you're applying for a White House job, it could take a year to get that clearance.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Right.
COLLINS: This will be expedited, obviously, because it's in the interest of time for the DOJ and for everyone involved here. So basically, what she is telling them is to get the ball rolling on this, to start working on who is going to be getting these clearances. One thing that could complicate this is Trump's legal team is not fully formed yet.
TAPPER: Right.
COLLINS: He still does not have that Florida attorney that they were searching for. It's not clear that Chris Kise is going to be a permanent member of this team. We'll see. And so that is what they're working on now.
TAPPER: And Kaitlan, Judge Cannon, we should point out she's a Trump appointee, she did a Trump friendly ruling that was overturned months ago. I know that there are people on the prosecution team who are wary of her. How does the Trump team view her? Do they think that she's going to be an asset?
COLLINS: They're thrilled. I mean, they could not be happier to have her on their team. I've spoken to people to have her overseeing this. I mean --
TAPPER: Yes.
COLLINS: -- she is a Trump appointee. She was picked in the days after he lost the 2020 election. That's obviously not a comment on whether or not she's a good judge or a bad judge or indifferent. But they're thrilled because they saw how she was -- what her rulings were when they went to her for the special master case last fall. That was when she got overruled by an appeals court in a pretty embarrassing fashion for a judge because basically they said she was giving Trump special treatment because he was a former president, not treating him like she would if a search warrant was executed regarding you or me or a regular person.
And they weren't saying she was biased, they just said she was wrong. And so, I think that's a question of how she will factor into this, because a judge has pretty broad view here over what evidence is included, the timing of this trial. Obviously, the Trump team is probably going to look to drag this out. The DOJ wants it to happen very quickly. And so, the Trump team is very happy they got her.
It was completely random --
TAPPER: Yes.
COLLINS: -- I should note that they got her. They are thrilled that that happened.
TAPPER: We should point out that plenty of the judges that ruled against Trump in that post election madness were Trump appointees as well.
COLLINS: Yes, we have no idea.
TAPPER: We have known, she could be completely on the up and up. She is relatively inexperienced, though, we should also note.
Joining our conversation right now, Kaitlan, stick with us, CNN Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates along with Michael Sherwin the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
Laura, let me ask you, the attorneys in the case now have five days, five days to notify Judge Cannon on the status of the security clearances for the lawyers and their ability to look at the classified material. How slowly do you think this is going to go after the five days? Could this bog down the process? And doesn't this kind of just underline the fact that this is classified material that he had it?
LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It absolutely underscores that point. And the idea of trying to get the attorneys representing and having them available to review the security clearances is part of the rocket docket, right? The idea of having the attorneys treat this client and the judge treat the client in the same way as other people, not to slow roll. Take your time and figure out do I want this person or that. The whole goal here is to expedite this entire thing interest of the actual justice system.
The idea of security clearances, though, is going to be a tough one, because on the one hand, you've got the notion that, look, if they're so classified and so sensitive that it has to be enough for an indictment of a former president to have defensive information, then what is the substitute for the jury? Not just the attorneys, but the jury ultimately to actually hear the evidence. That's part of the SEPA format we're talking about, and that's going to be part of the slowest part of the entire process.
TAPPER: All right. And Michael, you have extensive experience with cases dealing with national security. How does the fact that this case involves classified documents? How does it complicate the process? Are there going to be attorneys that Trump wants to represent him that can't get the clearance necessary, et cetera? Theoretically, I mean?
MICHAEL SHERWIN, FORMER ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Look, that's a great question. And this just goes to show that divorced of what people are saying about who wants this to go quickly or slowly. Even a regular army officer getting a security clearance or someone at Department of State, sometimes it takes months, it could take six to 12 to 18 months to get clearance. Now, you could expedite that, but this is something that's built into a national security case, a counterintelligence case that divorced of how fast or slow parties want this to move. There are things that have to occur at the pace of the government that is inherent in slowing this case down.
And you know, talking about Judge Cannon, you know, right now, I think she's probably the most important actor in this whole thing. It's not Garland, it's not Jack Smith, it's not Trump, it's the judge, because she will set the temper, the tone and the pace of this trial, you know, over the next 12 to -- six to 12 to 18 months. And it's the butterfly effect. It's these small rulings, like the five days for security clearance. What's going to happen with the pretrial motion practice?
What's going to happen with the gag order? Is she going to institute a gag order? You know, that's something that Trump likes to weaponize, his ability to talk about the evidence, the discovery, you know, these little rulings have a significant impact, you know, on the actual ultimate result of the trial.
TAPPER: I love a butterfly effect reference. So, Kaitlan, let me ask you, so, Donald Trump the politician, right? He goes and he says these things that could actually hurt him in case. Trump the politician hurts Donald Trump the defendant, possibly, like the things he said the other night.
[17:05:08]
On the other hand, Trump the defendant, helps Donald Trump the politician because of all the money he's been able to raise.
COLLINS: Seven million dollars, at least, that was the number -- the latest number we got from the campaign. And that was just in the last week, since last Thursday when Trump posted that he had been indicted. Of course, that was how we found out that he was actually indicted, is because he alerted us.
So they certainly are using it to fundraise. I mean, they're making this is exactly what happened after Manhattan. They used it after he was indicted in Manhattan, I should note. They used it to raise a lot of money. They're doing that here.
They had a fundraiser with -- it was bigger donors. Typically, most of his donations are small dollar donations right after he was arraigned in Miami. And so this is something they'll continue to fundraise off of and continue to use as he is on the campaign trail, while he is simultaneously dealing with his attorneys, getting security clearances, figuring out who those attorneys are going to be. COATES: And the prosecutors are going to be salivating in part. I mean, just look back at the town hall when he mentioned E. Jean Carroll. A judge then allowed those statements that he made, obviously, the civil trial, very different than the criminal context to then be a part of an amended complaint in her pursuit of damages. Everything it requires to raise that level of money, the level of bombasticity, the idea of how charismatic, what you have to reference to get the crowds going, big donors to smaller donors, all are going to be little breadcrumbs for a prosecutor to envelop possibly into a case. Remember, the indictment already has the 2016 statements he's made in the past, so they are already well in tune with possible traps.
It's a minefield from here on out, his attorneys are going to -- you mention the gag order, whether it's a court ordered one or the attorneys impose one, and say, listen, everything you say is now going to be fair game, every single thing you reference and intimate fair game. It could corroborate the indictment. It could buttress the government's case. He has to be aware.
TAPPER: So, Michael, at least some of the classified documents appear to have been stored in New Jersey at the Bedminster Golf Club but Trump's only facing charges in Florida. Do you think it's possible he could also potentially face charges in New Jersey?
SHERWIN: I think that's a good theoretical question because, look, I think this case theoretically could have been charged maybe in D.C., in New Jersey, in the Southern District of Florida. And I think the special counsel did the right thing because the majority of the evidence, the majority of the witnesses are in South Florida. So, under double jeopardy if the government proceeds in South Florida, this is obstruction and this is retention of classified information. So if the government loses in South Florida, they can't just under double jeopardy, not bring the case in New Jersey.
Now, New Jersey is interesting because according to press reports and other types of, you know, things we've seen in the media, it appears that Trump -- it's alleged that he showed classified information to individuals. So that's dissemination of classified information that has not been charged in South Florida. So theoretically, if the government loses in Miami, they could bring a dissemination case in New Jersey. I think, though, that's highly unlikely. You know, like Omar said on the wire, if you go after the king, you better not miss.
TAPPER: Yes.
SHERWIN: You know, the government better not miss in Miami. And if they do, I do not see a secondary case in New Jersey, too heavy handed.
TAPPER: So, from Omar in the wire to Carl Sandburg, who famously said, if the facts are against you, argue the law, if the law is against you, argue the facts, if the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. That's what we've seen from Trump so far. Maybe there will be a better strategy, a better response, but so far it's been pounding on the table, yelling like. COATES: That was also in the wire, though, Jake.
TAPPER: Was it really?
COATES: I'm sure it was.
COLLINS: This is like getting exception. But you know what's so interesting to me as someone, obviously, who has been covering Trump for a long time. The way he responded when he went to Bedminster and gave that speech after being arraigned in Miami, compared to what he said at Mar-a-Lago after he was arraigned in New York was completely different. I rewatched the two speeches.
In Mar-a-Lago when he was talking after New York, he barely even mentioned that case. It was a few lines, and then he dismissed it and was talking about unrelated grievance. In Bedminster, he spent a lot of time basically laying out his defense for this, talking about the Presidential Records Act, talking about how -- what he believes he had the right to do versus what other presidents had done.
He kind of was way more in the weeds. I'm not saying it's a good defense strategy, that's obviously for others to judge, but he was much more going through it, and that's because he's always been much more worried about the documents case. And he understands the peril that he's in, the legal peril he's in this. So, yes, he is talking a lot about it, but it also is revealing of just how much more concerned he is with it.
TAPPER: Yes. We have some breaking news now. The Air National Guardsman accused of posting Department of Defense classified information online. He has just been indicted. That's next.
Coming up. Also, where's the proof? Growing questions as the House Oversight Committee chairman keeps making public allegations about the Bidens while also saying he does not know if the evidence is real or even exists.
Then, the justice department is now looking into the golf world stunner that merged the PGA Tour and the Saudi backed LIV Tour, LIV tour. What they're investigating now. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:13:43]
TAPPER: And we have some breaking news for you now. A federal grand jury has indicted that Air National Guardsman accused of posting a trove of classified documents on discord social media. Twenty-one- year-old Jack Teixeira, you may recall, was arrested and charged under the Espionage Act in April. Let's bring in CNN's Oren Liebermann who's at the Pentagon Force.
Oren, tell us about this indictment.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Jake, 21-year-old Jack Teixeira, a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, has been indicted on six counts of willful retention and transmission of classified information relating to the national defense. As of right now, he is being detained, pending additional hearings and pending the continuation of this case here and the upcoming trial. He has not yet entered a plea.
According to the Department of justice, he disseminated this information in two different fashions over the course of months, beginning back in January 2022. Remember, he entered the Air National Guard in 2019, got a security clearance a couple of years later, and then began disseminating this, according to the Department of Justice in January 2022. At first, he would access the classified information online, according to DOJ, and then take notes on it and spread it that way on the discord server. And then, as this process continued, according to DOJ, he would take images of these documents that were labeled secret or top secret and spread the documents like that, actual images of classified and top secret documents.
[17:15:07]
Department of Justice, alleges that there could have been and was a grave danger to national security, and that's why we're seeing these serious charges at this point. The question now, where does this go from here and when will Jack Teixeira enter a plea? That's certainly a development we'll keep an eye on. According to the release here from the Department of Justice, each of these counts carries up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. So, Jake, very easy to get a sense of how seriously DOJ and the government view this case.
TAPPER: Yes. Oren Liebermann at the Pentagon for us, thank you so much.
I want to bring back CNN Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates, along with former acting US. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Michael Sherwin.
Laura, how serious are these charges against Teixeira?
COATES: Extremely serious. He actually was alleged to have disseminated images of classified documents at a variety of different levels on this chat room called Discord. There are some statements about him maybe doing it for bragging rights or otherwise. Obviously, that was not persuasive to avoid any charges because it is the core of the Espionage Act.
We're talking a lot about the title of that statute. People think about the James Bond or Ethan Hunt of Mission Impossible. Really it's about preserving the sanctity of documents. We want to keep close to the vest that are defense related information that should not be exposed to the outside world. And if they do, they're harmful to the United States or could aid in our foreign allies or foreign adversaries work.
And so, this underscores the gravitas associated those who have the authority to have documents and either misuse it or never had it to begin with. Remember, the nature of his work as an Air National Guardsman left him able to access the documents, but unrelated to an actual security level of clearance for him. He should not have had access fully to the documents nor to disseminate the way he did. So this just shows you any conversation about, well, no one ever is prosecuted for cases like this. We are slapping some on the wrist and others are getting indictments, there you have it. And this is for an Air National Guardsman, there's also one now for a former commander in chief.
TAPPER: Yes, and I'll get to that in a second. But on the Teixeira issue, how do you defend this? I mean, it seems like they got him dead to rights.
SHERWIN: Yes.
TAPPER: He did it. Here are the documents. They caught him.
SHERWIN: Look, it's going to be a tough case to defend because of I think it's clear the evidence is dissemination. But I think what's interesting here is, like Laura just mentioned, when you bring these cases, you know, the evidence may be clear, but it's also sometimes an indictment with the government because you ask, why is a 21-year-old given access to TSSCI materials when he doesn't need it?
TAPPER: Right.
SHERWIN: He may not have any operational need for those classed on materials. Despite that, he's still given a clearance. There's still little operational control of how he could access that information, how he could disseminate it. So, look, in some ways, bringing this case to trial could be embarrassing to the Department of Defense. What checks were in place to actually protect that information and allow this very young enlisted officer to have some very high level information that he never even needed for his job?
TAPPER: So I'm just looking -- I'm just looking at this press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts from today, and I don't know if the Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy or the Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Christopher DiMenna, I don't know if this is boilerplate language or they're making a point, but if you read it what they say about the Teixeira case, individuals granted access to classified materials have a fundamental duty to safeguard the information for the safety of the U.S., our active service members, its citizens, and its allies. We're committed to ensuring that those entrusted with sensitive national security information adhere to the law, that's from the acting US. Attorney. The American people entrust security clearance holders with our nation secrets and anybody who flagrantly violates their duty to protect those secrets by unlawfully communicating classified national defensive information to people who are not entitled to receive it will be brought to justice to answer for their criminal contact, that's from the Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI. Those comments could have been made about President Trump.
SHERWIN: Absolutely. I mean, those are the same comments that were made about Chelsea Manning, what, several years ago. And this is like Chelsea Manning 2.0, another young enlisted person access top secret TSSCI information, little operational control and dissemination. So, again, these charges are serious. I think the evidence is compelling.
But on the other side of the coin, what has DoD done over the past 10 years to safeguard this information? What operational checks have they done to ensure people have the right access to this information? I think this is just deja vu all over again.
TAPPER: And Laura, obviously there's a real difference here, not only because a president has a right to classify or declassify information, although there's no evidence that he declassified any of the relevant material in this case. But also, we don't know of -- we know of two instances of him talking about classified material or showing something, Donald Trump, but this dissemination was massive and worldwide. "The Washington Post" is still writing stories based on this classified information. Does that matter? Does the fact of the dissemination matter when it comes to prosecution or conviction?
[17:20:00]
COATES: Well, one, there's no perfect analogy. And we see that the Espionage Act encompasses and contemplates a wide variety of behavior. Dissemination can be charged under different aspects and elements of the actual Espionage Act. Certainly for the public's opinion, they might say to themselves, OK, the willful retention, it feels wrong to the letter of the law, but I'm more worried that this information, which is normally as Jack Smith underscored, attached to a human being, compromises our channels of communication, our diplomacy, thinking about all those aspects. I might be more concerned about that aspect if it's disseminated, but it is still something that's violative of the law, because we don't know if you are willfully retaining information.
One, what's your motivation? Have you disseminated in some way had yet to detect, or did you intend to do so? The idea of it just gathering cobwebs has never been a very convincing notion for many people as to why you'd retain them. But I think it does matter in the court of public opinion and politically as to the why and how you use them.
TAPPER: Interesting Laura Coates, Michael Sherwin, thanks to both of you.
The House Oversight Committee investigation that has even some Republicans asking, OK, where is the evidence now? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:25:31]
TAPPER: And we're back with our politics lead. Some Republican lawmakers think something smells fishy, but when pressed, they do not have any evidence that a fish ever existed. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer claims that President Biden, quote, "sold out the United States" and allegedly ran a bribery scheme when he was vice president, along with his son Hunter and a foreign national. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa this week alleged that the foreign national has more than a dozen recordings of conversations with the Bidens. But as CNN's Sara Murray reports, when asked for any evidence of any wrongdoing, neither Grassley nor Comer have, as of now, been able to deliver.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A bold and unsubstantiated claim from a senior Senate Republican.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: The foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden allegedly has audio recordings of his conversation with them, 17 such recordings.
MURRAY (voice-over): Even prompting members of his own party to pump the brakes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not aware that we have verified that those recordings exist.
MURRAY (voice-over): Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley says a foreign national has audiotapes of Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden related to an alleged bribery scheme involving the foreign national when Biden was vice president. The existence of the tapes allegedly documented in an FBI document known as an FD 1023.
GRASSLEY: These recordings were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case that he got into a tight spot.
MURRAY (voice-over): Now Grassley tells CNN even he isn't sure if the tapes are real.
GRASSLEY: I just know they exist because of what the report says. Now maybe they don't exist, but how will I know until the FBI tells us, are they showing us their work?
MURRAY (voice-over): This, as fellow Republicans, question the legitimacy of the tapes and the motivations of the foreigner making these salacious claims.
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): We don't know if they're legit or not, but we know that the foreign national claims he has them.
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): This could be coming from a very corrupt oligarch who could be making this stuff up.
COMER: The Committee on Oversight and Accountability will come to order.
MURRAY (voice-over): The tapes are the latest unverified allegation Republicans have raised as they investigate the Biden family's business dealings and the work of the FBI. When these allegations came to light under the Trump administration, then Attorney General Bill Barr tapped Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady to look into them. Investigators were unable to corroborate the claims.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): It was thoroughly checked out by the Trump Justice Department and they couldn't find anything there.
MURRAY (voice-over): But some of the allegations were passed along to Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who was overseeing an ongoing criminal investigation into Hunter Biden.
WILLAM BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: It was provided to the ongoing investigation in Delaware to follow up on.
MURRAY (voice-over): On Capitol Hill this week, the FBI's deputy director refused to discuss the tape.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Do you have those 17 recordings?
PAUL ABBATE, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: I'm not going to comment on any investigative matter, Senator.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
MURRAY: Now, we should note that the FBI has stressed that this document that's at the center of this all, these FD 23s, they include unverified allegations that come to the FBI from informants. You know, the White House has also dismissed this allegation against the former president. In a new statement, White House spokesperson Ian Sams said, "Everything in their so called investigation seems to be mysteriously missing informants, audio tapes, and most importantly of all, any credible evidence." Jake.
TAPPER: Yes, I mean, if they have evidence, let's see it. I'd love to see it. We'll report on it.
Sara Murray, thanks so much.
MURRAY: OK (ph).
TAPPER: Speaking of House Republicans, remember that ugly debt ceiling fight, the one that ended with a much heralded Biden McCarthy compromise? Well, it's apparently not over, and apparently Speaker McCarthy is trying to back away from the agreement. This week, the Republican House Appropriations Committee chairwoman announced that she was going to move all the appropriation bills through her committee at a lower level, the lower fiscal year 2022 level. That's below the cap on spending that was carefully negotiated between Speaker McCarthy and the White House.
As the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee Rosa DeLauro puts it, quote, "It is the law of the land and not even before the ink is dried, they walked away from it," unquote. And Congresswoman Ranking Member DeLauro joins us now.
So Ranking Member DeLauro, simply put, is speaker McCarthy breaking his promise?
REP. ROSA DELAURO (D-CT), RANKING MEMBER, APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Yes. I mean, we had a very clear negotiated compromise with the President of the United States and the speaker of the House where they set the caps, if you will, for both defense and domestic spending.
[17:30:00]
And now they just have walked away from this deal. And it's really rather incredible. I don't -- you may or may not know this, Jake, and by the way, thank you for having me be with you this evening, I voted against the compromise.
I would never have, you know, seen the government default. But I voted against it because I wasn't unhappy with the domestic spending portion of it in that were really going well below the 2023 numbers to address the issues. And I find myself in the position of really amongst those who are looking at the appropriations process of being the only person or one of the only people that says, I'm willing to work within the framework of the agreement.
I'm an appropriator. I negotiated a deal last December with the Senate Democrats and Republicans. We came to a deal. But you have to think about this that last week, we had skies that were orange from wildfires. We had a portion of I-95, you know, collapsing in Philadelphia. You talked not that long ago about the underfunding of pediatric cancer. We've got kids who are in a mental health crisis. We have a hunger crisis in the United States. And what the Republicans wanted to do was to really make massive cuts. That was the basis for the agreement, and now they don't want to abide by the agreement.
TAPPER: So I'm not sure if you talked to the chairwoman of appropriations, the Republican, your Republican counterpart. But you have said that the Republicans decision to back away from this deal that everybody I thought had agreed on in terms of McCarthy and Biden, quote, all but guarantees a shutdown come the fall. So what does the chairwoman of the Committee have to say, and how are Democrats on the committee working to fix this? Or are your hands completely tied because you're in the minority?
DELAURO: Well, no, I mean, we are in the minority. But, no, our hands are not tied. First of all, if you know about appropriations bills, they have to pass in the House. They have to pass in the Senate. There needs to be Republicans and there needs to be Democrats. It's bipartisan, bicameral, and then the President signs it. If we don't get that kind of cooperation, the President will not sign the bill. It's probably one of the only pieces of legislation on a yearly basis that has these restrictions around it. So we have to come to a conclusion.
The issue will be how long will the Republicans try to hold this process hostage, and what kind of harm will be done in the interim? We can move forward. I'm prepared to move and to deal with, you know, and I have -- I did tell this -- told this to the Speaker. I have told it to our own leadership who we are in concert on this. I've told it to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And I've told it to my Senate counterparts.
Let's go. We have an obligation because what we can't do is have the government shut down. And that is potentially where the Republican majority wants to take us to a government shutdown.
TAPPER: All right, Congresswoman Rose DeLauro, the Ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.
DELAURO: Thank you. Happy Father's Day.
TAPPER: Thank you.
[17:33:55]
There are already a lot of presidential candidates, so why is Governor Ron DeSantis urging yet another person to throw their hat into the 2024 race? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My dad taught me that you get to choose your battles. And I am choosing the biggest one of my life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: In our 2024 Lead, the Republican primary field is growing. Today, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez throwing his hat in the ring for president. You saw him in that video. He released this first campaign video this morning, and he set to speak at the Ronald Reagan Library this evening. My panel is with me to discuss. Jeff, we've never -- this nation has never elected somebody from City Hall, from a mayor's mansion to the White House. There have been attempts Giuliani and Buttigieg and Sam Yorty and others. What do you think? Does he have a chance?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, sure. I mean, the nation has never elected a president from Florida either, and there happen to be three candidates from Florida. So look, he is a bit of a long shot, there's no doubt about it. But he is throwing his hat into the ring. He'll be speaking tonight. I'm told, he's going to be talking really about how he's different, his generational difference. He's 45, a year older than Ron DeSantis, but certainly presents as much younger than the Republican frontrunner and the current president.
But beyond that, he's running against Washington, saying that he's a mayor. He knows the problems up close and personal. Washington has been fighting about things that don't matter to your lives. Look, he has a good biography, there's no doubt about it. But I think his biggest challenge is getting in so late trying to get on that debate stage in August. It's really a higher bar than some people think. So that is his first hurdle to cross.
TAPPER: Yes, let's talk about that. Because, Benjy, to qualify for the first Republican debate on August 23rd, a candidate will need to have donations from at least 40,000 voters and be polling above 1 percent in three national polls or in two national polls in one state poll. That's tall order for a mayor.
[17:40:01]
BENJY SARLIN, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, SEMAFOR: Yes. And hitting 1 percent in a poll is not a very high bar. But those donations we've had these similar requirements in prior elections, and the result was you had some of these French candidates spending huge amounts of money to advertise on social media asking for say, just give me a dollar, just give me $2 to get on the debate stage. We see Chris Christie already doing this. So I think you're going to have to see the same from him because he just has very low name ID right now.
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's so interesting because it feels like a narrative has been set with Trump is the front runner, DeSantis next X, Y and Z. But every time someone gets in the race, it undermines the idea that people believe in Trump, and that's where they're going. And the party is just, you know, rounding the wagons, and that's what they're doing. Everyone who steps on stage is kind of a vote saying, maybe we should do something else.
And I think he's such a great example of the kind of candidate that 10, 15 years ago, maybe when Nikki Haley first stepped on stage, like, they thought they were going to lean towards, you know, a person of color, definitely Latino, definitely in a leadership position, and who can represent generational change. And I think he sort of it's weird. I don't know if his time, in a way, has passed because the party is no longer leading in that direction.
TAPPER: Yes. He's also the only one that is admittedly did not vote for Trump, Francis Suarez. And that could really hurt him. He also didn't vote for DeSantis he says.
SARLIN: It's pretty striking. Two times he didn't vote for Trump. He's disagreed with DeSantis in the past in a variety of reasons. Obviously, if he was close with DeSantis, he wouldn't be running for president.
TAPPER: But he endorsed Gillum in 2018. I mean, that's pretty stark.
CORNISH: Right. Everyone keeps saying that there is a middle lane somewhere, that it's not just about never Trumpers and it's not just about always Trumpers, that there are maybe Trumpers, that there are people who are thinking, I don't know, I'm not sure they're not necessarily gravitating towards him just because he's under fire legally. And that's the kind of person that as far as thinks he's like, you know, he has appealed to.
TAPPER: So DeSantis has -- his biggest critic is Donald Trump. I would say his second biggest critic is not Francis Suarez. His second biggest critic is Gavin Newsom, the California governor who's constantly going after DeSantis, constantly challenging the way he governs. Gavin Newsom he tried to challenge DeSantis to a debate, and DeSantis today responded to Newsom's challenge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Are you going to throw your hat in the ring and challenge Joe? Are you going to get in and do it, or are you just going to sit on the sidelines and chirp?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Interesting.
ZELENY: I mean, he has a bit of a point, actually. I mean he's a, you know, he's the governor of Florida, the governor of California. If they're ever going to align, they have to be running for the same office. But look, I think one reason Gavin Newsom is going after him is because of what Governor DeSantis has been doing on immigration, including some things in California, in Governor Newsom's home state.
So, look, I think for now, they're going to have to be content with sort of fighting at each other from afar on "Fox News" and other places. But Governor Newsom is, you know, a while ago, we thought, boy, maybe he would consider challenging Biden. He's ruled that out in every respect. But if something were to happen, if there was a plan B or plan C, he certainly seems like he is interested in something beyond California governor.
CORNISH: Or even just the fact that it's not going to be a gerontocracy forever. And there has been a conversation about who is in line, who is among the next generation of stars for the Democratic Party. The only way you can kind of show that off, I think, is by picking fights. And so we're witnessing two people trying to be relevant to primary voters, of which they are not totally relevant yet, but as a way of showing the public, look, we're here, we're next in line, you know, give us a shot.
TAPPER: And DeSantis was on Hugh Hewitt. Take a listen to what he had to say about Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominees.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUGH HEWITT, THE HUGH HEWITT SHOW HOST: Are you going to make the same kind of pledge to the Republicans as you go around the country that your judges will be like the Trump judges?
DESANTIS: Well, actually, I would say we'll do better than that. I mean, I respect the three appointees he did, but none of those three are at the same level of Justices Thomas and Justice Alito.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: I mean, some shade thrown at Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, who are pretty beloved by the conservatives.
SARLIN: It's a very specific type of shade. This sounds to me like two people who went to Harvard talking to each other about another judge who went to Harvard. This is about -- this kind of hair splitting, I don't think is something that Republican voters really do, is rate the justices against each other. But there is a tradition of this. You know, Republicans work so hard to get these justices appointed, only to have them run against each other, saying they weren't conservative enough the next time.
Donald Trump did this to Ted Cruz in 2016. He said, Ted Cruz supported John Roberts, therefore, you have to vote for me. I'm sure this fate is awaiting future justices and candidates. TAPPER: And Audie is sticking with the Supreme Court. We could see four decisions in critical Supreme Court cases handed down over the next just two to three weeks. We're watching for the fate of affirmative action in college and university admissions decisions, whether President Biden has the unilateral power to forgive student loan debt, whether businesses can deny services to same sex couples, and whether state legislatures should be given the final say over rules in federal elections. Four huge cases coming down the pike here.
[17:45:09]
CORNISH: They are. The last one is the most fascinating to me, because when it comes down to it's basically saying that state legislatures really should be kind of the last line of defense in deciding a state's fate in the Electoral College. Obviously, as we've seen the last couple of presidential elections, especially the most recent one, that is very serious implications given how the kind of partisan divide of our state House is. So on paper, that's the one that seems the snooziest, but that's the one to watch.
TAPPER: And Benjy, a poll taken at the end of last year following the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Should the Americans trust in the Supreme Court had fallen to a 50-year low? And I have to say, I don't know that's going to improve in the next two to three weeks.
SARLIN: I don't think anything's changing after Dobbs. I think this is just a new paradigm for the Court. And, you know, there are some Democrats who welcome this, who have been trying to rally Democrats, who prioritize judges and even take seriously ideas like expanding the court for years, who were frustrated that Democrats like the court more than Republicans in polls in the Obama era, even when they were tearing up the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance laws.
So think we're just in a new paradigm now where Republicans and Democrats just have a different view of this Court.
TAPPER: All right, thanks one and all. Appreciate it. And of course, I would be remiss if I did not remind you that it is Audie Cornish Thursday, and that means there's a brand new episode of Audie's podcast, The Assignment. This week, she takes a look at the tipping economy and why some restaurants are getting rid of tipping altogether. You can download The Assignment once you get your podcasts. It is a great, great podcast. Take a listen. The assignment with Audie Cornish.
Coming up, a chance for karma to track them down as ticket brokers keep taking advantage of service fees.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:51:00]
TAPPER: Our Money Lead now, the White House is cracking down on junk fees, putting pressure on several ticket sales and venue companies to show consumers what they're really paying for up front. So that $700 ticket for a Taylor Swift concert won't come as a surprise anymore. You'll know exactly what you're going to pay from the start. CNN's Tom Foreman joins us now. Tom, help us understand what these junk fees are.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you're a music fan. I'm a music fan. Anybody who is a music fan has encountered it before. You want to go see a big act, Taylor Swift is a good example. And here's what happens. You go in and you say, OK, I'm going to cut loose for four tickets here at $749 per ticket. Not me. But somebody else would.
TAPPER: OK.
FOREMAN: And then here's what happens. Look what happens after that. You've already agreed to pay this, and then suddenly you pick up almost $600 in additional fees that you didn't see when you agreed to this, and you wind up with that whopping score.
TAPPER: And this is kind of crap also, right? I mean, like the service fee, this is what it's supposed to be included in this.
FOREMAN: That's what they're doing to give you this. And it's not just the great big acts. The Cure has been one of the groups that has really fought against this. Look at this. This is really reasonable. You can go in and get a ticket, $20 a piece, $80 for four tickets. Look at this. This one fan posted it because there were more, more charges and fees than there were for the tickets.
TAPPER: That's absolutely --
FOREMAN: That's what the White House has been going after. And consequently, the White House has called here that these groups met today at the White House to say they have agreed to upfront pricing on all of this. They want people to be able to see it. What that means is if you look at what Ticketmaster typically said, you'd go in and you'd see the face value price up here, that's the thing you would see.
And then you'd pick up all this other stuff. When you got to the checkout point, you've already committed. You got your tickets, you're excited and suddenly all these other fees. Now, what these companies are saying, the ones that have agreed to this is they're saying, look, we will put this all up front. When you agree to the ticket, you will know right away what the bottom line is. So you're not being strung out that way.
TAPPER: So this happens to people, not just with ticket sell, right? This happens with all sorts of industries.
FOREMAN: Yes. I mean it's a whole cottage industry in its own right. We all know it now. And that's another thing that the White House and other consumer activists are going after. They're trying to say, look, it can't be just tickets. Airlines, you get on board and they say if you want your family to all sit together, this is what it's going to cost. Another fee on top of it, internet, cable services, things like that, where your phone services, where they want to charge you a great big fee if you want to get out of the deal. A fee that's so high that you feel like you can't even get out of the deal. And hotels, how many times have you traveled? You show up at a hotel, you just want to be there for a night, you're moving on fast. You're all agreed on the price. And you go to check in and they say, oh, and we have a $35 fee for everybody here for our resort fee for a resort you're never going to use.
TAPPER: Right. It happens all the time. So have these industries agreed to this or?
FOREMAN: No, they have not agreed to this. And the point here is not necessarily to even say to all the industries, you can't charge these fees. What they're saying is you have to tell people.
TAPPER: Yes, it's upfront.
FOREMAN: Yes. If you're a hotel and you say, we are pet friendly, that's fine. You can't then have the pet owner show up and say, oh, you brought your pet. That'll be an additional $60 for your pet before you get there. What these people are trying to say, these consumer advocates, is you need to tell people. Tell them what you're going to call, charge them, and then at least they'll know.
TAPPER: OK. I like it. Tom Foreman. Thanks so much.
Coming up next on The Lead, the Justice Department reportedly is teeing up an investigation into the controversial LIV Golf merger with PGA. Will they land on the green? But first, here is CNN's Wolf Blitzer with what's next in The Situation Room. Wolf?
[17:54:33]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Jake, we're going to be joined by CNN's David Axelrod, the former Obama senior adviser who just spoke with his old boss about the 2024 presidential race. The former president sharing his very candid thoughts about the campaign for the Republican nomination. He says the party still needs to, quote, walk the walk on confronting racial issues in the United States. We'll have a lot more of David's conversation with former President Obama. That's just ahead here in the Situation Room.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: Finally, in our Sports Lead, "The Wall Street Journal" reports that the Justice Department has notified the PGA Tour that it is going to review that planned merger of the PGA Tour with Saudi-backed LIV Golf with an eye towards whether it violates antitrust rules. "The Journal" reports a senior PGA Tour executive told employees this likely will delay the merger for at least a year and may in fact cause the deal to fall apart entirely.
Critics have long maintained that the Saudi league is an attempt to distract from the country's rampant human rights abuses, including the 2018 murder of journalists for "The Washington Post" Jamal Khashoggi. The PGA counted itself among those critics until the merger was announced last week.
[17:59:49]
You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Bluesky, if you have it. If you have an invite the TikTok at Jake Tapper. I'm also on Substack. You can tweet the lead at The Lead CNN. If you ever miss an episode of the show, you can listen to The Lead. Once you get your podcast, it's all two hours just sitting there like a delicious hoagie. Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer in The Situation. See you tomorrow.
