Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action In College Admissions; Biden: I Strongly Disagree With Supreme Court Ruling; Exclusive: Docs Suggest Russian General Was Wagner Member; Top Trump Campaign Aide Met With Investigators Numerous Times; Not Guilty Verdict For Ex-Parkland School Resource Officer Who Stayed Outside During Mass Shooting. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired June 29, 2023 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:33]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: The Supreme Court throws out 40 years of legal precedent.

THE LEAD starts right now.

The justices reject race based affirmative action and college admissions. We are talking to a member of the student admissions organization that sued the schools. Plus, one of the attorneys who argued in support of affirmative action before the court.

Then, documents shared exclusively with CNN, showing a Russian general whose whereabouts is currently unknown, and was a sacred VIP member of the Wagner mercenary group.

Plus, CNN's Erin Burnett joins us live from Kyiv where she just sat down with former Vice President Mike Pence during his surprise trip to Ukraine's capital.

And a jury verdict in one of the worst school shootings in American history. The Parkland school resource officer who did not enter the building is found not guilty.

(MUSIC)

PHILLIP: And welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Abby Philip. Jake Tapper is off today.

We begin with our law and justice lead. College admissions program in America will no longer look the same. Protesters gathered outside of the U.S. Supreme Court today, after its landmark decision, saying that colleges can no longer take race into consideration as an expressed factor in admissions.

Now, this overturns a long-standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students in higher education.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, saying the admissions program for both Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and failed to offer measurable objectives to justify their use of race.

The court suggests that colleges can still consider how race has affected the applicant's life, but in their dissent, the courts three liberal justices slammed their conservative colleagues, saying this ruling makes it practically impossible for colleges and universities to take race into account.

President Joe Biden today also swiftly reacting to the court's decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. And I strongly, strongly disagree with the court's decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: And CNN's Jessica Schneider will break down how this ruling will have a major ramifications for generations to come.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Supreme Court stirring up protests with its decision gutting affirmative action, saying colleges and universities can no longer rely on race in the admissions process. But respective students are still allowed to talk about how their race has shaped their experiences in their applications.

The 6-3 opinion within by Chief Justice John Roberts will now prohibit students from checking a box indicating the race, specifically saying that practice at Harvard and the University of North Carolina cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. The majority not explicitly saying they are overruling within four decades of precedent that allowed affirmative action, but the three liberal justices writing: Today, this court stands and the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.

ANGIE GABEAU, PRESIDENT, HARVARD BLACK STUDENTS ASSOCIATION: I'm really mostly worried about, you know, the youth, and the students younger than us in high school, in middle school, in elementary school who might not get that the same opportunity that I did.

SCHNEIDER: The two cases were brought by the group Students for Fair Admissions, led by activist Edward Blum, who has fought for nearly a decade to eradicate affirmative action.

EDWARD BLUM, PRESIDENT, STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS: Classifying students by race and ethnicity, treating them differently because of their race and ethnicity is it's unfair.

SCHNEIDER: At the forefront of the Harvard fight, Asian students who argued they were disadvantaged because Harvard prioritized other minorities, and used a personal waiting score that did not rank them favorably. The issue is deeply personal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a first

person of color on the Supreme Court. She issued a fiery dissent, accusing the majority of employing and unjustified exercise of power that will only serve to highlight the court's own impotence in the face of an America whose cries for equality resound.

Justice Sotomayor has been outspoken in the past, saying that using other methods to ensure diversity won't work.

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT: It's not that I don't believe it works. I don't think that statistics show it works.

SCHNEIDER: In fact, when California banned affirmative action in 1996, UC Berkeley said Black and Hispanic representation on their campus dropped by 50 percent.

But Justice Clarence Thomas, one of two Black justices on the high court, spoke in personal terms, too, saying he believes the Constitution is color blind.

[16:05:03]

While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffered discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the court, pushed back in a separate dissent, bashing the majority opinion as exuding a let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, and said deeming grace irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (on camera): The Supreme Court however are saying that U.S. military service academies can continue to take race into consideration as a factor in admissions, essentially exempting those military schools from this ruling.

Now, Abby, this is actually spelled out in a footnote in the opinion. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson really called out the majority on this point, saying that they are prioritizing diversity in the bunker over the border.

But I will say here that this opinion does leave some gray areas about maybe how far universities can go in listing information about race, say, in those essays. So it's probably likely that we will see some litigation in the future over some of the uncertainties in this case.

PHILLIP: Yes, I think that's probably likely to happen.

Jessica Schneider, thank you so much.

And I want to bring in now, Kenny Xu, president of Color Us United, a group that advocates against affirmative action. He's also a member of the board for Students for Fair Admissions. That's the group that brought this case against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

Kenny, thank you for joining us.

Today's ruling obviously is one that you were hoping for, arguing that the rules in place that support affirmative action were unfair to Asian Americans. So, from a practical perspective, how does today's decision help Asian American students looking to get into elite colleges?

KENNY XU, PRESIDENT, COLOR US UNITED: I just want to say I'm ecstatic about this decision. It means that Asian Americans can finally get treated on their merits.

Guys, we know why Asian Americans are -- should get into Harvard at disproportionate rates, it's because they study twice as many hours as the average American. It's not because of their race. It's because of their culture. It's because of their family values.

Academic excellence, that should be prioritized. Those should be the values that schools like Harvard and Chapel Hill, supposedly elite schools and academic programs, should be valuing in an applicant, not race.

PHILLIP: So, you've argued also that Harvard and other colleges should get rid of their legacy admissions, which also gives people points for having a parent that went to school. That's not happening here. I wonder why not challenge that which is also, presumptively, an obstacle for Asian Americans being treated fairly in the admissions process.

XU: Well, I hope you followed the case, but Students for Fair Admissions has challenged legacy admissions repeatedly over and over again. In fact, we argued that the way that Harvard could implement some of their diversity policies without discriminating against Asian Americans is to get rid of legacy admissions, which as you know, disproportionately privilege white applicants. In fact, 33 percent of Harvard students who are white are legacy, and they have five times more likely chance of getting in, if you are a legacy.

So, you really want to ensure diversity and admissions, get rid of legacy admission.

PHILLIP: You heard today President Biden expressing some concerns over socioeconomic factors, inequality being made worse given this decision. He also presented what he called, basically, a way forward. I wonder, if you take race out of the picture, and you do what the president is suggesting, taking socioeconomic status into consideration, do you think that that would be fair to Asian American students as well?

XU: No, I don't. I think that admissions should be only based on merit. And the reason why is because, you can't -- why are we asking a university to calculate somebody's level of diversity? I think that's a very -- that sets a very bad precedent for anybody trying to get into college.

We should be treated on the basis of our merits. We should be treated on the basis of hard we work, or study, out SAT scores, our grades, and name blind, race blind process is what I would advocate for as president (INAUDIBLE).

PHILLIP: Kenny, can I ask you, though? I mean, colleges --

XU: Yeah.

PHILLIP: -- obviously, they care about grades and SAT scores. But they also are filling universities of people, human beings who have other factors that they bring to the table. Why is it not okay for them to consider those things?

XU: I'm saying if you're going to consider those things, you should consider them without respect to race --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Sure, I think that's exactly why socioeconomic status, if you take raise out of it, let's call it socioeconomic status where whether or not they grew up wealthy or poor, is that how -- is that not something that colleges might have an interest in considering?

[16:10:03]

XU: The reason why you shouldn't consider that is because you should consider the success of an applicant. Because of affirmative action, Black Americans graduate from law school at the bottom 25 percent of their classes, largely speaking.

And we don't want that. We want Black students to succeed. We want every student to succeed, low income students to succeed.

But you have to put them in scenarios, in places where they are likely to succeed. And lowering your standard to admit somebody of a socioeconomic status or race would not help you do that. In fact, you would harm their graduation rate and excellence.

PHILLIP: Well, as the case also points out, that standard is not necessarily lowered because students are all admitted, it's that question of whether race can be an added consideration, a tipping point --

XU: The standard is lowered. The standard is lowered --

PHILLIP: Kenny --

XU: The standard is lowered as admissions data shows, and Asians has to score 273 points higher in the SAT to have the same chance of admission as a Black person. So, the standard is lowered for Black Americans.

PHILLIP: Kenny Xu, thank you for your perspective. Really appreciate you joining us today. XU: Thank you.

PHILLIP: And we are now joined by David Hinojosa, an attorney who represented UNC students in this case, arguing in defense of affirmative action before the Supreme Court.

So, David, what is your response to what you just heard from Mr. Kenny Xu earlier in the program?

DAVID HINOJOSA, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING UNC STUDENTS DEFENDING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Great to be here, Abby.

Look, you heard straight from the horse's mouth. What the opposition wants as part of their anti-civil rights agenda is to make permanent any privileged pathways that they have, including opportunities to buy up their test scores. You know, you heard merit, merit, merit.

Merit for them is all about test scores, yet we know there's incredibly, one, where there's an incredibly horrid history behind standardized testing, about how it was used to exclude students. But most importantly today, or equally as important today I should say, is that those test scores don't really show, aren't good indicators of whether students are going to be successful or not in college.

So, how and why are we considering them, it's because they are used to exclude many students, including historically marginalized students, including students of color. And we already know how unequal our K-12 education and opportunities are. But yet, we know, every one of those students are fighting, doing their best, and deserve a shot at our best universities.

PHILLIP: In the lead of this ruling, what is the path forward for universities, to ensure that they are not in violation of that Supreme Court ruling, while still also trying to maintain programs that are -- student bodies, frankly, that are diverse?

HINOJOSA: So, for those that are using race conscious admissions programs, that just means they are considering race as a plus factor among other factors for underrepresented groups. For those universities, they're going to have to look back at their policies and make sure that they are in line with this newly revised standard. That has, you know, heightened the bar for universities to demonstrate whether or not they are complying with the law.

For all the other universities, that are considering race as a plus factor, and there are hundreds across the United States that are doing that, they can continue business as normal. You know, all these headlines about, you know, affirmative action being overruled, and being thrown out by the court isn't entirely accurate.

Now, it's going to be much more difficult to try and demonstrate your lawful program if you consider race, but there are, you know, many other alternatives there.

PHILLIP: So, you heard Kenny Xu discounting whether socioeconomic status, for example, is an option that should be available. Are you concerned that there could be further legal challenges to any number of other factors that collages take into consideration to fill their student bodies?

HINOJOSA: So, anything that threatens privilege and access for white people in particular across the United States, as part of that movement, they will always be threatened, and they will always sue. They will find lawyers to sue, and sue again.

But considering socioeconomic status has been encouraged. As a matter, in fact it's interesting that Mr. Xu would mention that, because as a debate actually argued what you should be using is income instead of race. And now, we see their true colors coming out, the attack on affirmative action has only been a down payment on their larger attack against any civil rights protections.

PHILLIP: All right. David Hinojosa, thank you very much for joining us as well.

[16:15:02]

HINOJOSA: Thank you, Abby.

PHILLIP: And Vice President Kamala Harris just weighed on the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision. Her reaction, plus that of other top officials, ahead.

Also, new on THE LEAD, what one of Trump's campaign aides has revealed to the special counsel. This, as we learn more about the status that special counsel investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: And we're back now with our law and justice lead. President Biden today called the Supreme Court's decision to reject race-based affirmative action in higher education disappointing, and he said that he strongly disagrees with it.

I listened to a notable response when CNN's Arlette Saenz asked him a question at the very end of his remarks. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Biden, the Congressional Black Caucus has said the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy. Is this a rogue court?

BIDEN: This is not a normal court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: There's Vice President Kamala Harris, and you'll remember that she had that famous -- that little girl was me moment back on the 2019 debate stage when describing her own experience with affirmative action.

[16:20:01]

Moments ago, she gave her first on-camera reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is now a moment where the court has not fully understood the importance of equal opportunity for the people of our country. It is a complete misnomer to suggest this is about color blind, when in fact, it is about being blind to history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: There's also notable reaction in favor of today's Supreme Court decision. The most recent from former President Donald Trump, who now also is the front runner in the Republican 2024 race for the presidency, and he said this in a statement. Quote: This is a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded.

Now, Trump's statement went on to say, quote: We're going back to an all merit-based, and that is the way it should be, exclamation point at the end.

So let's bring in now, former president and director counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Sherrilyn Ifill, and CNN chief legal analyst, Laura Coates.

Laura, I want to start with you. Can you explain what you believe is going to be the practical immediate impact here of this ruling?

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Confusion and uncertainty because admissions offices are going to try to figure out how to reconcile two concepts, that you can have an applicant discussing race as part of their identity or experience, or their personal journeys for the application process, but they cannot consider it as an actual factor for admission. That's confusing to think about the actual application execution of it.

And I will say, a lot of the discussions that we are hearing today seem to fundamentally misunderstand how affirmative action actually works. It's not as if they begin with race, and then you decide a separate branch to figure out whether you can now get in. You are otherwise qualified, you are otherwise meritoriously considered for the position in the school, you have met all the other criteria, and then there's also other holistic considerations ahead to come, like whether somebody was a veteran, or a legacy student, or a violinist, or an athlete among other things.

And so what this Supreme Court decision has now done is suggest that race cannot be used in that considering factor for the holistic application, but I don't want anyone to think this was a Supreme Court saying or that are talking points are about from other people has suggested that the people who were not otherwise qualified, and race somehow made them qualified. PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, I think what kind of touched on that in our

earlier conversation, and people interpret the data differently, but the process is what you just described. Sherrilyn, I want to ask you about this, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy majority concurrence, and part of what he wrote includes this.

He says, whatever their skin color, today's youth simply are not responsible for instituting the segregation of the 20th century. And they do not shoulder the moral debts of their ancestors. And, at the same time, in her own dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, quote, deeming race irrelevant in a law does not make it so in life.

What's your take on this back and forth between these justices?

SHERRILYN IFILL, FORMER PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR-COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: My take on it. Well, first of all, Justice Thomas's statement is one that could have been said when he was the beneficiary of affirmative action in the 20th century, that he did not bear the weight of 19th century mores in this country. What I really appreciated is that for so long, Justice Thomas has been the only African American voice on the Supreme Court to talk about affirmative action and to express his opposition to it. To put his interpretation of the history of the 14th Amendment to play, and to talk about our constitutional rights as black people in this country.

But now, Ketanji Brown Jackson is able to offer a competing view. It matters that she, like Justice Thomas, is a child of the south. And it matters that she has really steeped herself in the history of the Civil War Amendments, including the 14th Amendment.

And the clarity with which I think she speaks is so powerful, and important, because she has the ability to speak about both the history but also about the contemporary reality of race in this country. The majority of the Supreme Court, including Justice Thomas, cloaked themselves in these ideals of what they hope this country will one day be, but what they didn't do, is kick the latter out from under those who are doing the hard work of helping create a multi-racial democracy in which this access and opportunity for all.

And they confuse people as, your guest Kenny Xu appeared to be confused, but also in the very sad belief that he has nothing to learn from students who haven't scored a particular score on the SAT. That's precisely the reason, I think, why these admissions processes are so important.

So students can understand what it means to be with other students who have different experiences, who are also qualified to make it into those schools, and to have students understand how much they have to learn that's not on a piece of paper, not in the book, and that's from their colleagues who are sitting at the desks next to them. A terrible decision today, powerful dissents that are important, but a watershed moment in our attempts to create a healthy, multi-racial democracy.

PHILLIP: And, Laura, Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion wrote this: Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicants discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

Justice Sotomayor described this as putting lipstick on a pig. It also seems like, perhaps, creating a loophole.

COATES: In fact, that's exactly what many are contemplating this rule will actually lead to. We've recently heard, last Saturday was a year today at the Dobbs decision, where there were opinions saying, this shouldn't be construed to include X, Y and Z, and it, of course, has brought conversations around what the decision might mean in other context.

Similarly, we had the scenario here. One of the things that the Supreme Court has looked to do is clarify confusion, if there's a debate between two circuits, if there's a debate between states or issues, we can get some clarity, so we can order our allies in such a way we can follow the president, and in a consistent way across the United States.

And so, any indication that has, on the one hand, what appears to be a finite and fix rule, on the other, the allowance, including by the way, a footnote on the military, it can lead to confusion and additional lawsuits to seek that clarification. So, I'd watch for other clarifying moments in litigation, based on this very opinion, even to perhaps their best effort to try to be clear, what is clear, is that there will still be more litigation.

PHILLIP: Yeah, and if you are a student applying for college and probably this means people are going to be bending over backwards to try and figure out how to put their background into their college application essays.

We could talk about this all day. Laura Coates and Sherrilyn Ifill, thank you both very much. Very much appreciate your perspectives on this.

IFILL: Thank you.

PHILLIP: And up next, we head to the ground in Ukraine, where Erin Burnett is live, right now.

Erin?

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Abby, well, thank you.

And we are back in Kyiv where Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence just made a surprise visit here, Abby. And I had a chance to sit down with him. We had a long conversation, but I asked him whether Vladimir Putin is losing his grip on power.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I must just tell you that we don't know what we don't know about what's happening in Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: We'll have much more of that conversation next.

Plus, we have a CNN exclusive about the Russian general who has not been seen since Saturday. Totally, MIA. His alleged strong ties to the Wagner group, uncovered today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:33]

BURNETT: Breaking news in our world today, I'm Erin Burnett reporting live from Kyiv.

In another sign of divided loyalty at the Kremlin, documents shared exclusively with CNN suggests that Russian General Sergei Surovikin was a secret VIP, a member VIP of the Wagner group.

Now, keep in mind, Surovikin has actually not been seen publicly in five days. And that's, of course, the five days after the Wagner army, led by the warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin, marched towards Moscow in a planned, unchallenged, but short lived mutiny on Saturday.

CNN's Matthew Chance is inside Russia.

And, Matthew, I mean, this is a crucial piece of information and I know that you've actually seen these documents. So, as you go through them, what do they reveal?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, they are fascinating documents because, you know, we don't know the whereabouts of General Surovikin at the moment. He could well be being questioned. He could be being held about the role he played, if any, in that attempted military takeover.

But, look, it's interesting, because these documents were obtained by the Dossier Center, which is a Russian investigative group. They were shared exclusively with us, so we've had a good look at them.

And they show that General Surovikin was designated as a VIP member of Wagner. Now, it's been long known that he's had close ties with Wagner. He's worked with that mercenary group in Syria, with Russian forces. He's worked with a more recently in Ukraine as well. He was the liaison for sometime, really, between the Russian military and Wagner forces on the ground.

But the idea that he's actually a member of the organization, a VIP member, is something we haven't heard before. And that's new. It's not just him either, or you can see from those documents there, they blot out the other names, but General Surovikin is alongside watch the Dossier Center say is at least 30 other members of the Russian military and intelligence services, high-ranking figures, who have also been designated VIP members of Wagner as well.

Now, it's not clear what VIP designation means, whether there's any financial benefit of that, whether it means they are on the payroll or not. That's not clear at this point. But it does imply that the Russian military is perhaps overly close, or has been overly close, to this mercenary organization that, as we know, last weekend, stage and attempted military rebellion in Russia, and was not prevented from moving into a major Russian city, for instance, by the security services there.

At the very least, it implies, as you mentioned, divided loyalties. And that may well be something the Kremlin wants to look into further.

BURNETT: All right. Matthew Chance in Moscow, thank you very much. Incredible to have that access.

And here with me, Nick Paton Walsh in Kyiv.

And, Nick, it's interesting when you look at the document that Matthew has exclusively obtained, you know, you see one name, as he points out, the other blurred at ones.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah.

BURNETT: Well, we wonder if we're going to end up seeing those names, what will happen to them. I mean, at this point, of course, we still don't know where General Surovikin is.

WALSH: Absolutely. And there's been multiple reports that have deeply confuses at this point. Remember, he's a key figure, used to run the war in Ukraine, and was notably the only member of the Russian top brass who seem to have something nice to say about Yevgeny -- sorry, Yevgeny Prigozhin had something nice to say about him.

BURNETT: Right.

WALSH: So, there are reports suggesting he has, in fact, been detained, there are other reports suggesting he may have, in fact, been arrested. But then also contradictory information from possible Moscow elites suggesting all is well, and indeed he's been released. In fact, a Russian official with the knowledge of pretrial detention facility says he's not in one of those.

So, it could be disappeared for a bit, and is now a free man. We just don't know.

BURNETT: We don't know.

WALSH: But it's not good for him.

BURNETT: I mean, right, I mean, this is the most around it. It also comes, of course, as Yevgeny Prigozhin, outside that 11-minute video, has not been seen.

WALSH: Absolutely. This is not a man who has been publicity shy for the past month.

BURNETT: Right. I mean, usually, every couple of days, he's --

WALSH: Every hour, you could have --

BURNETT: He's out with his troops, he's somewhere, right?

WALSH: And so, we know that Alexander Lukashenko says he should be in Belarus, and we know that planes affiliated to him have been seeing coming in and out of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Minsk as well, but that could just be a bit of a bluff or a disguise.

And so, the whereabouts of Prigozhin are becoming a bit of an issue, frankly, for Vladimir Putin because part of this deal was he was supposed to be in Belarus, and in exile there. And if, indeed, he is still moving around places where he has great influence --

BURNETT: Right.

WALSH: -- that could be problematic.

BURNETT: And interesting, because you would think, and I know you just said, as Mike Pence said today, you don't know what you don't know.

WALSH: Yeah.

BURNETT: But if you're want to send someone into exile, when they marched on your city and attempt to stage a coup, and then they don't show up for five days publicly, what kind of statement is that making?

WALSH: It does suggest the possibility that this deal isn't holding. We don't know what that means for other parts of Wagner as well, and you've got to bear in mind, you know, this is a very paranoid man, Putin, perhaps at the best of days. He's had the worst moment of his entire time in power, now he's learning the possibility of ties between Wagner and his military elite.

The amount of finger pointing and interrogations, the blame game, the sort of quasi-purge that might be beginning, even if Surovikin, it turns out, just put his head down for a couple of days, instead of a public eye, like they often do.

BURNETT: Yeah.

WALSH: That's going to tear up the Russian military apart. Here in Kyiv, you know they are probably relishing that moment.

BURNETT: Oh, absolutely, and wondering what, of course, it will do. They're called force majeure moment for their frontlines.

Nick, thank you very much here in Kyiv.

And today, former Vice President Mike Pence actually was also here. He made an unannounced visit to Ukraine. He met with the president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as Republicans remain incredibly divided over U.S. support for Ukraine.

Pence is not unsure at all. He is very clear on his position on this. He toured the Kyiv suburbs today, many, of course, still scarred by the heinous suspected war crimes of Putin's soldiers during the invasion. He told families in Irpin, quote, the American people are praying with you.

I spoke with him and asked him to weigh in on the recent events in Russia. Here's part of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: You mentioned Putin, and of course, you've met him. You dealt with him when you are vice president. Do you think he has full command of his military right now?

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: I think it's an open question. It is. Now, the Wagner group is a specialty group, we have some familiarity with. We -- American forces encountered the Wagner group in Syria, back in 2018 --

BURNETT: Right.

PENCE: -- when they moved against our forces and after being warned multiple times, the order was given, and we took them out without one American casualty.

But they are understood to be some of the most elite forces in Russia. Now they've been dispersed, they are being invited back into the military, but I did hear today that they are decamping in Belarus, along with their leader, who is now in exile. And I must just tell you that we don't know what we don't know about what's happening in Russia. But that's always true about Russia, and about Vladimir Putin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: All right, well, there was a whole lot more. And by the way, the former vice president is very clear where he stands on F-16s, the ATACMS missiles, much more so, frankly, than we hear from the Biden administration. So much more coming up. The full interview with Mike Pence will be tonight on OUTFRONT at 7:00 Eastern. We hope you'll join for that. And I'll see you then.

In the meantime, of course, back to Abby in Washington.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Thank you, Erin, we look forward to that interview. The timing very interesting indeed for the former vice president Mike Pence.

And still ahead here on THE LEAD, a top Trump campaign aide, a classified map, and investigators in the special counsel's office. New developments in that investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: Sources tell CNN a top Trump campaign aide has spoken multiple times to investigators in the special counsel's office, and was asked about classified documents, including a map that he showed her.

Let's bring in CNN senior legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid. So, Paula, what are we learning about this campaign aide's

conversations with the special counsel?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Abby, one of the most damning part that the special counsel's indictment was this allegation that former President Trump had showed a classified map to a representative of his political action committee, but this person wasn't named. Of course, that is significant not only because he was allegedly showing a classified document, but also because this is someone who is very much in his inner circle.

[16:45:01]

And, you know, multiple sources tell CNN that Susie Wildes, who is one of his closest aides, effectively running his third campaign for the White House, she is in fact the representative of the pack who is not named in the indictment.

We know that during her multiple interviews with special counsel investigators, she was asked whether she had ever seen this map, if she was never shown any documents relating to Mark Milley.

Now, what's interesting is the campaign so far is standing by her. Our colleague Kristen Holmes was told that the Trump campaign was blindsided by this news, but you will not be taking a step back from her role in the campaign.

PHILLIP: That's very significant. Very high level person in Trump's world. We are also learning some other developments in the classified documents investigation. What are they?

REID: That's right, our colleague Katelyn Polantz learned that the grand jury that's been investigating the Mar-a-Lago documents case down in Florida is still active, still reaching out to witnesses, and it's not clear if there still could be a superseding indictment, if other people could be charged. But it's notable that that is still active and ongoing grand jury investigation.

PHILLIP: Very interesting, especially considering former president continues to talk publicly about this case. Paula Reid, thank you very much.

And a verdict in the case involving one of the worst school shootings in America. That happened to the school resource officer who waited 45 minutes before entering the school.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:50:46]

PHILLIP: In our law and justice lead, just the last hour, tears throughout a courtroom as a jury acquitted Scot Peterson, the former school resource officer who was on duty at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, when a gunman killed 17 students and faculty in 2018.

CNN's Carlos Suarez was at the courthouse.

Carlos, what is the reaction coming in now to this verdict, which seems pretty stunning?

CARLOS SUAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's exactly right, Abby.

So, 60-year-old Scot Peterson cried as that verdict was read, in court, and nearby, some of the families of the victims watched on in disbelief. A lot more shaking their heads, no, as that verdict was read in court. It's a scene we last saw during the sentencing trial for the shooter, when a jury in that case came back and sentenced the shooter to life in prison instead of the death penalty.

Now, from the very start of this trial, Peterson's attorney felt that the jury was going to come back with a not guilty verdict on all of the counts. But especially when it came to the child neglect charges, the defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh felt that a lot of this was centered around whether Scot Peterson was, quote, a caregiver, and that is a designation that is normally not applied to law enforcement officers, and so as every single day passed by, and there was more deliberations, the defense attorney thought that their chances of getting a not guilty verdict were pretty good.

The defense going into this case said that Scot Peterson never went into the building where the shooting happened because he did not know exactly where the gunfire was coming from, or where the shooter was. The state tried to counter that argument by bringing forth other law enforcement officers who were at the school, and they testified that while they also didn't know exactly where the gunfire was coming from, or where the shooter was, at some point, they made their way inside of the building.

Here now, is Scot Peterson, after the verdict, as well as the father of Joaquin Oliver. He was one of the students killed that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOT PETERSON, FORMER PARKLAND SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER: Don't anybody ever forget, this was a massacre on February 14th. The only person to blame was that monster. There wasn't any law enforcement, nobody in that scene, from PSO, Coral Springs, everybody did the best they could.

MANUEL OLIVER, FATHER OF PARKLAND SHOOTING VICTIM JOAQUIN OLIVER: We were there too late. I'm sick of listening to that. Who was working the moments before what happened? Who allowed that killer to get into the school? Was that not your responsibility also?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SUAREZ: And after the verdict, Peterson said he was willing to meet with some of the family members, however, Abby, as we heard from Joaquin as well as some other families that were in court, they're not interested in meeting Peterson whatsoever.

PHILLIP: Carlos Suarez, thank you very much for that report. And let's bring in now, CNN's senior legal analyst, Elie Honig.

So, Elie, do you think this case has any impact on litigation involving other mass shootings? I'm thinking about the Uvalde situation in which there were some accusations of law enforcement, perhaps, not doing as much as they could've done in those moments.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Abby, I think this one really cuts both ways. On the one hand, it's very unusual to see somebody, law enforcement officer, or a school resource officer, charged criminally based on their failure to respond to a mass shooting incident. This charge was really one-of-a-kind.

And so I think other prosecutors may look at that and say, okay, I wouldn't be the first prosecutor to bring these types of charges, they were brought in this case in Florida. So, in that respect, this creates precedent. But, of course, the verdict here was a not guilty verdict. That doesn't necessarily dictate what any other verdict will be, each case stands on its own facts, but I think that's a note of caution to be sounded to other prosecutors. That you can't just reflectively charge any law enforcement officer with a crime for failing to respond fully or adequately to a mass shooter incident.

So, if prosecutors are going to have to evaluate the facts of each case and act accordingly.

PHILLIP: They sure will. Elie Honig, thank you very much.

Now, while Washington, D.C., Detroit, and Chicago are all topping a list that may be hard to swallow.

[16:55:01]

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: In our national lead, air quality across the United States has once again fallen to dangerous levels, as smoke from Canadian wildfires blankets the northeastern parts of the Midwest. Washington, D.C., Detroit, and Chicago reach the top three spots for the worst air quality in the world today, according to airnow.gov.

And in New York, Governor Kathy Hochul issued a statewide air quality health advisory, saying, quote, air quality is unhealthy in every corner of the state of New York. Wildfires from more than 500 miles away continue to burn, and we are feeling the impact right here, in real time, in our city and our state.

And I'm Abby Philip, in for Jake Tapper today.

Our coverage continues now with Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM".