Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Biden Responds to Supreme Court Rulings; Supreme Court Rulings Block President Biden's Student Loan Plan, Limit LGBTQ Protection; Ukraine Intel Chief: Kremlin Plotting to Kill Prigozhin; Biden Reacts to U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan Report. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 30, 2023 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And we have to acknowledge this is a presidency that's now faced several actions by the Supreme Court that are directly and diametrically opposed with the president's world view. So, will this be one of multiple avenues that his party has to forward his agenda in the next election, as they did with Roe versus Wade and the overturning of that last year?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, and we will be looking for that as we wait on the president.
THE LEAD starts right now.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Six to three, the new numbers reshaping American life.
THE LEAD starts right now.
Forty million Americans will not get the student loan forgiveness President Biden promised them after the Supreme Court rejects his plan. And the president says it is unforgivable.
Then, a key ruling on LGBTQ rights and freedom of speech involving a wedding website designer and the state of Colorado. What it means for anti-discrimination laws across the country.
Plus, as millions of Americans plan to take to the roads and skies this holiday weekend, a look at what cities are experiencing turmoil after days of delays.
(MUSIC)
PHILLIP: And welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Abby Philip, in for Jake Tapper.
Today, we begin with our law and justice lead. At moment now, President Joe Biden will address the nation after the Supreme Court today issued two major rulings. One that blocks President Biden's student loan forgiveness program rejecting a program that would have delivered debt relief to millions of Americans. And the other ruling that appears to suggest the rights of LGBTQ people are on unsteady legal ground. So, as the court ruled in favor of a Christian web designer in
Colorado who refused to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings, citing religious objections.
Let's go straight to CNN's Jeremy Diamond who is over at the White House, awaiting President Biden for us.
So, Jeremy, what can we expect today from the president?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Abby, I think you can expect to hear a few different things from the president. The first among which will be the president laying out what kind of actions his administration is prepared today take to offer some relief to those student loan borrowers, 26 million of whom had applied for this program, as many as 40 million Americans would have been eligible for this program and who are now going --
PHILLIP: Interrupt you.
DIAMOND: -- the president.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let me begin by saying I know there are millions of Americans -- millions of Americans in this country who feel disappointed and discouraged, or even a little bit angry, about the Court's decision today on student debt. And I must admit I do too.
Before I tell you the steps we're going to take, I wanted to talk about what we've been able -- I want to talk about what we've been able to achieve so far on student loan over the past few years.
First, we made the largest increase in Pell Grants in over a decade, helping students from families who nearly all make less than $60,000 a year. Then we fixed the so-called -- with the help of the department -- Public Service Loan Forgiveness program so that borrowers who got into public service, such as schoolteachers, police officers, social workers, service members, you know, they actually got the debt relief they're entitled to under the law.
Before I came to office, only 7,000 people had benefitted from that program. Today, over 600,000 borrowers have received relief from that program. And it's still available. So many people more -- so many more people can be helped.
And I encourage you to apply, if you haven't already. You're still eligible. Go to StudentAid.gov. It matters.
Third, my administration improved a program from the Obama-Biden administration on Income-Driven Repayment Plan. That's what it was referred to as. Back then, we set a limit: Student borrowers would pay no more than 10 percent of their disposable income to pay back their debt in any one -- time.
My administration is going to reduce that to 5 percent. It's now the most generous repayment program ever. No one with an undergraduate loan today or in the future, whether from a community college or a four-year college, will have to pay more than 5 percent of their disposable income to repay their loan. And that's income after you pay for the necessities, like housing, food, and the like.
The typical borrower is going to save about $1,000 a year. And if you keep up payments for 20 years without missing them, your total debt is forgiven after 20 years. That's what the program was before, but we've just reduced it to 5 percent.
In addition to that, last year I announced my student debt relief plan, a plan that was on the verge of providing more than 40 million Americans with real debt relief, up to $10,000 for many borrowers and up to $20,000 for those who had gotten a Pell Grant.
[16:05:03]
Nearly 90 percent of their relief would've gone to borrowers -- 90 percent of it -- making less than $75,000 a year. And no one -- no one making over $125,000 would qualify.
This program was all set to begin. The website had been set up. The applications had been simplified so that it took less than five minutes to complete.
Notices had been sent out to people about the relief they were eligible for. Sixteen million people -- 16 million people had already been approved. The money was literally about to go out the door.
And then, Republican elected officials and special interests stepped in. They said no, no, literally snatching from the hands of millions of Americans thousands of dollars in student debt relief that was about to change their lives.
You know, these Republican officials just couldn't bear the thought of providing relief for working-class and middle-class Americans. Republican state officials sued my administration, attempting to block relief, including for millions of their own constituents.
Republicans in Congress voted to overturn the plan. I think everyone. I don't think I had any Republican votes for this plan.
At the same time, think about this: We all supported the Paycheck Protection Program, remember? PPP? You know, which was designed to help business owners who lost money because of the pandemic. It was a worthy program.
But let's be clear: Some of the same elected Republicans, members of Congress who strongly opposed giving relief to students, got hundreds of thousands of dollars themselves in relief -- members of Congress -- because of the businesses they were able to keep open.
Several members of Congress got over a million dollars. All those loans were forgiven. You know how much that program cost? Seven hundred sixty billion dollars. My program is too expensive. $360 billion more than I proposed in my student debt relief program.
I was trying to provide students with 10 to 20,000 -- $10,000 to $20,000 of relief. By comparison, the average amount forgiven in the PPP, the pandemic loan program, average amount forgiven was $70,000.
Now, a kid making 60,000 bucks, trying to pay back his bills, asking for $10,000 in relief -- come on. The hypocrisy is stunning.
You can't help a family making 75 grand a year, but you can help a millionaire and you have your debt forgiven?
My plan would not only have life -- been life-changing for millions of Americans, it would have been good for the American economy. Freeing millions of Americans from the crushing burden of student debt, more homes would have been bought, more businesses would have been started, more couples would have had the confidence to start a family. Millions of people would have felt they could get on with their lives.
These Republicans blocked all that. Now, in addition to the hypocrisy, some of these Republicans in Congress are shamelessly pushing to advance a bill in the coming weeks that gives hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks and handouts to the wealthiest Americans. They still haven't given up on making permanent a $2 trillion tax cut that they never paid for. Never paid for. Two trillion dollars.
So let me be clear: For Republicans in Congress, this is not about reducing the deficit, it's not about fairness and forgiving loans, it's only about forgiving loans they have to pay.
Today, the Supreme Court sided with them. I believe the Court's decision to strike down my student debt relief program was a mistake, was wrong.
I'm not going to stop fighting to deliver borrowers what they need, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic scale. So, we need to find a new way. And we're moving as fast as we can.
First, I'm announcing today a new path consistent with today's ruling to provide student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible.
We will ground this new approach in a different law than my original plan, the so-called Higher Education Act. That will allow Secretary Cardona, who is with me today, to compromise, waive, or release loans under certain circumstances.
This new path is legally sound. It's going to take longer, but, in my view, it's the best path that remains to providing for as many borrowers as possible with debt relief.
I've directed my team to move as quickly as possible under the law. Just moments ago, Secretary Cardona took the first step to initially that -- to initiate that new approach.
We're not going to waste any time on this. We're getting moving on it. It's going to take longer, but we're getting at it right away.
Second, we know what many borrowers will need to make their hard choices, which their -- which their budgets are being strained now when they start to repay their monthly loan payments this fall. You know, we know that figuring out how to pay these added expenses
can take time for borrowers, and they might miss payments at the front end as they get back into repayment.
[16:10:09]
Normally, this could lead some borrowers to fall into delinquency and default. But without their financial -- it would hurt their financial security, and that's not good for them or the economy. That's why we're creating a temporary, 12-month what we're calling "on-ramp" repayment program.
Now, this is not the same as the student loan pause that's been in effect for the past three years. Monthly payments will be due, bills will not go out, and interest will be accruing. And during this period, if you can pay your monthly bills, you should.
But if you cannot, if you miss payments, this "on-ramp" will temporarily remove the threat of default or having your credit harmed, which can hurt borrowers for years to come, because the Department of Education won't refer borrowers. And the reason why that will work: They won't refer borrowers who have missed payments to credit agencies for 12 months to give them a chance to get back up and running.
Let me close with this: Our Republican officials say: Student loan relief is a giveaway to the privileged. You hear that loud now, the privileged. I love their concern for the privileged.
But I know who student loan borrowers are in this country and so do all of you. The couple putting off having a child until they can find their way to deal with their debt, that's who they are. They're a young -- putting off buying their first home until they can get out from under their student loans.
Hope on the horizon thanks to the relief that I planned last year -- today's Court decision snatched it away from them. I get it. I get it. I hear this. It's -- and I'm concerned about it.
But today's decision has closed one path. Now we're going to pursue another. I'm never going to stop fighting for you. We'll use every tool at our disposal to get you the student debt relief you need and reach your dreams.
It's good for the economy. It's good for the country. It's going to be good for you.
Thank you very, very much for listening. We're going to get this done, God willing. Thank you.
REPORTER: Mr. President, why did you give millions of borrowers false hope? You've dated -- doubted your own authority here in the past.
BIDEN: I didn't give any false hope. The question was whether or not I would do even more than was requested. What I did, I thought was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. I didn't give borrowers false hope. But the Republicans snatched away the hope that it was -- they were given. And it's real -- real hope.
Thank you.
REPORTER: Mr. President, will you cancel student debt?
REPORTER: Mr. President, the court said you overstepped your authority. Did you overstep your authority?
BIDEN: I think the Court misinterpreted the Constitution.
PRESIDENT: Mr.. President, do you admit failure in Afghanistan? Mistakes? There was a -- there was a report on Afghanistan withdrawal, saying there was failure, mistakes. Do you admit there was mistakes during the withdrawal and before?
BIDEN: No, no. All the evidence is coming back. Do you remember what I said about Afghanistan?
I said al Qaeda would not be there. I said it wouldn't be there. I said we'd get help from the Taliban.
What's happening now? What's going on? Read your press. I was right.
Thanks.
REPORTER: So, the report is from the State Department, actually, about the withdrawal.
PHILLIP: All right, President Biden there taking a couple of questions at the end of his remarks on student loan debt forgiveness that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court today.
Let's go straight to Jeremy Diamond who's over at the White House for us.
So, Jeremy, the purpose for President Biden coming out this afternoon was to show the way forward on student loans now that this has happened. What was your big take away?
DIAMOND: Yeah, I think the headline here is that the president is not giving up on student loan forgiveness, and he's saying at the end of his remarks, he said, I have one path closed and now we are pursuing another one.
And that other path the president says is based on the Higher Education Act of 1965. He says this is a process that will take longer but one the Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona has now initiated today to try and relief loans the president said under certain circumstances. It's not clear exactly what that mechanism is or what those circumstances will be, but the president's message here is to say that we are going to try and find another way to forgive student debt and make good, of course, Abby, crucially on a key campaign promise he made in 2020. Now, the president opened his remarks by talking about the anger and
disappointment that many Americans are feeling today. Twenty-six million Americans had applied for this program. The president said that as many as 40 million Americans would have been eligible to benefit from some of the student debt relief.
And the president's primary purpose here beyond laying out how he would act was to try and harness some of that anger and disappointment and redirect it, direct it at Republicans. You heard the president say there that he was trying to extend a lifeline to many Americans, something that would not have only benefitted the financial situation of individual Americans but stimulated the economy by freeing millions of Americans from some of that student debt burden and allow them to go out and buy homes, for example, and stimulate and grow the economy.
[16:15:14]
And the president here is saying that it was Republicans, he said, Republicans who, quote, stepped in and snatched from the hands of Americans billions of dollars in student debt relief.
And so there is obviously a political strategy at work here as well, Abby, as you know because the president made this essential campaign promise. He tried to make good on it, but you also heard that question at the end. Did you give Americans false hope by pursuing this action under an authority that the Supreme Court has now ruled that the president did not have.
The president there very firmly saying I didn't give any false hope. And he said it was Republicans who snatched away very real hope that he was trying to give the public -- Abby.
PHILLIP: And the question there, I couldn't hear who exactly the reporter was but accurately pointed out that Biden himself had doubted whether he had this authority as did people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who is actually cited in the opinion by the court. So that's where that question comes from about false hope.
Jeremy, thank you very much for that.
Let's go now to CNN's Jessica Schneider who's over at the Supreme Court.
Jessica, so can you please break down for us these decisions that President Biden just spoke about?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, you know, Abby, the final day of the Supreme Court's term, two major decisions showcasing really a very divided court.
Of course, we have this court strike down Biden's student debt forgiveness program. And in the other case it actually leaves the door open for businesses across the country to discriminate.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SCHNEIDER (voice-over): The Supreme Court ending the term with a dramatic finish and showing just how ideologically divided the justices are.
First, all six conservative justices ruling in favor of a Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to create wedding websites for same-sex couples citing religious grounds. She objected to a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, saying it violated her free speech rights.
Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed, writing for the majority, the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise.
LORIE SMITH, WEB DESIGNER: Art is my passion.
SCHNEIDER: Lorie Smith who runs 303 Creative lost in lower courts but prevail before a Supreme Court that has repeatedly ruled in favor of religious groups in recent years.
SMITH: I want to design in a way that's consistent with my faith, but Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech and forcing me to create custom artwork, custom expression that goes against the core of who I am and what I believe.
SCHNEIDER: But Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning this decision could also lead to other kinds of discrimination. Today the court for the first time in its history grants a constitutional right for members to serve a protected class. A website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example.
While a majority disputed that notion, Colorado's attorney general warned --
PHIL WEISER (D), COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL: This case will have the impact to cause considerable mischief, undermining the principle that once you open up the doors to the public as a business you have to serve all commerce.
SCHNEIDER: The Supreme Court also handing a stinging defeat to the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Biden, please keep your promise!
SCHNEIDER: In another 6-3 decision, the conservative justices rejecting a program that President Biden made in 2022.
BIDEN: I made a commitment that would provide student debt relief, and I'm honoring that commitment today.
SCHNEIDER: It was aimed at delivering up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to millions of borrowers. Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the conservative majority that Biden's administration read a federal law too broadly when trying to enact the program. The economic and political significance of the secretary's action is staggering by any measure, he wrote. Adding the $430 billion price tag was just too big to justify action from the secretary of education instead of Congress.
The question here is not whether something should be done but who has the authority to do it.
The liberal dissenters claim a majority was making a political decision with Justice Elena Kagan writing: The result here is that the court substitutes itself for Congress and the executive branch in making national policy about student loan forgiveness.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (on camera): And the court's decision means that student debt will not be forgiven, not be canceled for the 40 million-plus borrowers who might have been banking on it. And, Abby, that actually means they'll have to begin repaying their loans starting October 1st. That's when the pause that had been in effect because of COVID, that's when that pause will expire -- Abby.
PHILLIP: All right. Jessica Schneider, thank you very much.
Let's bring in now our panel to discuss these monumental Supreme Court decisions today.
[16:20:05]
So, Alice, starting with you, President Biden really laid the blame pretty fully on Republicans even more so in some ways than the court. And in some ways, Republicans definitely sought out this fight seeking to invalidate this executive decision that he had made. How do you think that's going to play?
ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, it was to be expected to blame the Republicans, and I thought it was quite ironic he had in his comments that Republicans were not thinking about the working middle class Americans, when in fact they actually absolutely are. Middle class working Americans who saved up and paid off their loans are now under Biden's plan would have been burdened with paying off other people's loans.
And look, this is -- as even mentioned in the decision, Nancy Pelosi herself said two years ago that President Biden doesn't have the authority to do so, this has to be done through Congress. Congress has the power of the purse. President Biden did not have the authority to give away the house.
And while his point to continue to try again, he actually played the students. He really did try to promise something he couldn't deliver. And now, he's going to continue to try to do so more. But students who banked on his promise should be really upset about this.
PHILLIP: Well, Mo, do you think that is true? The question today was did you give people false hope? And this has been hanging over students who were hoping their students loans would be forgiven for a while now, almost a year. MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF
POLITICS AND PUBLIC SERVICE: I don't think they're going to blame the president. I think they're going to look squarely at Republicans and look squarely at the court. It's interesting, right? The Supreme Court particularly in the past few days is really starting to define the presidential campaign of 2024 in a very real way.
You saw a very feisty President Biden out there today, and you can almost hear the campaign argument he was going to make. I think these students who as he said got the notice, went to the website, filled out the application and were days away from getting a check, only to see it taken away, and Republicans celebrating that decision. I think they're going to be looking scarily at Republicans, they're going to be looking squarely at the Supreme Court. And Joe Biden sounded a whole lot like the champion for those students there today.
PHILLIP: I want to go -- we have Elie Honig with us as well.
Elie, one of the things that President Biden talked about today is using a different law, the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to pursue student loan debt forgiveness. What do you make of that?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Abby, he's going to try again according to the announcement he just made.
It's really important to understand today's decision was not about whether student loan forgiveness is good policy, bad policy, fair or unfair. What the Supreme Court decided today is that Joe Biden went beyond what is authorized by Congress.
Now, the original attempt the one struck down today, Biden based that on a 2003 law called the Heroes Act, which was passed after 9/11 and said in times of national emergency, the secretary of education can make certain modifications or waivers of student debt. What the Supreme Court said is, this contemplates smaller measures, the kind of measures, in fact, that Joe Biden just laid out at the beginning of his speech but not a mass spend of $400 billion.
Now what Joe Biden is apparently saying is we're going to try again but we're going to use a different law. This is broader law, the Higher Education Act, that gives the secretary of education not limited to national emergencies certain authority to waive certain loan obligations.
But it's important to know this. First of all, that process that putting those regulations in place is going to take many months. It will certainly be challenged, and those legal challenges will take at least a year.
Quickest scenario, that comes back to the Supreme Court for the next term, which will conclude about a year from now. So we are talking about a very long distance play here, and I think there's a lot of uncertainty about whether this attempt to do it again will succeed.
PHILLIP: Yeah, definitely. But it also shows he's listening because some of the people pushing for this are people like Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, a congresswoman from New York, and several other progressive Congress people.
Joan, though, I want to ask you about something the president just said. He said the court interpreted the Constitution wrong in this case. And I'm sure he probably feels that way about several other cases this week.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Right.
PHILLIP: But this is coming at a time when there is growing distress from the American people in the court. That's no secret. A poll from September of last year showed 47 percent of adults expressed some trust in the Supreme Court. That's a 20-point drop.
That number is actually pretty high when you look at compared to Congress, for example. But it's a drop for this court. This week was really a conservative court drawing a big line in the sand here.
BISKUPIC: This is so definitely a 6-3 court. And I've been saying the difference between a 5-4 conservative majority and a 6-3 one is much more than one vote.
[16:25:06]
This is a very empowered conservative majority.
And Chief Justice John Roberts did something interesting in this decision that sort of reflected that he's aware, Abby, of the kind of polls that you cite. He said, you know, people will criticize our decisions and cast doubt on the integrity of the court, but it's only because they don't like our decisions.
And he talked about how it can hurt the integrity of the court and hurt the integrity of the country if people criticize these decisions as somehow going beyond the bounds of the law.
But I have to say as the competing factions articulated their decisions from the bench this morning, it was clear that the liberal dissenters think this majority is actually undercutting the reputation of the court in the public eye just because of what it's doing. Justice Kagan said in a very rare dissent from the bench today that the kind of power that's being amassed here and being taken away from both the legislative branch and the executive branch is being taken by the court itself. And who's running the court itself but these six conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts.
PHILLIP: In some ways, Chief Justice Roberts has seemed to want to play the role of making sure the court doesn't go too far, right? But he did not do that in the two cases we saw today.
BISKUPIC: That's right. We all remember last year this week in June when he broke off from am majority that wanted to completely overturn abortion rights, and he said it would be such a jolt to the country. But he didn't think it was too much of a jolt to the country to roll back all campus affirmative action or to reinterpret the statute here in a way that eliminated the Biden plan.
PHILLIP: We've got to leave it there.
BISKUPIC: OK.
PHILLIP: You can thank President Biden for our short conversation.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Mo, Alice, and Joan, thank you all for joining us.
And coming up next, what the Supreme Court ruling about the website designer means for business owners and LGBTQ Americans. We're going to talk to Colorado's attorney general next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:58]
PHILLIP: And we're back with our law and justice lead.
As the Supreme Court today limited LGBTQ protections, what it ruled in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado. That designer named Lorie Smith refused to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings, citing religious objections.
And joining me now is a Democratic Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.
Attorney General, thanks for joining us today. Right now given what this ruling states about Lorie Smith's free speech rights, where is the future of anti-discrimination laws in the state of Colorado and the rest of the country going from here?
PHIL WEISER (D), COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL: Unfortunately, we now have a big question that we'll be facing about how broad is this loophole? If anyone, a website developer, or a photographer says I have an expressive interest, I don't believe in this religious group's practice or I don't believe women should be in the workplace or I don't believe interracial couple, they say I'm not going to serve them, that newfound defense which has never existed in our law is now going to get tested.
PHILLIP: And Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent that this ruling that basically rules some services may be denied to same-sex couples, but Neil Gorsuch in the majority opinion says our decision today does not concern much less endorse anything like the straight couples only notices the dissent conjures out of thin air.
Where do you think that this will land here? It seems that the majority is saying we're just creating a very tiny loophole, but the results may be -- may very well be that same-sex couples can't frequent certain services or companies.
WEISER: Part of the problem is this is a made up case. There were no customers, there were no websites designed, so the new rule that was created by this majority is not tethered to facts. We don't know how this loophole will play out. What we do know is that
people can now make these assertions like was made in this case. I have an expressive interest in not providing my service to same-sex couples, that is tantamount to a sign, no same-sex couples served.
And that exception, that loophole can absolutely apply to other groups as long as someone says my expressive interest means I don't want to serve people based on religion or gender, what have you.
PHILLIP: And what does the state of Colorado do now? Will there be an effort to revisit the law that is currently on the books?
WEISER: What we need to do is be ready for these exceptions, and we have to encourage the norm here in Colorado that we want people putting out signs we serve everyone, everyone is equal under the law.
So we're going to work to advance that ideal that we believe is the core of our nation. And when people use this defense as some type of loophole, we will have to confront it and do our best to limit the impact from this decision.
PHILLIP: All right, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, thank you very much for joining us.
WEISER: Thanks.
PHILLIP: And let's go now to Erin Burnett on the ground in Kyiv.
Erin?
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: All right, Abby. Well, thanks.
So much going on there and, of course, a lot going on here in Ukraine as well. We'll get a behind the scenes look at Ukrainian troops operating those U.S. Patriot missile systems from the United States. That's next on THE LEAD.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:38:51]
BURNETT: I'm Erin Burnett from Ukraine's capital.
The top Ukrainian intelligence official believes the Russian security service known as the FSB has been tasked with assassinating Yevgeny Prigozhin, the chief of the Wagner Group, six days after his short- lived largely, though, totally unchallenged mutiny in Russia.
Our Nick Paton Walsh is with me now here in Kyiv.
I mean, Nick, this is -- this is, you know, pretty amazing if this is true, right? And there's so many question. Prigozhin's location is still a mystery. So what are we hearing?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ukrainian defense intelligence job is to sow disinformation like this, to try to get Russians disliking each other. But I do also have pretty good intelligence what Russia is up to. So, whether this is true or not, it still begs the question, you said, where is Yevgeny Prigozhin? We have not got confirmations of his whereabouts.
So, remember the deal is you stop the march on Moscow, you go into exile in Belarus, fine. Instead we're seeing indications with planes affiliated with him are going to St. Petersburg, Moscow, Minsk and also photographs of someone who looks a lot like him getting out of a helicopter also affiliated to him in St. Petersburg.
So it also reminds you, too, of the fact that the Russian FSB exists to stop him from having tried to do the armed rebellion in the first place.
[16:40:03]
And so, I think we're in a period now of great uncertainty where these key figures from his armed rebellion, their whereabouts are still unknown. What they've agreed to is yet to necessarily be publicly ratified. And that makes Putin, whenever, a week now nearly from when all this happens.
BURNETT: And, Nick, yeah.
WALSH: Even weaker.
BURNETT: And raises these questions about right now, it hasn't impacted the frontlines, right? Still very much focused on day by day moving lines, taking territory. But the big question is, could something happen that would be dramatically affect the war here?
WALSH: I think that infighting might you see where -- they might be waiting to see a power struggle play out, keep people lose faith in each other. Get you wrapped up in infighting to forget the complex job of this war that they're losing badly in the first place. You see the slight indication today of Ukraine saying it's going to reinforce it forces in the north.
That might be them being concerned about Wagner moving into Belarus. They do it as well.
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: Who knows? But still, more questions frankly on the Russian side than on the Ukrainian one.
BURNETT: All right. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you very much, here in Kyiv.
And, earlier today, I met with some Ukrainian troops, and they are part of the elite group that operate the U.S. Patriot missile defense system, which is here, right? Two batteries are here, this is the team.
The billion dollar battery that is crucial to protecting Ukrainians from Russian airstrikes, it's been incredibly effective. They took down the first hypersonic Kinzhal missile, the ones that go ten times the speed of sound. These are the two that were responsible for taking that down.
And here's part of our discussion today with that missile.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right, so these are parts of the Kinzhal when it landed. What's this?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is battery for Kinzhal.
BURNETT: This is the battery, and what about that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And decoy.
BURNETT: To try to trick you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
BURNETT: To try to trick you, but it didn't obviously. In one night, you had 16 of these in one night?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe. The targets in my radar, the whole missiles fell.
BURNETT: You took every one of them down? Yeah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And I should note, they're wearing sunglasses as well as a balaclava. When I met them I was obviously able to see their faces, but they are target number one and those Patriot batteries are target number one for the Russians. So, they keep their faces covered, Abby, so that the Russians don't know who they are and can't ID their faces.
And you can see much more of that interview and more with the soldiers tonight at 7:00 eastern on OUTFRONT. And I will see you again tonight.
Abby, back to you in Washington.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Really fastening stuff there, Erin. Thank you.
And coming up next for us, a damning new report from the State Department that was just released. Who it says is to blame for that disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:05]
PHILLIP: Moments ago, President Biden seemed to defend his actions which were criticized in a new report just out on the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Remember when I said about Afghanistan? I said al Qaeda would not be there. I said it wouldn't be there, I said we would get help from the Taliban.
What's happening now? What's going on? Read your press. I was right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A defiant President Biden there.
CNN's Kylie Atwood is over at the State Department for us.
So, Kylie, what does the reports say about what the failures where about what happened to the lead up to this withdrawal?
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, this report really paints a picture of a flawed preparation for this withdrawal with the administration not considering the worst-case scenarios, and then a flawed capability to put processes into place to deal with the withdrawal. I do think it's important to note that it covers a time period during the Trump administration, and the Biden administration, saying, quote, that the report found that during both administrations, there was insufficient, senior level consideration of worst-case scenarios, and how quickly those might follow.
And, of course, when those did follow, the report gets into some specific things, that the Biden administration and State Department did not do. For example, on the seventh floor here at the State Department, that's where the secretary of state says. It says that there was no singular person who was dealing with crisis management on that floor. There was also no singular person at the department who was coordinating with the Department of Defense, who had already stepped up and non competent process evacuation for this.
So it was sort of unclear. You know, who was the lead of the department dealing with the Pentagon? There is also criticism of the fact that this department wasn't a -- was putting out messages that were deferring about who of the Afghans was actually eligible to come to the United States, which created some confusion.
So, there's a number of things that they pointed out, the department didn't really do well, while this was unfolding.
PHILLIP: And kylie, this report is coming out two years after the fact. And also, a year after it was written in the first place. So, what took so long?
ATWOOD: It's really unclear, Abby. I mean, as you say, the evacuation took place almost two years ago. The report itself was concluded more than a year ago. And just a few months ago, the department provided a classified version of this report to Congress.
And now, on the Friday before holiday weekend, of course, they are really saying and unclassified version of this report. I asked a senior State Department official about this. They said they did not want to get into questions that were related to process. But there are questions about this administration trying to bury the story, which is a dark mark on their foreign policy.
PHILLIP: And, of course, over on Capitol Hill they are investigating this as well, which adds to the layers here.
[16:50:03]
Kylie Atwood, thank you very much.
And coming up next, some members of Congress are trying to pass a law that would take away land designated for homeless veterans in order for it to be used for a private prep school's athletic fields. We'll tell you what that's all about, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: We've been tracking the fate of a nearly 400-acre plot of land in West Los Angeles, donated to the United States in the 1800s, to house old and injured soldiers. But in the 1970s, the V.A. started leasing it out, chunks of it for other things -- a college baseball field, parking lots, oil drilling, and an exclusive private schools athletic field.
[16:55:09]
CNN's Nick Watt reports on the latest twist in this battle.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): All of this land in leafy, lovely West L.A. must, says the United States Congress in 2016, be used to principally benefit veterans. But among other things, the swimming pool and pristine playing fields with the exclusive private Brentwood school remain.
The V.A.'s owned inspector general has repeatedly found the school's lease in violation of that landmark law. The V.A. and the school publicly dispute that. And now, there's a new bill before the House that would essentially legalized that lease and, curtail the inspector general's authority.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's insane that they're doing this.
WATT: It begs the question, why?
Well, Brentwood School has spent at least $100,000 lobbying in Washington on this issue, since January of last year.
The school has been a reliable partner to V.A. and veteran since 1972, providing numerous school funded services that many veterans and their families have come to rely upon, Brentwood school told CNN.
To solidify these important relationships for years to come, we engaged council to help navigate the complex legislative process.
This latest twist in the long tale of this land began in January, with this legislation, sponsored by Democrats, to extend nationwide COVID era funding for needy veterans, set to expire in May.
Republicans balked at the cost.
REP. MIKE BOST I (R-IL): We currently are working a package to address the issue. We will work with you, but we've got to actually sit down and work together to figure out the problem of the expense.
WATT: That COVID era funding, expired in May. In June, Republicans brought their package to the floor. It's basically the Democrat's bill, plus payment scales for entities that serve that.
And this new, controversial section, essentially legalizing Brentwood School's lease, and allowing in kind contributions to count toward the rent that they pay.
REP. MARK TAKANO (D-CA): I don't understand why the West L.A. leasing, and the matters pertaining to the Brentwood School's interests in the property are being co-joined.
ROB REYNOLDS, VETERAN ADVOCATE: Absolutely frustrating, absolutely ridiculous that money that could go to support veterans is being held up, because some members of Congress want to submit an amendment. It's just foul. It really is.
WATT: Congressman Mike Bost, chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, and a cosponsor of this bill couldn't find time for an interview. Give us a statement.
This was from Representative Bost. It was Congress's intent in 2016 to keep Brentwood on the west L.A. campus.
REYNOLDS: Well, in 2016, Congressman Ted Lieu said that his legislation was to ensure that all leases principally benefit veterans and their families.
WATT: This bill was sponsored by a freshman representative, Lori Chavez DeRemer of Oregon. She declined an interview. Her spokesperson told CNN she sponsored the bill because homelessness is at a crisis level in Oregon, and her constituents consistently raise this problem. As one of the top issues that they would like her to address.
The next day, she introduced another bill, that includes a half billion dollar V.A. construction project around her district. Her spokesman says she sponsored that bill because it will help the Portland V.A. Medical Center expand and make necessary improvements.
But back to her bill that would impart benefits Brentwood School. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion do not support those provisions. But the V.A. supports them.
TAKANO: The veterans in the Los Angeles area support this proposal?
MONICA DIAZ, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: Thank you for that question. There has been veterans in the areas that had voiced they are not in favor, necessarily, with that decision. WATT: And many of them are frustrated with the slow process, turning
this land once again into homes, for the homeless. In 2016, the V.A. produced a master plan to renovate this rotting campus. 233 units for homeless vets are complete.
(CHEERS)
WATT: But, according to the timeline, at least 770 units should have been built, by now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WATT (on camera): Now, listen, Brentwood School does a lot for the veterans. Absolutely, but the veterans say that this land wasn't given to a private school. It was given to us.
Two developments this week, they did break ground on a new building that will eventually be 1,200 units for homeless vets here, but that's years away. Meantime, the problem gets worse, because we also just heard that this year over last year, there are nearly 400 more veterans homeless in Los Angeles -- Abby.
PHILLIP: All right. Nick Watt, thank you very much.
And coming up on Sunday, on "STATE OF THE UNION", Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Republican presidential candidates Chris Christie, and Will Hurd, all talk to Dana Bash. That's at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
And you can join me a little later on, on Sunday at 11:00 a.m. for "INSIDE POLITICS".
And thank you for joining us today. I'm Abby Philip, in for Jake Tapper.
Wolf Blitzer is over in "THE SITUATION ROOM". Have a great day.
