Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Wagner Leader in Belarus?; New Trump Audiotapes; Supreme Court Rules on Elections Dispute. Aired 11-11:30a ET
Aired June 27, 2023 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:52]
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: At this hour, let us start with the big news from the Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices just rejecting attempts in North Carolina to give broad control over elections and election maps to the state's partisan legislature, in doing so, reaffirming the role of judicial review. And also in doing so, the High Court handed a defeat to a controversial legal theory pushed by conservatives and supporters of former President Donald Trump.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Yes, look, had the court ruled otherwise, this really would have radically altered the entire election system in the United States.
The floodgates, as we said last hour, would have been open. Those floodgates closed.
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: Status quo in effect.
Let's bring in CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider, who is live outside of the court.
What stood out to you in looking at this 6-3 decision?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the fact that the Supreme Court here really rejected wholeheartedly that broad theory that people said would have potentially upended the way that elections are run.
The chief justice here, writing for the 6-3 majority, came in to say that, no, state legislatures do not have the final say when it comes to how elections in their state should be run, that state courts have the authority to step in and potentially overrule some of the laws or rules that partisan state legislatures might put into effect.
Chief Justice John Roberts looked to history and said that courts throughout history have always been the arbiters as to what falls in line with state or federal constitutions.
Conservatives, many of whom backed Donald Trump in the 2020 election, had been pushing this theory that, because the Election Clause of the Constitution says that legislatures should be the ones to prescribe the time, place and manner of elections, they interpreted that to mean that legislatures had the final say when it comes to how elections are run and even how voting maps are drawn.
But, today, the Supreme Court rejecting that, and the Supreme Court notably stepping in here, when many people wondered if they would, in fact, actually rule on the merits of this case, because the North Carolina State Supreme Court had heard this case, actually, again, as the Supreme Court was considering it, but the Supreme Court essentially saying here that they had to step in here because of the 2024 election looming.
And if this question was sort of still up in the air, it could have really led to a real power struggle between state legislatures and state courts. But now we know, moving into the next election, that state courts can step in to maybe overrule some of the things that state legislatures put into effect.
Importantly, though, this opinion did say that state courts might have some bounds, and that would potentially lead to further litigation. So we could still have litigation in this realm. I will note, guys, that there were three dissents led by Justice Clarence Thomas. They basically said that the court shouldn't have even gone to the merits on this case.
They should have just rendered it moot, since it was heard again by the North Carolina State Supreme Court. But there was a very interesting quote from Justice Clarence Thomas, saying that, basically, the majority in this case was opening -- quote -- "a new field for Bush-style controversies over state election law and a far more uncertain one," of course, alluding to the 2000 case Bush v. Gore, when the state recount in Florida was stopped, essentially handing the election to George W. Bush.
So, like I said, this might not be the end of the litigation on this topic, but, for now, the U.S. Supreme Court really clamping down on this idea that state courts can't weigh in on decisions made by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections, guys.
BERMAN: All right, Jessica Schneider for us outside the Supreme Court.
Joining us now, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and CNN political director David Chalian.
David, if I can ask you to do something you don't normally do, because I want people to understand why there are those who look at this as such -- as a big deal, right?
A hypothetical: Had there been such a thing as the independent state legislature theory, had that been legal in 2020, what would the Trump team have tried to do? How would they have used that? They were trying to go down those avenues, and they had signs that they were going to try to do it again in 2024.
[11:05:15]
What would this have allowed? DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: John, it's such a dangerous
thought exercise to think about, because all of these pressure points that Trump and his allies were applying to get around the Constitution, if indeed this were a legal theory with constitutional muster approved by the Supreme Court, things could have looked quite different.
Perhaps Vice President Mike Pence and his aides would have come to a different conclusion, saying, oh, no, there is now a Supreme Court- adjudicated theory here that we can return these electoral votes back to the states or perhaps alternate slates of electors, having nothing to do with how Americans voted in their states, but just having to do with how state legislators chose to appoint electors would determine the outcome of a presidential election.
It's mind-bending to think about what could have happened if indeed this was an approved legal theory. What the Supreme Court said today, it is not. It wasn't in 2020, and it will not be going forward, because you don't have some idea out there that a state legislature unto itself has unfettered authority when it comes to America's elections.
BOLDUAN: And, Elie, as Jessica Schneider was just saying, that this -- in what was written from on the -- in -- from the majority, state courts might still have some boundaries when it comes to the review, their review of elections, election maps and so on and so forth, from state to state.
What do you see with this going forward? Guardrails in place. What could -- what do you see coming next?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, the Supreme Court likes to do this. Sometimes, they say, well, we're going to give you a little more guidance later, next time.
BOLDUAN: Yes. Exactly. Exactly.
(LAUGHTER)
HONIG: And what they're saying here is, I think, a sense -- the way I read this is, state Supreme Courts can still review what the legislature does for constitutionality to avoid some of the absurd situations that I think David very nicely outlined there.
But I think where the line will be drawn is that state Supreme Courts cannot legislate.
BOLDUAN: Right.
HONIG: They can review and overturn, but they can't say, and here's how we're going to do it, so important preservation of guardrails, but also puts an important limitation the courts too.
SIDNER: Can you just talk about the fact that this is not what was expected necessarily from this court, not just this decision, but many of the decisions they have made, things like redistricting? And there are more cases coming forward, but a lot of people expected this court to go down party lines. Even though it's not supposed to be a political entity, it had become one.
HONIG: Yes, this is the second time now, this month, or really in the last two or three weeks, where we have seen a cross-ideological majority.
We have seen the three liberal justices, in this case joined by Chief John Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett. And I think it was two weeks ago we saw the court upholding a key provision of the Voting Rights Act by this same majority, minus Amy Coney Barrett.
So, yes, perhaps this is a reminder that the Supreme Court -- look, in law school you are taught that the Supreme Court, they're not political, they do the math, and, whatever the outcome is, whether you like the policy or not, conservative, liberal, that's the answer.
I think a lot of us, myself included, we're starting to think it's the opposite.
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: They start with, what do I want the policy outcome to be, and then they reverse-engineer it. And I think this ruling and the one the other day sort of goes against that.
And they're doing what we hope our justices and judges do, which is, they do the math on the law. Wherever it comes out, that's where it comes out.
BERMAN: What's interesting here is, I think maybe, if there'd been a betting pool -- and I'm not sure people do bet on the Supreme Court. Maybe they do.
HONIG: It's probably out there.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: Yes, FanDuel.com.
BOLDUAN: I'm going to advise against it.
(LAUGHTER)
BERMAN: But I think the betting would have been on them maybe mooting it out, basically saying...
HONIG: Yes, we're not taking it.
BERMAN: ... we're not going to even take this case, because it doesn't matter anymore.
But they affirmatively chose to say there are guardrails...
BOLDUAN: That's a good point, yes. BERMAN: ... here, because, apparently, they thought it was so important to create some kind of boundary.
HONIG: It's a statement. And I think it's important to understand the history here.
This theory, what we're calling the independent state legislature theory, started as almost a whim, almost, well, could it be argued that legislatures can do whatever they want?
BOLDUAN: Yes, our -- the state Constitution says, so...
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: Right.
BOLDUAN: Yes.
HONIG: And the Supreme Court of the state can't do anything about it.
And it gained steam slowly, and this became a moment for people who were behind this theory to say, oh, my gosh, we may have a receptive court. Could we actually pull this off? And Chief John Roberts and the other five in the majority, two other conservatives, three other liberals, said, absolutely not, too far.
SIDNER: It exploded in 2020. Let us be clear, it exploded with Donald Trump and those who are following him, trying to use this as a potential web, a way to overturn the 2020 election.
HONIG: Right, a great case study of what could happen.
BOLDUAN: All right, well, let's see what happens next.
Thanks, Elie. And thank you, David, so much for being here.
BERMAN: All right, so after days of wondering, where in the world is the Wagner chief who led the revolt in Russia, the president of Belarus now says he is there. So we will get much more on that.
[11:10:08]
And then he bragged about them while holding them, then admitted that he did not declassify them. This is Donald Trump in his own words talking about what seemed to be secret documents in his hands.
The astounding tapes obtained by CNN, where you hear Trump in his own voice talking about, apparently, secret documents.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:15:12]
BERMAN: This morning, what might be the most explosive evidence special counsel Jack Smith has against Donald Trump, an audio recording first obtained by CNN from a 2021 meeting where Trump seems to be holding secret documents as he bragged about having them.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
STAFFER: Yes.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just found -- isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.
STAFFER: Mm-hmm.
TRUMP: Except it is, like, highly confidential.
STAFFER: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Secret. This is secret information.
STAFFER: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: See, as president I could have declassified it.
STAFFER: Yes.
TRUMP: Now I can't. But this is classified.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BERMAN: Overnight, reaction from Trump.
He said -- quote -- "The deranged special prosecutor Jack Smith illegally leaked and spun the tape."
We will see very soon what Trump says about this in public. He campaigns in New Hampshire today.
CNN's Sara Murray is with us now.
Sara, you could hear -- just the remarkable audio quality on that, to hear the former president in his own voice in that moment, quite revealing.
SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is very revealing.
And when you think about sort of the backdrop of this meeting, he is meeting with people who are working on a book for Mark Meadows. He's meeting with a couple of staffers, none of whom have security clearance to be talking about what is a very sensitive document about a potential attack plan against Iran.
And you even hear Donald Trump in this tape acknowledge that the document has not been declassified and that he has no way to do so, now that he's no longer the president.
Listen to what he says in a portion of this tape.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
TRUMP: These are bad, sick people, but...
STAFFER: That was your coup, you know, against you.
TRUMP: Well, it started right at the beginning.
STAFFER: Like, when Milley is talking about, Oh, you were going to try to do a coup.
TRUMP: Right.
STAFFER: No, they were trying to do that before you even were sworn in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right, trying to overthrow your election.
TRUMP: Well, with Milley -- let me see that. I will show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran.
TRUMP: Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look, this was him.
They presented me this. This is off the record. But they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.
WRITER: Wow.
TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me. This was him, all sorts of stuff, pages' long. Look.
Wait a minute. Let's see here.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my gosh.
STAFFER: Yes.
TRUMP: I just found -- isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.
STAFFER: Mm-hmm.
TRUMP: Except it is, like, highly confidential.
STAFFER: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: Secret. This is secret information.
STAFFER: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: But look. Look at this. You attack, and...
STAFFER: Hillary would print that out all the time, you know?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: She'd send it...
STAFFER: Her private e-mails.
TRUMP: No, she'd send it to Anthony Weiner.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
TRUMP: The pervert.
STAFFER: Please print.
TRUMP: By the way, isn't that incredible?
STAFFER: Yes.
TRUMP: I was just saying, because we were talking about it.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: And, you know, he said: He wanted to attack Iran, and what...
TRUMP: These are the papers.
(CROSSTALK)
STAFFER: ... you did.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: This was done by the military and given to me. I think we can probably -- right?
STAFFER: I don't know. Well, we'll have to see. Yes, we'll have to try to...
TRUMP: Declassify it.
STAFFER: ... figure out a -- yes.
TRUMP: See, as president I could have declassified it.
STAFFER: Yes.
TRUMP: Now I can't. But this is classified.
STAFFER: Yes. (LAUGHTER)
STAFFER: Now we have a problem.
TRUMP: Isn't that interesting?
STAFFER: Yes.
TRUMP: It's so cool. I mean, it's so -- look, we -- her and I have a -- and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me.
WRITER: No, I believed you.
TRUMP: It's incredible, right?
WRITER: No, they never met a war they didn't want.
TRUMP: Hey, bring some -- bring some Cokes in, please.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
MURRAY: You can hear how casually they're talking about this very sensitive document, even sort of laughing and joking when one of his staffers points out, oh, now we have got a problem, because you didn't actually declassify this, even though you could have when you were president.
And Trump has said in an interview with FOX News that he didn't actually have the document, that these were just magazine clippings, newspaper clippings.
But when you listen to that tape, I mean, he says things like, "I will show you an example, and these are the papers." And you hear these papers rustling around. And I think it's still an open question whether prosecutors have actually obtained this document.
We know they subpoenaed Trump's team for it, and Trump's team was not able to produce it. But we don't know if prosecutors obtained it in another search. We do know that they interviewed people like Mark Milley, who is related to this whole tape, as well as another person who was in this meeting, to try to potentially get more corroborating evidence about what exactly Donald Trump is rustling around.
BERMAN: "Bring some Cokes in, please," the final words we hold there, underscoring what you say, the casual nature almost in which he's talking about it.
MURRAY: Yes.
BERMAN: Sara Murray, terrific report. Thank you so much.
[11:20:00]
BOLDUAN: I will be right back. I'm right on top of that, Rose.
BERMAN: Yes. (LAUGHTER)
BOLDUAN: Thank you, John.
Let's talk about what Sara and John were just discussing.
Joining me right now, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, host of "It's Complicated" podcast, is here with me. It's good to see you, Renato.
So, on this audiotape, I have heard a few people, I'm going to describe it as sort of couch -- couch it in their analysis as, if this is admissible, then X, Y and Z.
Do you think there's any chance this audio recording would not be admissible in court?
RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think Jack Smith thinks there's no chance it wouldn't be admissible, because he literally wrote it into the indictment.
I will just say, when I was a prosecutor, I was very careful when I listed evidence in my indictment, because, if I can't get it into evidence, ultimately, the jury is going to take -- they take me to task for that at the closing arguments, when the defense is pointing out that I said something in the indictment that I didn't prove up.
So, Jack Smith is pretty confident he can get this in. I think it goes to Trump's state of mind. In other words, one of the significant elements of proof that Jack Smith has here is, he's got to prove that Trump understood that what he was doing was wrongful, was unlawful.
And, realistically, I think it's sort of a win-win for him. If -- the only way I would see this not being admissible is, essentially, if Trump never tries to make an argument that he didn't understand the classification rules or wasn't -- he abandons his declassification defense, that sort of thing.
BOLDUAN: Oh, that's interesting. That's interesting.
I want to -- it's also interesting to hold this, what we're hearing in this audio recording and Trump in his own words, up against Trump in his own words in the interview that he did with FOX News, back on June 19.
Let me play a portion of that where he talks about this document.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. I didn't have a document, per se. There was nothing to declassify.
These were newspaper stories, magazine stories and articles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: That explanation now does what if brought up in court?
MARIOTTI: I have to say, I think it's very hard.
Any -- we -- you were just talking a moment ago about whether or not these are -- he was actually holding up a classified document. It's true that Jack Smith doesn't have that document yet. But any juror listening to the recording we just heard, the recording at issue here, is going to believe that he was holding up some attack plan against Iran.
And I have to say, I think, Kate, this is more problematic for Trump than the FOX News interview, because there's really nothing positive for him in this recording. It's very just damning. And so, as a prosecutor, to me, this -- there's no question you're going to want to get in this recording, whereas, the FOX News interview, at least Trump put in some of his own talking points.
BOLDUAN: And you were mentioning about the document itself, as Sara and John were discussing earlier, and our reporting is that Trump's team was not able to produce the exact document in question.
What's not known is if the special counsel got it -- got it since we got it through another avenue. If the -- if the special prosecutor -- if the special prosecutor does not have this document, who is that a problem for?
MARIOTTI: I think it can be argued both ways, all right?
The defense is going to try to argue that that's because there was never a document to begin with. But there's no question prosecutors are going to argue at trial that it's because somebody else may have the document because Trump was careless in the way he handled the documents, that they haven't been able to recover this important document.
I have to say, Kate, this audio is so damning that I really think this is a case in which a lot of jurors are going to be inclined to side with the government when they're evaluating this particular piece of evidence.
BOLDUAN: Yes, and we know from this -- very clearly from this audio recording and even before there were other people in the room. There are other people who could speak to if this -- if this document is what it is, this, this, this, this, that the president mentions on that audio recording.
Renato, thank you very much -- Sara.
SIDNER: All right, where is the head of the Wagner mercenary group after marching his troops toward Moscow Saturday? The president of Belarus says he knows exactly where he is.
All this happening hours after Russia announces it's dropping all charges against Wagner for the short-lived insurrection. Details on what all this means for Russia and the West, as well as the war in Ukraine -- next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:29:16]
BERMAN: New this morning, a claim about the whereabouts of the man who led the revolt in Russia, Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin.
The president of Belarus says he has arrived in that country, although, notably, we have not seen him, at least not yet. Alexander Lukashenko is also sharing new details of the negotiations that he says got the Wagner Group to stand down and the critical role he claims to have had in ending the whole situation.
CNN's Nic Robertson is with us now.
And, Nic, on top of all this, we heard from Vladimir Putin today, and we also saw him surrounded by all the trappings of power, it seems quite deliberately so.
What do you think was going on there?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Kremlin messaging, pure and simple.
Putin comes out and tells his security services that they did an amazing job stopping Prigozhin's advance to Moscow. Well, we know that's not true, because they did -- Prigozhin's troops got almost
