Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Presidential Candidates in Iowa; Trump Seeks Delay in Documents Trial; Election Interference Probe Ramping Up?; Putin Speaks Out About Wagner Group; Republicans Back Far Right Measures in Defense Bill; Actors on Strike. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 14, 2023 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): So I'm going to be out there on the picket lines by your side. I will be yelling through that bullhorn. I will be supporting you until you get the deal that you have earned with good pay and good working conditions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Join Jake Tapper on Sunday on "STATE OF THE UNION." He's going to talk to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Democratic Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, plus former New Jersey Governor and Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie. Be sure to tune in.

And thank you so much for watching INSIDE POLITICS today.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Picket lines forming coast to coast, as movie and TV actors join writers on strike, effectively shutting down Hollywood. Upcoming film releases, new TV shows, they won't be coming soon. Releases and premieres will be delayed. And it could mean billions in losses.

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN HOST: Also, a critical defense bill is dragged into a Republican culture war, hard-line Republicans pushing through a series of controversial amendments, so it doesn't stand any chance in the Senate. We will live from Capitol Hill.

KEILAR: And Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking out about the Wagner Group for the first time since its fighters led a rebellion inside the country. See why Putin says the group simply does not exist.

We are following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

From the production set to the picket line, 160,000 actors are taking part in a history-making strike that will effectively freeze all film and television production in the U.S. This marks the first time that actors and writers have simultaneously gone on strike since 1960.

And the trickle effects of this, they are big. Not only will various projects be halted, but the promotion of them will also be impacted. Economies that support these productions are going to take a hit. Last night, the cast of the much-anticipated "Oppenheimer" walked out of the film's premiere in London to write their picket signs.

The studios and the unions are feuding over two major issues here, protections from artificial intelligence and how to adequately compensate in the era of streaming.

CNN's Natasha Chen is outside of Netflix headquarters in Los Angeles, where folks are picketing behind her.

So, Natasha, tell us what the union members are saying where you are.

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, it's very high energy today, day one of SAG-AFTRA on strike.

They join writers, who have also been walking the streets and walking Sunset Boulevard here outside of Netflix for more than 70 days. Right now, a lot of the discussion is about compensation, about streaming residuals, and about A.I.

I spoke to an actor who definitely has a day job as she's trying to audition and participate in different shows and streaming content, that is, up until yesterday at midnight. Here's what she said about how she's feeling energized on the first day of the strike, but also concerned about how long this could go on for.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATALIE ORTEGA, SAG-AFTRA MEMBER: I'm worried that it's going to go on for a long time. I hope that it's not. I'm excited that so many people are into it and empowered to be out here.

But, yes, it's worrisome. The longer that we're out here, like, I have a job that now was pushed because of the strike. And I think that's the reality for a lot of people. So it's conflicting. It's hopeful. It's exciting. But yes, we're worried.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Thousands of people like her are affected now, in addition to people who don't even work on Hollywood film sets, your janitors, your dry cleaners, your restaurants and florists.

They have already been feeling the financial pain for the last few months because of the writers strike. They are now bracing themselves for the long haul as well -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Yes, look, the music is playing. The energy is there. But that starts to get tough as these days turn into weeks. We do know that.

Natasha Chen in Los Angeles, thank you for that report. CNN's Chloe Melas is outside of NBCUniversal Studios in New York for us.

Chloe, some pretty big names, I know, showing up where you are. Tell us who you're seeing.

CHLOE MELAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER: Well, first of all, "Ted Lasso," the main star chase, Jason Sudeikis, he is marching with everyone in solidarity right behind me.

And I spoke to him. He didn't want to do an interview. But he said that they are willing to do this for as long as it takes and that he wants to just be like everybody else and be out there showing support.

But with me now are two leaders of the respective unions. So, first of all, we have the president of the Writers Guild of America here with me today.

[13:05:01]

Michael, I want to ask you. This is the first time in decades that we have seen both the Writers and the Actors Guild strike at the same time.

Are you surprised that it got to this point and that there wasn't a resolution?

MICHAEL WINSHIP, PRESIDENT, WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA EAST: Well, we have been out here, the Writers Guild of America East, of which I'm president, is -- we have been out on the lines.

We were out here very early on, May 2. We have been here ever since, along with our colleagues at SAG-AFTRA, who have marched with us in support. But now they're on strike as well. And I can't tell you how thrilled and excited we are that they're out on the line themselves now, and that we can support them as strongly as they have been supporting us.

MELAS: So, I also want to talk to Richard Masur, the former SAG national president.

Richard, when you hear Bob Iger, who runs Disney, say that they really overshot how much they could monetize streaming, and that it's not making as much money as people would assume, and that what these unions are asking for is just unthinkable, what is your reaction to that?

RICHARD MASUR, FORMER SCREEN ACTORS GUILD NATIONAL PRESIDENT: Well, the reason it's not unthinkable is because what we're asking for us to be able to look into the black box that he's describing as not that much money, and be able to have visibility into that, so we can decide what's fair.

And we put on the table a proposal that's very reasonable, to have a third party go in and look at the kinds of income that they're making, all the different companies, and then figure out what's coming from what sources, in terms of what people are watching, and then divide up the revenues in that way, and then figure out what percentage of that we should be getting.

There's nothing crazy about this. There's nothing excessive. It's completely fair. What isn't fair is, first of all, not being willing to sit down and talk to us about this proposal. And, secondly, what isn't fair is keeping everything in a black box, where we have no visibility.

MELAS: And thank you.

And, Brianna, I want to point out that it's residuals, it's streaming, it's artificial intelligence, a lot of issues on the table. And the people that I have spoken to today, they say that they are willing to do this and stand true to what they believe is right for as long as it takes -- back to you.

KEILAR: Yes, new issues in a new era.

Chloe Melas live for us in New York, thank you for that report -- Rahel.

SOLOMON: All right, Brianna, thank you.

And, this morning, the House narrowly passed a bill considered crucial to national security, but it could be doomed in the Senate after a conservative hard-liners tacked on controversial amendments targeting Pentagon policies on things like abortion access and diversity.

The National Defense Authorization Act sets U.S. defense spending and priorities. And, this time, the GOP leveraged the bill to confront hot-button social issues, four Democrats across the aisle to vote in favor and four Republicans broke ranks to vote against.

CNN's Manu Raju working the hallways at Capitol Hill.

So, Manu, how did Speaker McCarthy get this done? How did he get it across the finish line?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, listening to the demands of the far right, and Democrats say a complete capitulation to those demands on the far right, which led to a largely party-line vote.

Typically, this bill, which would set defense policy in the coming fiscal year, is approved on a wide bipartisan basis by the House and the Senate. In fact, a version of this bill came out of the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year with just one dissenting vote.

That changed in the aftermath of what happened on the House floor, when conservative hard-liners got a number of controversial amendments added to the proposal, dealing with nixing the Pentagon's policy to provide reimbursement for individuals, military service personnel who travel out of state to seek an abortion if the state -- if abortion is banned in their state, also eliminating diversity and equity and inclusion programs.

That would be no longer be allowed if this bill were to become law, and also in targeting transgender veterans' health care, also would be eliminated. This caused significant Democratic concern, which is why just four Democrats ultimately voted for this plan, which narrowly passed the House.

Now, the speaker also had to cut some side deals, including winning over Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is a hard right conservative congresswoman. She said she was a no-vote as of yesterday because she opposes the war in Ukraine and opposes United States' support for Ukraine.

But she -- that changed because the speaker gave her a spot on the very powerful House-Senate Conference Committee. That's a committee that will have to negotiate a compromise between the House and the Senate to put together a final bill on this defense policy measure.

And when she -- I asked her about this, she made clear she supported this just because the speaker gave her this appointment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: When the speaker came to you and said he'd like you to be on the conference committee, that's really what got you there?

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Right, because I have the opportunity to continue to do what I did this week. And I want that opportunity. And I think that's an important opportunity for me to have to represent not only the people in my district, but the people all over America that do not want their tax dollars spent on an NDAA that funds a foreign war.

[13:10:08]

REP. DAN BISHOP (R-NC): I have always said that we have to be ready to go to the mat for the American people.

And we have to -- we're not going to just walk in, do a cosmetic negotiation, and surrender.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And that last comment coming from Dan Bishop, who is a member of the House Freedom Caucus indicating the challenges ahead in cutting a deal with the Senate.

Democrats in the Senate say this bill is essentially dead on arrival. They plan to go forward with their own measure. That means they have to reconcile it between the House and the Senate. But if they were to compromise, the speaker were to agree to a compromise, he would face some problems with people like Congressman Dan Bishop, who do not want, in their view, a capitulation from the speaker, showing the pressure he is under to get this done in a narrowly divided House -- Rahel.

SOLOMON: Certainly a tightrope for the speaker to walk.

Manu Raju live for us there on Capitol Hill.

Manu, thank you -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Russian President Vladimir Putin breaking his silence on a really stunning meeting that he held with the leader of the Wagner mercenary group days after the failed Wagner revolt.

Putin now says that this private military company of mercenaries -- quote -- "does not exist." At the same time, he's hinting at someone replacing the Wagner chief, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who has not been seen publicly here in weeks.

We have CNN's Oren Liebermann live for us at the Pentagon.

And, Oren, you are going to have to untangle this a little bit for us, because, for years, Vladimir Putin did not acknowledge that Wagner existed. Then he surprisingly did admit that they existed, to now say that actually they do not exist. Do I have that right?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Pretty close there.

It's a bit difficult to untangle all of this because of the way the narrative has worked to this point. And it's clear that there are a few lines now emerging from this narrative. According to "Kommersant," a business daily from Russia, there was a meeting just days after this rebellion, one of the most serious threats to Russian President Vladimir Putin's rule, with Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of Wagner.

He was meeting with the leader of the insurrection. But now just a short time after that, you hear this message is coming not only from Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who says there is no such legal entity, but also from Putin himself, who says there is no such legal entity as Wagner.

That's an incredible statement about the organization, the mercenary group that effectively won the town of Bakhmut for Russia, when Russian military forces were incapable of doing that. Russia, it appears, now trying essentially not only to erase Wagner or minimize their role in any of this, but try to show this, say, there's nothing worse to worry about here, nothing is wrong with Putin, everything's going fine here, back to normal, as you were.

This "Kommersant" daily newspaper also putting forward what appears to be a rift between Wagner forces and their leader in this meeting, which, according to the newspaper, was with Putin, Prigozhin, and Wagner leaders. Those leaders were given a choice to follow a different leader and, at least, according to this Russian paper, this narrative, they chose to do so, leaving Prigozhin even more out in the cold.

KEILAR: And so what can you tell us about this new person that he's kind of pushing as the new commander of these forces?

LIEBERMANN: We know a bit about him, largely from sanctions against him. His name -- and I will get this right here -- is Andrei Troshev. He's one of the founding members of the Wagner Group.

He's the executive director. And he is known, at least through sanctions, for his operations in Syria, where he helped support the Assad regime and carried out military operations to that effect. His call sign is Gray Hair, at least according to sanctions info. He is about 70 years old, and because of his operations in Syria, he's under sanction from the E.U. and the U.K.

It is Troshev being put forward now, at least from Putin, as the person who could lead Wagner forces. The real question, where are those forces now? The Pentagon has said they're not active in Ukraine. The Belarusian Defense Ministry is saying they're training Belarusian fighters south of that capital.

So, this, Brianna, is something we need to keep an eye on.

KEILAR: Yes. Oh, and they do not exist as a legal entity, all very confusing.

Oren Liebermann, live for us at the Pentagon, thank you -- Rahel.

SOLOMON: Well, still to come on CNN NEWS CENTRAL: Sources say that federal prosecutors have interviewed the secretaries of state of Pennsylvania and New Mexico as part of the 2020 election interference probe. CNN's exclusive reporting coming up next.

Plus, 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls are in Iowa today. They're courting the influential evangelical vote. We're live in Des Moines.

And if you eat or drink things that have sugar substitutes, you may want to listen up, because the World Health Organization just declaring one of its ingredients as possibly carcinogenic to humans. We will explain the dangers of aspartame, and how much is the recommended limit is when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:19:03]

SOLOMON: Welcome back.

And now to a CNN exclusive. We have learned that federal prosecutors have recently interviewed the secretaries of state for both Pennsylvania and New Mexico. It's part of the ongoing investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The new revelations likely show that the special counsel is zeroing in on actions taken by former President Trump and allies in seven key battleground states that Joe Biden.

CNN senior legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid joins me now.

So, Paula, what do we know about the types of issues or questions that prosecutors were asking these elections officials?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, here, we know from our colleague Zach Cohen that prosecutors have talked to the secretaries of state in Pennsylvania and New Mexico.

Now, these are two of the states, of course, where former President Trump and his allies were really focusing their efforts trying to upend Biden's victory. And what's interesting to me is, when it comes to the Pennsylvania secretary of state, we have learned that he was asked specifically about his time as the Philadelphia city commissioner, and specific really the impact that misinformation about widespread voter fraud had.

[13:20:05]

And that's interesting to me because, in our previous reporting earlier this week, we learned that the secretary of state in Michigan was also asked about misinformation, but in the context of threats against election workers.

So it's clear that the special counsel is not just focus on efforts to seize voting machines or pressure campaigns. They're also looking at sort of a wider lens, right, on the impact that misinformation had in a much more broad sense.

It's just yet another reminder of the breadth and depth of this investigation. We're talking about dozens and dozens and dozens of witnesses they have spoken to even just recently, and over a half- dozen possible crimes that could be charged.

SOLOMON: Well, I mean, speaking of the breadth of this investigation, we have also learned that two close aides to the former President Trump have also been questioned. That's Jared Kushner and Hope Hicks.

What do we know about the questions that were asked and I think what the question signal about what prosecutors may be sort of leaning into here?

REID: It's a great point.

Well, we know that among the things that were asked about was Trump's state of mind. Did he have a good-faith belief, right, that he had truly won the election and that's why he was pursuing these activities, some of which could potentially be illegal?

And what's interesting is that investigators have received conflicting accounts of how exactly he was interpreting the results of the election. We know from many top former administration officials, people in his Cabinet, including his own attorney general, they had told him, look, you lost the election, there was no widespread voter fraud.

We know he had other people, these outside lawyers like Sidney Powell and others, who were trying to convince him otherwise. So they're trying to make sense of, right, his actions, but also get to his state of mind, which, Rahel, it's very difficult, right, to really get inside someone's mind.

So they're looking at not only what was he being told, what was he telling other people, and then perhaps, most importantly, for possible criminal liability, is, what was he doing subsequently? So this has been a line of questioning for a lot of different witnesses, and they're not getting back a consistent story.

SOLOMON: So, to be clear, leaning into and wondering, was he privately acknowledging to some within his circle that he knew he lost?

REID: Yes.

And some people have said that yes. Alyssa Farah Griffin, she has said this. Other Cabinet officials have said they talked to him, and he seemed to acknowledge that, yes, he understood that he lost, he wasn't going to be president for another four years. But other people, including his son-in-law, suggested, yes, he did believe that he had won the election.

So they're getting this conflicting information. And what they will do with it, at this point, it's just unclear.

SOLOMON: Paula Reid, thank you -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Rahel, in the other special counsel case that is facing the former president, federal prosecutors are now strongly pushing back, arguing there is no reason to postpone scheduling a trial date in this classified documents case.

The special counsel wants the trial to start in mid-December, and it is accusing the defense of giving a -- quote -- "misleading picture" of the amount of evidence that has been handed over by prosecutors to the defense teams. Trump and co-defendant Walt Nauta have said that they need more time to go through the evidence.

And they are pushing back on setting a trial date.

Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers is with us now on this.

So, yes, this is a case that involves highly sensitive government documents, of course. I wonder, though, do you think this is valid, Trump's lawyers request to delay over the amount of discovery here?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's valid to request some measure of delay.

I mean, December, I think is an aggressive date for a case involving litigation under the Classified Information Protection Act. At the same time, saying that you can't possibly try this case before the 2024 election is unreasonable, right? So I think the judge likely is going to split the difference here and will set a trial date, probably not in December, but certainly not after the election, or at least I hope not.

KEILAR: Does the court normally give the defendant leeway here? Does it normally bias itself toward the defendant?

RODGERS: Courts -- judges usually do that because judges hate to be overturned. So judges are usually, as they should be, very protective of defendants' rights.

And so when a defendant comes in and says, listen, I need more time, I don't have enough time to adequately defend myself, judges listen very carefully to those arguments. At the same time, we all know what the game is here with the former president. It's trying to delay this beyond the 2024 election.

And so saying that they need that much time is unreasonable. I also think it's really dangerous for them to mislead the court about what is in the discovery and how much time they need to review it. This is the very beginning of this case. If you get on the bad side of the judge, in terms of misleading the judge with your claims, it's going to be a long, tough road for those lawyers and their client.

KEILAR: If what the court thinks Trump's lawyers may be trying to do or what Trump is trying to do is get this delayed past being potentially elected, so that he may have some options to protect himself legally because he is president.

[13:25:03]

Is there a reason for the court to say perhaps this should move forward before the election?

RODGERS: Yes, I think so.

I mean, it's pretty obvious what he's trying to do here. So I think what the court will do is say, OK, listen, this is a complicated case, because of the classified nature of a lot of the information that will have to be brought out in the course of the trial. December is aggressive. Let's set it down for a time that works after that, but not as far as the election goes.

I mean, we are well more than a year before the election. There's no reason this can't be tried before then.

KEILAR: Jennifer, what are you looking for in this hearing, the first hearing Tuesday in front of Judge Aileen Cannon?

RODGERS: Well, unfortunately, not a lot of substance, Brianna, because the lawyers haven't been fully cleared yet. There's no way they're going to start actually going through documents and figuring out what can and can't be used in court because of the classified and sensitive nature of the materials.

It'll be more kind of, let's get everyone on the same page. Let's set some schedules for how we're going to do this. And Judge Cannon, unfortunately, is pretty new to this kind of litigation as well. So part of it will be the government lawyers having to educate her about how CIPA works and how this process is going to move going forward.

So they will have to do that gently. You don't want to tell her judge what the judge doesn't know. But that's a lot of what this first hearing is going to be. This is how it should work. Let's set some dates down. Let's get this thing rolling and get everyone going forward. KEILAR: Gentle suggestion. All right, we will be looking for that on

Tuesday.

Jennifer Rodgers, as always, thank you -- Rahel.

SOLOMON: All right, thanks, Brianna.

A conservative summit in Iowa is the big test today in the Republican race for the White House. Senator Tim Scott was the first GOP contender to try to impress the attendees of the Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines. They belong to one of the most powerful voting blocs in 2024, evangelicals.

Scott just one of six presidential hopefuls attending, but front- runner Donald Trump is notably not there, absent. Iowa is the first- in-the-nation to hold the Republican contest for the 2024 nominations with its caucuses on January 15 next year.

Let's bring in CNN's Jessica Dean. She is at the summit.

Jessica, with the first debate scheduled for next month, the candidates have to be feeling the pressure to break through. What are you hearing from them?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they certainly are, Rahel.

They want to be on that debate stage and they really want to make inroads with voters, as we continue to see in polling that everyone is running far behind former President Donald Trump. And, right now, his former Vice President Mike Pence is actually on the stage behind me.

Now, the former President Trump is not attending this event. He is notably absent. So all of them are really trying to make an effort to break through with voters. And it was interesting. We just heard Vice President Pence call President Trump's words on January 6 reckless.

It was interesting to watch the crowd kind of absorb that. Of course, there is some Trump fatigue when you talk to voters here in Iowa and across the country. But the question for a lot of them is, who can beat the former president and who can win in 2024 in a general election? And that is what all of these candidates are -- the case that they're trying to make, that they are that person that can do that.

Let's take a listen from Senator Tim Scott earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM SCOTT (R-SC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: America needs positive, powerful, biblically sound leadership to regain the high ground.

I started reading the Gospel and understood that I'm a part of a bigger family, that a guy who grew up in a single-parent household mired in poverty who wanted to know, who am I? (END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Now, again, tomorrow will mark six months until the Iowa caucuses.

And, Rahel, anyone that hopes to make a run at this nomination is going to have to perform very, very well, likely win this state, in order to really make a statement against the former president. And so this state is very critical. And these evangelical voters make it a critical voting bloc within the state of Iowa.

So we are hearing a lot of these candidates pitching specifically to them, trying to make those inroads. We're going to hear from a number of other candidates later today, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is Trump's chief rival, who is hoping, of course, to make a big statement here in Iowa. He will be here today.

He will also be here tomorrow making several events -- or going to several events all throughout the state. And just to zoom out real quickly, all of this happening as Governor Kim Reynolds, a very popular governor among conservatives here in the state, was attacked by President Trump earlier this week for not endorsing, for remaining neutral.

He believes that she should be endorsing him because he says that she -- he stood up for her and made the way for her. But she wants to remain neutral. However, she has appeared with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at several of his events.

She's also going to be, we're told, signing the abortion -- the six- week abortion law that Iowa lawmakers just passed in their legislature into law here at this event in front of a crowd that is very supportive of that.