Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

ABC: Trump Allegedly Discussed Sensitive Nuclear Submarine Info With Mar-a-Lago Member In 2021; Hunter Biden Tells Judge He'll Seek To Dismiss Gun Charges; Surge In Book Bans Taking Over U.S. Public Schools. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired October 06, 2023 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:33:10]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Well, Donald Trump's handling of nuclear secrets is front and center today after a major new report from ABC News. It says Trump allegedly discussed U.S. nuclear subs with a foreign national after leaving the White House.

Foreign national is this man, Australian billionaire, Anthony Pratt. He runs one of the world's biggest packaging companies.

CNN confirms he was interviewed by federal prosecutors as part of the Trump classified documents probe and he is on their list of potential witnesses who could testify.

The sensitive conversation reportedly happened at Mar-a-Lago in 2021. Pratt reportedly said he told Trump that Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States.

That's when Trump leaned in and allegedly revealed the supposed actual number of nuclear warheads U.S. submarines routinely carry and exactly how close they can get to a Russian sub without being detected.

Pratt went on to share that information with scores of people.

Joining us now are CNN global affairs analyst, Kimberly Dozier, and CNN legal analyst and former White House ethics czar, Norm Eisen.

All right. Put this into context for us, Norm. Sources tell ABC that Pratt relayed this information to six journalists, 11 employees, 10 Australian officials, three former Australian prime ministers. What could the security implications be here?

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Pam, the security implications are profound. As you know, I served as the United States ambassador. The first thing that they told me in ambassador school was don't give away -- never mind top secret information, be careful with any information you share with a foreign national.

[13:34:54]

Here, when you have the number of nuclear warheads on our nuclear armed submarines and you have the distance that was allegedly disclosed, how close those subs can come to an enemy submarine without being detected, it calls our whole nuclear deterrents doctrine into question that keeps us all safe.

Because the uncertainty of what our potential adversaries do and do not know is part of the deterring them from attacking.

This is a profound betrayal, if true. And there is a lot of corroboration, profound betrayal of America's most sensitive national security concerns.

BROWN: I want to talk about that in a second. And, you know, you mentioned you were a former ambassador.

Look, Kimberly, the former Australian ambassador to the U.S., Joe Hockey, is downplaying this. He is saying, in part, if the conversation between Trump and Pratt is as reported there has been nothing said that we all did not know.

But, Kimberly, even if U.S. ally, and Australian officials or submariners knew about this it doesn't mean it should be publicly available information, right? This could fit under the classified -- this could be classified information, right?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes, look, I hear where Joe is coming from. As an ambassador, he is talking about there was a lot of this information out in the public realm already.

But when you are talking about the payload of a U.S. submarine and how close it can get to a Russian submarine before the Russians noticing it, the Russians, the Chinese, look, they are reading everything that's out in U.S. and other newspapers.

But every piece of information that they get adds to their intelligence picture of what the U.S. naval capabilities are, defensive capabilities and also where their blind spots are.

If I were a Russian or a Chinese military engineer, and I understood that the U.S. thought it could get within half a mile without detection, then I'd start working on that technical problem.

They have just done my red teaming for me. They might have thought a U.S. submarine could get that close but now that a former president has told this businessman, who has told a number of people, that just creates this very stark picture of U.S. capabilities that the enemies have to plan against.

BROWN: And, Norm, you know, you've raised if this is true, right? We should note these allegations were not included in Jack Smith's indictment of Trump in the classified documents case.

But his team, as reported by our Kristen Holmes and our Kaitlan Collins, as well, has interviewed Pratt. He is expected to be a witness in the trial.

Why wouldn't this have been in the indictment? Does it make you question whether it's true?

EISEN: It doesn't make me question the truth of these -- what appear to be heavily corroborated allegations that Trump shared this sensitive classified, dangerous information.

Indictments are outlines of the case. They are not a comprehensive checklist of everything that is put in at trial. And it is common for prosecutors to reserve substantial information, including witness information, for the trial itself.

This -- if Trump did it -- goes to his pattern and practice of alleged callous mishandling of national security information that endangers us all.

Like those photographs we saw of some of our nation's most sensitive secrets spilled all over the floors of bathrooms and ballrooms at Mar- a-Lago.

So it could come in at trial as part of the pattern and practice of Donald Trump mishandling national security information.

BROWN: Right. And of course, as Kristen is reporting, if he is a witness, it would lead you to believe that at least some of this is true, at least.

But I want to get to what Trump's spokesperson is saying about all of this, Kimberly, in response to this ABC reporting.

The spokesperson says, "President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner according to the law."

But, Kimberly, that is not a denial. Does this all raise concerns about what else Trump discussed with other Mar-a-Lago members?

DOZIER: Well, I think it raises the question of, what is a former president allowed to share? What are they allowed to, quote, unquote, "get away with?"

Those people who are Trump followers think that it was within his rights.

Perhaps one of the reasons that we haven't heard about this come up in the case is it's a lot easier to prosecute on "you had these papers in your possession, you didn't treat them in a classified manner and you didn't return them when we asked you to."

As opposed to this hearsay of, what presidential authority to declassify does a president have after he's left office?

[13:39:59]

But if this had been a lower-level official who had been caught doing something like this, you can expect the DOJ would have thrown the book at them. From my perspective ,as a reporter, this is someone you would call a

golden source you would want to get close to because who knows what they might tell you, that the lid is totally off.

BROWN: All right. Kim Dozier and Norm Eisen, thanks for coming on and offering your perspective. Happy Friday.

Still ahead, Hunter Biden now asking for a judge to dismiss his federal indictment on gun charges. What his attorneys are saying about the special counsel investigating the president's son.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:45:01]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A late-night filing from Hunter Biden's legal team. His attorneys have told the judge they're going to ask that his case be dismissed.

They say the special counsel was prohibited by a previous agreement from bringing the federal indictment on felony gun charges and that Hunter cannot be charged.

Let's break this down with CNN's senior justice (sic) correspondent, Paula Reid.

So, Paula, let's take a step back. How did we get here?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's a great question. You have to understand the entire story here to understand what exactly is happening today.

Several months ago, this case as well as some tax charges were all expected to be resolved with a plea deal. Hunter had been under investigation for five years.

And it was expected that he would plead guilty to some tax charges and these gun-related charges would be diverted, which means that they would ultimately be dismissed, not even charged, if he could stay away interest drugs and stay out of legal trouble for a few years.

That entire plea deal, though, several weeks ago fell apart. The prosecutor overseeing the case was named as special counsel and then he went ahead and filed formal charges related to this gun issue.

Now, I was in court with Hunter a few days ago, he pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. But now his lawyers are arguing this whole case should be dismissed.

They said that original diversion agreement remains in effect. You can't just go ahead and file charges.

But prosecutors say that agreement was never signed by the court. It was never formally in effect. Now it will be up to the court to weigh in. Two other key things I'm watching with this case. The first question,

Boris, what happened to those tax charges? The now special counsel, David Weiss, said he's still weighing whether he want to formerly file those.

If he does, that would mean the president's son would be facing two possible criminal charges.

And as we are, you know, reporting this earlier this week, we broke the story that Hunter has racked up over $10 million in legal debt and it's unclear how he's going to afford to fight potentially two federal trials.

SANCHEZ: We will see about those tax charges. The statute of limitation only a few weeks away, right?

REID: Yes, exactly.

SANCHEZ: Paula Reid, thanks so much for the reporting.

Still plenty more to come on CNN NEWS CENTRAL, including this. "Not what America stands for." That's what one author is saying about book bans as more and more titles are now being targeted. He will join us live in just a few moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:51:50]

BROWN: A controversial trend is taking over classrooms. A surge in book bans is spreading in more public school districts across the country. A new report shows the last school year saw a 33 percent rise in bans with more than 150 districts impacted across 33 states.

More than 40 percent of all book bans are taking place in Florida with more than 1,400 titles blocked across 33 school districts. But a movement to put an end to this type of censorship is growing.

Joining us now is one of more than two dozen authors fighting back on book bans in Florida and beyond, David Baldacci.

David, thanks for coming on.

You are part of Pen America's Banned Books Week. Tell us what you are trying to accomplish.

DAVID BALDACCI, AUTHOR WHO OPPOSES BOOK BANS: Yes. Well, look, we have had banning of books and burning historically in this country and other countries. It never ends well. It always ends terribly badly.

We are a country who stands on freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Books are supposed to be the cornerstone of this country's foundation.

Libraries changed my life growing up. And I can't believe, in 2023, I'm here having to defend librarians who go to prison for putting the wrong book on a shelf, the wrong book, according to someone else.

We have to make a stand here. This is not what this country stands for. It's never stood for this. We have to push back against this.

BROWN: Supporters of these book bans say a lot of these titles are, quote, "sexual in nature or inappropriate for students." They claim schools are essentially bringing pornographic material into the classrooms. You have a different view.

BALDACCI: I do. Look, you know, particularly Florida, Florida has a propensity to move the goalposts.

When they banned any discussion of gender identity or sexual orientation, first it was up to third grade, then middle school, now all the way through 12th grade. People who are old enough to vote can't talk about those issues.

What's to say that next, classrooms and school libraries, it will be public libraries where these books are banned. And how about bookstores, will books be banned there as well?

I learned in law school, the very first rule I learned is a slippery slope is, indeed, slippery. If you give a little bit, they will come back for more until they have gotten everything they want and more. So if we don't make a stand here, it will get worse.

And I have a problem, too, with the process in Florida. One parent -- or it doesn't have to be a parent -- they can fill out a one-page form, then the book is yanked immediately. And then it goes into some limbo vetting process.

What about all of the other parents who would like that book to be on the shelves? Their rights are not as strong as the parent or the other person who had the book banned. And is there an appeal process for these books?

I just think, once you start allowing books to be banned, it will keep going.

Texas, right now, if you want to sell a book to a public school in Texas, you have to go and, under the rating system, evaluate every book you have ever sold in the state of Texas. There could be millions of them. And no business can do that.

A lower court judge stayed that and said it will drive people out of business. There will be no more book sellers. The Eleventh Circuit stayed that execution that the law was going to allow to go forward.

I just see this huge snowball getting bigger and rolling downhill really fast. We're getting very close to the precipice. This country is changing in ways that I don't any of us really want to see.

BROWN: It's interesting what you raise about parental power, the power of the parents who want some of these books banned versus the parents who say I want my kids to be exposed to these books, I don't want them to be banned. [13:55:06]

How do you think banning these books at school and the rhetoric around it impacts students and their learning?

BALDACCI: I will tell you exactly how it does. One, when you ban something, it's a negative connotation.

So when you say this book is banned, it tells a first grader or a fourth grader or a sixth grader there's something in there that's not good, you shouldn't be exposed to it, you should end up hating or not agreeing with.

So we're telling these little kids that segment of our society is not something worthy of respect or to learn about.

And they grow up to be adults. And we don't want those perceptions to grow with them. When you ban something, it's a negative connotation.

And kids are not monolithic. Some kids, maybe some books, they are appropriate. That's for parents to decide and teachers to work with parents to decide on. But some kids, it may be appropriate. One size does not fit all.

So when you ban one book for all kids because one parent has a problem with it, what about the kids that wanted to read the book or the parents want their kids to read that book?

This is just a broad brushstroke and it's not good for anyone. The end result will be very, very bad for this country.

BROWN: All right, David Baldacci, thank you so much.

Still ahead, the White House is taking a victory lap on the white-hot jobs report. What it means for you and why it might not help when it comes to inflation, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)