Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview With Laredo, Texas, Mayor Victor Trevino; Supreme Court Asked to Decide Trump Ballot Question; Nikki Haley Under Fire; Border Deal. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired December 28, 2023 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:01:07]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Nikki Haley courting controversy after she was asked about the cause of the Civil War and initially didn't mention slavery. Her campaign struggling to silence the criticism.

And ballot battle. Colorado's Republican Party calling on the Supreme Court to keep Donald Trump on the ballot, as other states wrestle with whether the former president should be banned or not.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus: a border deal. U.S. and Mexican officials reaching an agreement that will reopen recently closed border crossings. But the bigger problem, a surge of migrants trying to reach the United States, remains. We're going to get reaction from a border town mayor in just moments.

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

Called out, and now trying to clean it up, Republican presidential contender Nikki Haley responding after facing criticism for comments she made on the campaign trail last night.

KEILAR: This is in New Hampshire, where the former South Carolina governor was confronted by a voter, who took her to task for not mentioning slavery in her response when asked about the cause of the Civil War. Here's the exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn't do.

I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And we -- I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn't need to tell you how to live your life. They don't need to tell you what you can and can't do.

They don't need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom. We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties, so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.

QUESTION: Thank you. And, in the year 2023, it's astonishing to me that you answered that question without mentioning the word slavery.

HALEY: What do you (AUDIO GAP) about slavery?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Jessica Dean is with us now on this story.

Now how is Haley responding?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, Brianna and Boris, it was interesting to see that first thing this morning she was on a radio station doing a radio interview.

She kind of cleaned this up or attempted to clean this up and clarify her comments. And then we saw her a little bit later once she got back out on the trail in New Hampshire bringing this up at one of her stops.

I will let you listen to what she has to say, and then we can talk a little bit more about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HALEY: Of course, the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That's unquestioned, always the case. We know the Civil War was about slavery. But it was also more than that. It was about the freedoms of every individual. It was about the role of government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Certainly not the topic Nikki Haley thought she'd probably be talking about today on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Boris and Brianna.

But the case remains that is what has really grabbed the spotlight, her answer last night. Of course, the media has picked it up. The question is, how much will it actually matter to voters? Will it impact their preferences, how they see her? Of course, that's up for them to decide. And now we're just really close to seeing what they think because voting starts January 15 with the Iowa caucuses.

And then, to remind everyone, New Hampshire is about one week later.

SANCHEZ: Jessica Dean, thanks so much for wrapping that up for us.

We want to discuss further now with Ron Brownstein. He's a CNN senior political analyst and senior editor for "The Atlantic."

Ron, thank you so much for being with us.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: We heard her clarification. She's trying to move on from this unforced error.

[13:05:02]

Do you think that it was a gaffe or that she was thinking about primary voters who still buy that lost cause argument?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I think really the latter.

I mean, as KFILE has pointed out, she has talked this way for a long time. There is a significant constituency within the Republican coalition, particularly in the South, that is -- expresses sympathy in various ways, sympathetic views toward the Confederacy and don't want to be reminded that the reason the Confederacy existed was to preserve slavery, and, by the way, also to defeat majority rule in the country, since the secession was a direct result of Abraham Lincoln's election and the awareness in the South that the free states were now going to move in ways to impinge the future of slavery.

Look, to her credit, as governor, she did remove the Confederate battle flag from the state capitol, but she did that, of course, only after defending its presence for years and after a massacre at an historically black church in Charleston made that previous support untenable.

The problem she has here is not so much about the voters are going to be flipping one way or the other based on your view about what caused the Civil War, but this definitely plays into the argument that her critics make, that she is someone who kind of tries too much, too hard to be all thanks to all people and is unwilling to really take a stand in the party.

I mean, Chris Christie is out there saying, I'm not getting out of the race because you can't trust her to make a strong case against Donald Trump. If she won't make a strong case against the role of slavery in prompting the Civil War, he may have a point.

SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you about some of the responses that she's been getting from Chris Christie and others on that questioning.

But I'm curious, because, obviously, she's staked her ground in New Hampshire. It's almost a must-win state for her or must come in closely in second place to Donald Trump state. But right after that is South Carolina, her -- obviously, her home state. How much do you think that sways voters there, the argument that she's making?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes, well look, South Carolina is, has been, since the modern primary system came into place in 1980, South -- the winner of the South Carolina Republican primary is won the nomination every time except once.

It is obviously the critical state on the calendar. Haley is positioned to do competitively well in New Hampshire. She is doing better in New Hampshire than DeSantis is in Iowa. I think that, after New Hampshire, she will be clearly seen as the principal alternative to Trump.

But the main reason she's doing so well in New Hampshire is her strength among independent voters, who can vote in New Hampshire, but not in South Carolina. And, ultimately, she needs to show more appeal to core Republicans, particularly those who are open to Trump, but not wed to Trump.

And this is the kind of dance she has done before in South Carolina for many years, I mean, kind of speaking in this very opaque language that minimizes the role of slavery, until called out on it. I don't know if this -- again, this is really the problem for her in South Carolina.

The problem is, she has to make a stronger case against Trump if she is really running to beat him, right? And that's the question some people are asking around, Chris Christie, in particular.

SANCHEZ: Right.

BROWNSTEIN: Is she running for vice president? Is she running for secretary of state? Is she running for 2028? If she wants to be seen as someone who wants to take down Donald Trump, she's going to have to make a clearer case to voters about why it should be her and not him.

SANCHEZ: The former New Jersey governor pointed out multiple times that she has not ruled out running as Donald Trump's running mate. That's something that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was quick to bring up about Haley's remarks.

He actually launched a Web site accusing her of trying to run to be Donald Trump's running mate. Is that a fair accusation?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, I think what we see with Haley so far is what we have seen with a lot of Republicans, that she will go so far and no further in making a case against Donald Trump.

I mean, you look at the ad that she put up with Chris Sununu in New Hampshire. It's a terrific ad in most respects. It's energetic. It's engaging. It shows a lot of enthusiasm, but it is also a missed opportunity.

I mean, Sununu is the most prominent surrogate she's had in this race, probably is going to have in this race. And she goes through the entire ad without mentioning Trump at all, and all her criticisms of him are oblique and indirect.

And that is why you get that line of argument from Chris Christie. I mean, it's not that so much that she rules out being vice president. It's that she's behaving in a way that suggests she will only go so far in making a case against Trump.

And if she wants to change that impression, if she wants voters to believe she is really in it to win it, as someone else once said, then she needs to go out and do that. But this incident, gaffes -- there used to be a belief in politics that gaffes matter when they confirm a preexisting belief about a candidate.

[13:10:02]

If Al Gore misspelled potato, it would not have been a big deal. People would have said he was tired. When Dan Quayle misspelled potato, it was that he didn't know how to do it.

And that's what is dangerous about this for Haley, because she is facing the perception already that she's trying too hard to be all things to all people in the Republican primary and not taking clear, hard stands, particularly against the front-runner. And this is the kind of answer that feeds that perception, the attempt to have it really both ways.

And so, by the way, her new answer about this is about the freedom -- the importance of government defending freedom. So, is she saying the North was right to fight the South to free the slaves? Or is she saying the North impinged on the freedom of the South to keep slaves?

I mean, her extended response raises more questions than it answers.

SANCHEZ: Important to point that out. Also, is there an E in potato, a critical question when running for the White House.

Ron Brownstein, appreciate the perspective. Thanks so much.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

So, we now have the first official appeal to that ruling in Colorado that bans Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot. The Colorado Republican Party is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court that decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court last week. You will recall, in that 4-3 decision, the state justices found that Trump could not be on Colorado's ballot because of the 14th Amendment.

KEILAR: Which says no person shall hold any office who shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

The Colorado High Court said Trump engaged in insurrection through efforts that were -- quote -- "indisputably overt and voluntary."

Let's turn to CNN's Marshall Cohen for details now on this appeal.

Marshall, tell us what the Republican Party of Colorado is saying, as they're facing some pretty tight deadlines here.

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: So here we are at the Supreme Court finally, as we have been predicting for months now.

So, not a lot of people realize, but this was not just a case against Donald Trump. The Colorado Republican Party is a party of this lawsuit as well, and they were first out the gate last night with their appeal, making some pretty serious arguments, in their view, that this Colorado decision was completely wrong and sets a terrible precedent.

Let me read for you a little bit of what they are telling the justices in their request for the Supreme Court to take this up and overturn the decision. They said: "By excluding President Trump from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in an unprecedented disregard for the First Amendment right of political parties to select the candidates of their choice."

They went on to say that: "With the number of challenges to President Trump's candidacy now pending in other states, there's a real risk that the Colorado Supreme Court's majority's flawed and unprecedented analysis will be borrowed and the resulting grave error repeated."

In other words, they're afraid that some of these other cases that are still lingering out there are now going to go against Trump because of the decision in Colorado, and they want the Supreme Court to step in and fix that. And they might be worried for good reason.

There's a case pending in Maine right now. There's also a lawsuit that was filed in Oregon a few weeks ago trying to overturn -- trying to keep Trump off the ballot. But, look, mostly Trump has succeeded. You can see here in other states he has mostly been able to preserve his spot. But now it's all up to the Supreme Court. See what they're going to do.

KEILAR: Yes, very pivotal.

And you hear other states say, well, Colorado did that, so that means that we should proceed as well. We're hearing that from some.

COHEN: Yes.

KEILAR: Marshall, thank you for that. We appreciate it.

Let's get some legal expertise now on this.

Jessica Levinson is a law professor at Loyola Law School.

Professor, do you think that Colorado's Republican Party is going to win on appeal and get Trump back onto Colorado's 2024 ballot?

JESSICA LEVINSON, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL: I do think they're going to be successful, in large part because I don't think this Supreme Court wants to be the court to rule that Trump is ineligible for the ballot and, frankly, to make it look like they are deciding who the voters can weigh in on.

I know that sounds like the Supreme Court is basically coming to a political conclusion and going to try and find a legal way to do that. But that's my sense. My sense is that they know what happens when they put their thumb on the scale of presidential elections. They still remember what happened after Bush v. Gore, when it looked like they were the ones to decide a presidential election.

And so not necessarily because the legal argument here to get Trump kicked off the ballot is weak, but because I just think they're going to find a way to overturn this Colorado Supreme Court decision.

KEILAR: So, initially, Trump's legal team said they would appeal.

Does that -- this appeal by the Colorado Republicans mean that he doesn't have to, he's not going to? Would it behoove him to still go ahead with that?

[13:15:02]

LEVINSON: I think it would.

And the last reporting I saw indicates that he says that he will. But this is not entirely unusual for him. We have seen other situations where he says, I'm going to appeal right away, and then he waits for something else to happen, in this case, for the Colorado GOP to weigh in. Maybe he wanted to see what their specific arguments were going to be and to argue something that's complementary.

Let's remember, of course, that delay is the name of the game for the former president and that there's no need for him to appeal before January 4, for instance. And we know that the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in. I suspect that he will say, and here's my argument. He doesn't have to, though.

KEILAR: How quickly does the court move here, do you think?

LEVINSON: I think the court will move quickly because this is one of those situations that screams out for resolution by the court.

They're the only ones who can tell us what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment means. As you have just been discussing in the last few minutes, we have almost a patchwork of decisions. I think all of us are waking up to the fact that election laws really do vary state by state.

And so what the court doesn't want is this patchwork of different decisions, where Trump is eligible in one jurisdiction, but he's not, for instance, in another state. So I think they will act quickly. That's a lawyer's way of saying, I'm not going to tell you days or weeks. But I don't think they can let this drag out for months.

KEILAR: I do want to ask you about Maine, because the Trump team is asking Maine's secretary of state to recuse herself as she decides whether Trump should be removed from Maine's ballot due to the 14th Amendment.

In this case, his lawyer cites some of her online comments about him in the past. But just more broadly, this issue of a secretary of state taking this action versus what happened in Colorado, where you had the Supreme Court or going through the court system, is that more vulnerable? How do the courts see that process, do you think?

LEVINSON: So, it really varies based on state law.

So I don't think that necessarily one decision is stronger than another because it was made, for instance, by a trial court, as opposed to a secretary of state. What we're seeing is that, for instance, Michigan dismissed one of these challenges because they said the secretary of state doesn't have discretion when it comes to eligibility.

In Maine, it's kind of the flip side of that, where it's only the secretary of state who, in the first instance, does have that discretion to determine eligibility. And that's why she heard kind of a mini-evidentiary trial as to whether or not she was going to say the former president is ineligible under Section 3, again, of the 14th Amendment.

I think what we're looking at here is a bunch of different cases. Again, sometimes, it's a court. Sometimes, it's a secretary of state who makes that first decision. Those cases are then appealed up the state court system. And that -- but that's why we're really in this waiting pattern for the U.S. Supreme Court to give more guidance.

KEILAR: Yes. And we will see if that comes soon.

Jessica, great to have you. Thank you so much.

LEVINSON: Thank you.

KEILAR: And still ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL: developments in the crisis on the southern border. The Mexican president says deals were made during high-level talks with U.S. officials, as a record number of migrants continue to cross the border.

SANCHEZ: Plus: a second American held hostage by Hamas declared dead, this as the Israeli prime minister meets with the families of those still held captive.

We're going to speak to the father of one of those hostages in a few moments.

KEILAR: And the house where four Idaho college students were murdered is now being demolished. Why the victims' families tried to stop it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:23:18]

SANCHEZ: U.S. and Mexican officials say they're feeling good about yesterday's crisis meeting over the southern U.S. border.

KEILAR: Yes, both sides calling the talks very productive and Mexico's president saying today an agreement has been reached to reopen U.S. border crossings that had been shut down due to the migrant surge.

But U.S. officials say there is much more work to be done and more talks are set for next month, when Mexican leaders will come to Washington to meet with Biden Cabinet members.

We have seen a White House reporter Priscilla Alvarez here with more on what else came out of that meeting. All right, well, that's refreshing to hear. So often, those are not

the words that are used. Tell us about this.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, and they're underscoring how they're cooperating on this front.

And, really, what this boils down to is enforcement. That's what the U.S. was going to Mexico to ask them to do more of, is doubling down on immigration enforcement in their own country, cracking down on the smugglers who facilitate the travel to the U.S. southern border and decongesting the northern border.

We know that there are thousands of migrants who are waiting to cross into the U.S. So the U.S. was looking for help from Mexico to move them further south. But, more broadly, a senior administration official said they also wanted to talk to them about tackling the root causes of migration and also, critically, U.S. economic -- U.S.-Mexico economic partnership.

These are two critical trading partners. And what happened this month is that some key ports of entry where trade happens had to be suspended to move personnel to process migrants. That is not what U.S. and Mexican leadership want to see. And it's what prompted a phone call between President Biden and the Mexican president. And so this was a key part of those discussions yesterday, is making sure that those are reopened and that they stay reopened.

[13:25:00]

Now, as far as the results, the big question here is, how long can any of this really be sustained, when Mexico is also limited in their capacity? Now, I have been talking to Homeland Security officials over the course of the week. Numbers have gone down a little bit. Tuesday was around 6,000 encounters. Yesterday, it went back up a little bit to 7,000.

Both of those still under what we saw earlier this week, which was 10,000 people a day, but this is still not sustainable. This is not where the administration wants to be. So they are still going to continue those discussions with Mexico come next month to see where they are in their progress and what more can be done.

But this has been an ongoing conversation since the president took office and also every U.S. president before then. So, there's still a lot of work to be done on this front.

SANCHEZ: Yes, the backdrop, of course, this Senate deal that is still coming together, we understand. They're having teleconference meetings over the holiday to try to get it done.

Priscilla Alvarez, thanks so much for the reporting. Appreciate it.

Let's discuss further now with the mayor of Laredo, Texas, Victor Trevino.

Mayor, thank you so much for being with us. First, I want to get your reaction to that news that the U.S. and

Mexico reached a deal to reopen the border crossings at Eagle Pass and El Paso. Do you think that those closures ultimately gave the U.S. leverage for these meetings?

VICTOR TREVINO, MAYOR OF LAREDO, TEXAS: Well, I think all efforts are important.

And thank you for having me.

We're seeing conditions affecting -- a humanitarian hurricane here locally in the making, because that's the largest land port -- largest port in the U.S. We're being accustomed to seeing migrants being released in our community. But most of them get on a bus and go to another destination.

But now what we're seeing is refugees from all over the world, not precisely from Mexico. They come from South America and all over the world stranded in our community with no money and no idea where they're going.

So even if 1 percent of those people who are referred from other border areas being released daily here, 1 percent would be significant in our streets. We would not be able to absorb the cost of sheltering or providing medical services.

And I have been talking to border mayors, and they're seeing the same thing.

SANCHEZ: So, when it comes to the situation that you're seeing on the ground, how do you think these meetings between the U.S. and Mexico, the ones that were had this week, the ones that are upcoming next month, how do you think they might change the dynamic that you're facing in your town?

TREVINO: I think they will. It's primarily because Mexico has the same problem that the U.S. says, that these migrants come from South America, not from Mexico.

So they're having to deal with that problem, and they are looking at incentives of being -- of having asylum here in the U.S. So Mexico says, how can we stop that if the asylum is being given to them? What is the incentive for Mexico to -- for using their resources, when just letting everyone, everybody in for claiming asylum?

We need Mexico's help in intercepting these caravans. And because of our current immigration policies, they're probably not working that well. But I think we -- those meetings are important to get some solutions.

SANCHEZ: U.S. officials have pointed to a recent dip in the average number of daily encounters at the southern border. It went down roughly 2,500, 3,000 encounters per day, after it hit nearly all-time highs earlier this month.

How confident are you that the numbers might stay at this level? Are you expecting an increase in the new year? In other words, do you think this is sustainable?

TREVINO: It's not sustainable for us.

And this wave -- these coming waves, so maybe we had a sudden decrease. But, as Laredo being the largest port of entry, we have always managed migrant surges without the need of a border wall. But what we're seeing is different. Here, locally, we don't have a pediatric ICU. We do not have the resources to absorb the current numbers.

And now they're stranded in our community. That's going to pose a problem for most -- more homelessness. So I think we have to be cognizant of these waves that are coming. Sometimes, they decrease, but, sometimes, all of a sudden, we have a big surge. So we have to continue working on this.

Now, Laredo is a very safe border and the lowest amount of illegal crossings in the country. But we're being used as an overflow location, and migrants are being released and have nowhere to go.

SANCHEZ: Mayor, quickly, I want to get your response to the new measures passed by Governor Greg Abbott, including S.B.4.

You have been critical of it. Why are you against using local law enforcement to tackle the issue of immigration?

TREVINO: This is a difficult situation for us locally, because we need guidance on what laws to follow.

There's federal laws and then there's state laws, and they're not on the same page. So what we're asking for is guidance to see what laws we're going to follow. And, furthermore, police, local police, don't have immigration instruction. They don't have immigration training. They -- they don't do the same thing as immigration officers.

[13:30:00]