Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Nikki Haley Faces Backlash Over Civil War Comments; Colorado GOP Appeals Supreme Court Decision On Trump Ballot Ban; $250 Million Military Aid Package For Ukraine; Diplomatic Strain As U.S. Funding For Ukraine Faces Uncertainty; Demolition Of Crime Scene In Idaho. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired December 28, 2023 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Walking it back. Nikki Haley now working to clarify her own remarks after she's asked about the cause of the Civil War and doesn't mention slavery while she's responding to the backlash. Plus, new developments in the battle to keep Donald Trump on the ballot in the Colorado primary. Find out who's now pushing the Supreme Court to issue a ruling, and soon.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: And a warning from doctors that a major change for a popular medication could cause problems for patients in the new year. We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.
Facing growing backlash, GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley is trying to clean up some comments that she made on the campaign trail yesterday during a stop in New Hampshire. A voter called Haley out for not mentioning slavery in her response when she was asked about the cause of the Civil War. Here's the moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIKKI HALEY, PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE (R): Well, don't come with an easy question or anything. 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.
UNKNOWN: In the year 2023, it's astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery.
HAYLEY: What do you want me to say about slavery?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That response is now raising eyebrows. Here she is in New Hampshire earlier today trying to clarify her remarks. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYLEY: 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)
SANCHEZ: Joining us now is Jasmine Ulloa. She's a national politics reporter for the New York Times. She recently spent five days following Nikki Haley's campaign in Iowa. Jasmine, thank you so much for being with us. I want to share with our viewers something you wrote in the Times today. You wrote, quote, Haley's latest remarks were in keeping with the way she and most of her Republican rivals have towed the line on race and racism on the 2024 presidential trail, downplaying the nation's sordid racial history, and portraying structural racism and prejudice as challenges of the past. How do you see that playing out here, especially given her clarification that seemed to go back to some of the themes she touched on in her initial response?
JAZMINE ULLOA, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER; THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I mean, it's difficult to say what this will mean in the long run. I think it's too soon to know that. But as someone who has watched her at least 30 town halls or more, you know, since the summer, I've been trailing her for a long time now. And I can say that this was a very, very rare moment for her. She rarely talks to reporters or generates these types of headlines. She's very careful about calibrating her message on a number of issues, particularly her toughest hurdle in this race, former President Donald J. Trump.
So as someone who's been watching her, this was a pretty stunning moment. Now that there's been hints that the very thing that's brought her this far, that this asset of being able to calibrate her message could also be a liability. You know, in the past, she's made remarks about transgender athletes not playing, you know, playing in women's sports. And she's walked, -- we've seen her also kind of walk back. She called it the women's issue of our time at one point. And then she walked it back. And then in the fourth presidential debate, she said it again. So, like I said, she's been kind of really walking that fine line and trying to speak to all these sides of a very fractured Republican party.
KEILAR: She, of course, was governor when the Confederate, her battle flag was taken down from state grounds there. And, you know, even after her initial resistance, right, but in the wake of the shooting, and she's had a history of the way she talks about race. So, she's also had a lot of practice, right? How does this kind of compare to historically how she's talked about this kind of thing?
ULLOA: Yeah, so I've actually been touching, trying to touch base with some of the state lawmakers I've spoken to before from South Carolina. And, you know, one state lawmaker I spoke with a while back said, you know, Nikki Haley and the flag, there's a million ways to read that. There's people who say, you know, she had a lot of courage in stepping up and providing cover to members of her party and voting for the legislation that took the flag down. But there's others who say, well, actually, she hopped on efforts that were already well underway and at a time when it was a popular decision to stand for the removal of the flag.
[14:05:09]
I've also heard from state lawmakers today say, you know, her remarks at Wednesday's town hall were very familiar to me as someone who watched her campaign in 2010 when she met with Confederate Heritage Group leaders who are a major force in the state. And she portrayed the flag not as something that's racist, but as a matter of tradition and heritage.
SANCHEZ: It really struck me that part of her initial defense was that this wasn't just like an average New Hampshire voter, that this was a plant brought in by President Biden and Democrats to try to trip her up. Did that kind of defense surprise you?
ULLOA: You know, that surprise that did not surprise that defense did not surprise me. And to be fair, you know, I've been at her town halls. I have seen I've heard questions that have seemed suspect. But as others have pointed out, this wasn't a gotcha question. It still comes down to what was your answer. And so and again, it's that that calibration that she's been trying to do on the trail. We should be clear.
KEILAR: There's a practice that happens, which is in not saying anything about this particular. Moment. But candidates know that they will at some point be asked questions by someone who isn't just considering maybe voting for them or not. Right. So, they this is part of the preparation because it also in a way is something they would have to contend with in a general election.
ULLOA: Right. Exactly. Exactly. And you're already seeing her rivals kind of pounce on this moment. You're seeing an email from the Trump campaign saying she's not ready for for primetime. DeSantis and his allies, of course, have been. They're saying, you know, this is a candidate who's who hasn't seen this kind of scrutiny before. And of course, she's defending herself, saying it is because I've climbed and have had this steady climb that I am getting attacked this way.
KEILAR: Yeah. Not a hard question, but very interesting to see how this is all developed here. Jazmine Ulloa, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.
ULLOA: Thank you.
KEILAR: Colorado Republicans are getting into the fight to keep Donald Trump in the 2024 race. The state party filing the first appeal to the stunning Colorado Supreme Court decision that bans Trump from the state ballot next year. The Colorado justice is invoking the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that no insurrectionists, quote, shall hold any office.
SANCHEZ: And a key finding that they established is that Trump, quote, engaged in insurrection. The Colorado GOP is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. Let's get the latest from CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz. So, Kately, give us the basis for this appeal. What is being said by Colorado's Republican Party?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, there are a lot of questions on the table before the Supreme Court at this time. Colorado being the only state so far that has said in their system through their highest court, the Colorado Supreme Court, that Trump should not be on the primary ballot because he's an insurrectionist and because they have the ability to remove him, that he is not eligible for that ballot.
And so, the Colorado GOP, when they filed with the Supreme Court yesterday, they essentially were saying this isn't fair to voters. This is a violation of the first amendment. What they wrote is, 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. With the number of challenges to President Trump's candidacy now pending in other states, there is a real risk the Colorado Supreme Court majority's flawed and unprecedented analysis will be borrowed and the resulting grave legal error repeated.
So that's what the Colorado GOP went to the Supreme Court with. They're also asking the Supreme Court to move fast because they say it's going to be chaos if the Supreme Court doesn't figure this out because all of the states are doing something different. They want a resolution at the Supreme Court by Super Tuesday. That's when Colorado votes. But the petitioners in this case, the people who want Trump off the ballot, they, too, chimed in with the Supreme Court today and said they want a resolution in six weeks because that's when most voters are going to have ballots mailed to them. So, if Trump's not going to be on it, they want that to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
And at this point in time, he's going to be on the ballot because this is in the hands of the Supreme Court until it's resolved. But a lot is up in the air waiting to see what the Supreme Court does. And also, we haven't heard from Trump's team on this. And nobody has raised these arguments to ask the Supreme Court to look at whether Donald Trump is indeed an insurrectionist under this clause of the Constitution.
SANCHEZ: Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much for the update. Let's discuss now with Dave Williams. He's the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. Dave. Thank you so much for being with us today. I'm wondering what kind of communication the state party has had with Donald Trump or his legal team before you made this appeal. Did you get any word from them about when they might directly file their appeal?
[14:10:19]
DAVE WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN COLORADO REPUBLICAN PARTY: Well, certainly our legal teams have been working in concert together. We don't know the exact time frame of when the Trump campaign will file their appeal, but we do understand that it's going to be soon and certainly well before the January 4th deadline the Colorado Supreme Court imposed.
KEILAR: Do you think the court jumped the gun here in that, you know, Donald Trump obviously facing indictments, state and federal, for election subversion, that they should have waited to see the outcome of those cases?
WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not entirely sure what their mindset was. I do think that at the very least you had three Supreme Court justices in the Colorado level that felt that this was a violation of due process. Donald Trump has neither been charged nor convicted of insurrection, and Jack Smith had the opportunity to bring those charges, but he chose not to. So, in light of that, using it as a reason to dismiss Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot was certainly premature and in this case shocking and unprecedented and not warranted.
SANCHEZ: It seems like we're getting a bit of a preview of the legal argument that you're anticipating you'll make before the Supreme Court. Which do you think is the strongest that you'll present before the justices?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think all three arguments that were, putting forward, are equally strong, but I think our strongest is the fact that it's up to a political party to decide who we want to nominate and put forward to the voters. And more importantly, it's up to the voters to decide on this issue, especially when there is no charge or conviction, especially when the 14th Amendment, Section 3, is not a self-executing provision. Congress has given no authorization or mechanism for that, and in light of those reasons, it's best left to the voters for them to decide.
KEILAR: There are, -- and look, people are split in legal circles and political circles on this argument, but I'm sure you've heard a number of people say that this idea, -- and I know you disagree certainly on the issue of whether he is included as an officer under this part of the 14th Amendment, but they believe that it is as clear the 14th Amendment is about that, is about, say, the age requirement, 35, for being President of the United States. What do you say to that, that it is as clear about insurrectionists being president, running for president, as it is about the age requirement in the Constitution?
WILLIAMS: I think that's a conflation of the issue. Yeah, there are qualifications in our Constitution, such as age and birthright citizenship and all that, but the fact remains that those qualifications are distinct and different from the disqualifications mechanism that was laid out in the 14th Amendment, and the Constitution also further clarifies that the mechanism by which someone can be disqualified under that provision is wrested with the Congress. Congress has not provided for that mechanism. The closest thing they have given is what Jack Smith could have done. He could have charged Donald Trump with insurrection.
KEILAR: Well, it says Congress can waive it. I mean, it says Congress can overturn it, I think, is what it, actually. Not for the enforcement of it. Right?
WILLIAMS: Right. Well, again, I I'll let the lawyers to duke it out. But from our perspective, no, this is not a self-executing clause that Congress has to provide a mechanism. Federal prosecutors have to be involved in this disqualification process. And absent that, it's best left to the voters to decide. Dave, I'm wondering, aside from the legality of having Donald Trump on the ballot or not, if he's ultimately the best choice for Republicans. He did lose Colorado in the last election by more than a dozen points to Joe Biden. Do you not see a better option on the table given that he has so many legal issues?
WILLIAMS: Well, I mean, he's the leading Republican contender and he's certainly leading Joe Biden in a number of polls. So ultimately, I think it's up to the voters. We have a different set of events happening right now. Four years ago, he didn't win Colorado, but that's certainly not the case now. I think he's in a much better position given the bad economy. And some of the other challenges that Joe Biden has foisted on the American public. Again, this is not a decision that should be made by unelected, unappointed judges from the opposition party. This should be dealt with by the voters.
KEILAR: Finally, before we let you go, we have to ask you about Lauren Boebert making this announcement that she is not going to seek re- election in her district, that she's going to seek it in a district on the other side of the state, the 4th District. Are Coloradans cool with that kind of thing? Someone who isn't from their district representing them?
[14:15:19]
WILLIAMS: You know, from a party perspective, we certainly don't think it was the best move. We felt that she was best suited for Congressional District 3 and that she was in the best position to win re-election and retain that for Republicans. Time will tell whether or not we're right, but I think she's got a serious challenge on her hands trying to explain to the voters of CD4 why she felt it was necessary to leave CD3 and have a better chance at keeping her seat in Congress. It's kind of a problematic proposition, but it's, again, it's something for the voters to decide.
KEILAR: All right, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dave Williams, we appreciate you being with us. Thank you.
WILLIAMS: Thank you.
KEILAR: The Pentagon planning to send another quarter billion dollars in aid to Ukraine, but saying it can't provide more help without Congress. As Russia's war nears its third year.
SANCHEZ: And it was once a horrific crime scene, but now the off- campus home where four Idaho college students were murdered is gone. Why some of the victims' families did not want it torn down. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:20:09]
SANCHEZ: The rental home where four University of Idaho students were stabbed to death late last year has finally been torn down. KEILAR: This is demolition on the Moscow, Idaho home that began early this morning, and it's ahead of schedule. Some of the victims' families, they're not happy about this. They wanted the property preserved for evidence for the accused killer's upcoming trial, a date for which still has not been set. CNN's Veronica Miracle is outside of the spot where that house used to stand. Veronica, it appears that all traces of the home are completely gone. Why did the university not honor the family's wishes here?
VERONICA MIRACLE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Boris and Brianna, it's certainly a complicated issue. And as you can see behind us there, they don't even have -- the foundation is even completely gone. It is really now just a dirt lot. And there were a couple of concerns that the university had. The first being that this home, when it was still standing, was visible from campus. And so students, staff members, they would have to walk by it, see it. So, it was very difficult for the healing process.
The second concern was security issues. They had to have security here 24-7. And there were issues of people trying to potentially break in. And they just didn't want to have any more risk here. And so that's why they wanted to get the house demolished as quickly as possible. But as you mentioned, two of the victims' families, they were not happy about this. As late as last night, they wrote a letter, an email rather, to the University of Idaho and to the prosecutor's office announcing that they just did not want this to happen for several reasons.
They listed eight points. But some of those points were regarding the evidence that could be used in trial, like vantage points of the roommates inside the house. They also expressed issues about evidence outside of the perimeter of the home or entry and exit points. And here's what the university have to say about that?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JODI WALKER, EXEC DIR. OF COMMUNICATIONS UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO: So, we certainly appreciate their emotional ties to the house. And as we've heard from the prosecutor, who has told us that by Idaho code, the jury would probably not be allowed back into this house anyway because it was substantially altered from how it was when the original incident occurred. We do feel comfortable in taking it down, knowing that there's a lot of emotion attached to it and certainly appreciating that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MIRACLE: Obviously, a very difficult issue, Boris and Brianna. But as you can see, this is going to be done by later today. The house is now completely gone.
SANCHEZ: So, Veronica, what does the university plan to do with that land now?
MIRACLE: Yeah, they are going to make this an empty lot. They're going to put some grass down and they want to make it so that there's no reason for anybody to come here and trespass, visit the site. They don't want crime tourists coming by, which there have been many. As yesterday, we were around here and there were people who travelled hours just to come and take a look at the house. Before it was torn down. So, they don't want any of that. They're going to have a memorial garden on campus.
SANCHEZ: Veronica Miracle, live from Idaho. Thank you so much. Ukraine is still in a fight for its survival nearly two years after Russia's invasion. But it may have to soon fight without America's help in the months ahead. Plus this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I just walked up and I've seen the truck underneath the bridge. I thought it was kind of weird.
UNKNOWN: Yeah, that's definitely--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Still to come. Badly injured, stranded alone for nearly a week with little hope of being found. The chance encounter that saved a driver's life when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:25:19]
KEILAR: A quarter of a billion dollars in U.S. military service. Military assistance will soon be heading to Ukraine. The $250 million package includes much-needed ammunition for air defense systems as well as artillery rounds.
SANCHEZ: Yeah, but it's likely the last piece of funding Ukraine is going to see from Washington as Congress remains in a stalemate over funding the warring nation. Let's discuss with retired Army Major Mike Lyons. Major, thank you so much for being with us. How far do you think this $250 million is going to go in helping Ukraine's army? How long do you think this will help them keep up defenses?
MAJOR MIKE LYONS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Boris, it's not going to go very far, maybe three to six months. It's small arms, tactical weapon systems, some HIMARS, artillery rounds, what they need. It's going to maybe allow them to keep the status quo, but does not provide any real long-term assistance for them. They'll be back three to six months looking for a similar type of weapon systems that they could get from the United States and Europe, NATO allies as well. It's something that the Biden administration had to do. That's how much Ukraine does need to support. But I'm afraid it's not going to change the needle. It's not going to change the equation with regard to how Ukraine is propagating the war right now.
KEILAR: Take us through what's missing and what that means in terms of the capabilities they don't have.
LYONS: Well, what's missing are any offensive weapons. If Ukraine is to change the game here, they have to show that they could go on the offense. Unfortunately, this past year, their counteroffensive has not worked.
