Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.S. Airdrops Aid in Gaza; Supreme Court Keeps Trump on Ballot. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 04, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Which is, when he does that, they then deal with death threats.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Yes.

BARRON-LOPEZ: And they also are doxxed, and it's a lot of impact on those prosecutors and the judges themselves.

BASH: Yes, very, very important points, all of them. Thank you so much for being here to walk us through it, give us your reporting and all of the context that you have based on your reporting.

Thank you so much for joining INSIDE POLITICS.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A consequential win, the former president just touting the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling saying that states cannot kick him off the 2024 primary ballot over the Capitol riot, how the justices explained their decision and how it might impact states heading into Super Tuesday.

Plus, Vice President Kamala Harris turning up the pressure on Israel, calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, new talks happening today at the White House, as the U.S. begins airdropping food into the enclave.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And it is one of aviation's biggest mysteries. Now, nearly 10 years after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared, there's a renewed push to find the missing plane. Why the Malaysian government says it may reopen the case.

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

SANCHEZ: Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon on CNN NEWS CENTRAL. I'm Boris Sanchez alongside Brianna Keilar in Washington, D.C.

The big headline this afternoon, Donald Trump is not disqualified, the Supreme Court ruling unanimously to keep Trump on the Colorado primary ballot, putting to rest a monthslong national debate about the 14th Amendment and its insurrectionist ban. In a 9-0 decision, the justices ruled that states could not unilaterally remove Trump or any presidential candidate from the ballot.

KEILAR: Yes, it's the Supreme Court's biggest foray into presidential politics since the 2000 Bush-Gore dispute.

And moments ago, the former president took a victory lap just one day before Super Tuesday, when 16 primaries will take place, including Colorado's, notably.

We have CNN anchor and chief legal analyst Laura Coates at the Supreme Court for us. We have CNN senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic in Washington.

Laura, take us through this decision.

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It's a very consequential one, of course, Brianna and Boris. Why? Because we have been waiting for this for over a month now, and arguably for many months, some would say even since January 6, when even the impeachment hearing discussions were about whether or not the insurrectionist ban would actually apply to Donald Trump.

What we see now, the Colorado Supreme Court said, yes, it should, and he ought to be as qualified. But when it came down to this Supreme Court behind me, they said, no, a state is not responsible or should not be in a position to disqualify a president of the United States. They can focus on a state office, for example, but not a federal office.

Now, this is a 9-0 decision, but it does have some inconsistency in the sense of a concurring opinion. At least three justices sided together in a concurrence, and another, Amy Coney Barrett, to suggest that, no, no, we may all have the same conclusion here that has reached, saying that he cannot be as qualified, but as how far we need to go, that's a real issue here.

Now, the how much further, this is the point of contention. The three so-called liberal justices saying, look, we can all agree there's a patchwork issue, the patchwork issue happening here, meaning that every single person, every different state cannot have their own individual state laws of how one reaches the conclusion here, and therefore it would call chaos into effect.

But they said you should stop there, not go far and say that Congress should actually do anything more to change the way they operate for Section 3.

SANCHEZ: Laura, given the political environment that we're in -- and, obviously, the Supreme Court is looking at unfavorability ratings that are historically low -- how significant is it that the court, on the overarching issue, came to a unanimous decision?

COATES: Well, they obviously wanted to have a kind of an off-ramp. They don't want to wade into politics. Of course, you talk about Bush v. Gore. They know about how, for anyone who's older to remember what a hanging

chad is, they know why they don't want to weigh into these issues. But this is a matter of when they're almost saying we'd like to not wade in by having the voters actually decide the issue, keeping him on the ballot and others.

They actually don't talk about just this case. They talk about more broadly what role a state ought to have versus Congress. But they're not immune to the discussions. They know that tomorrow is Super Tuesday. Many of them may themselves have remembered voting.

You have at least one, Neil Gorsuch, who's from Colorado, remembers quite well that the ballot is actually tomorrow and having Bush -- I mean, -- excuse me -- having Trump on that ballot. You have others who were part of the Bush v. Gore litigation and also remember what it's like to have them weighing into political matters.

[13:05:02]

So, they didn't want to be seen as being political, but good luck on that one. You have got the ethical issues. You have got the issues of conflicts of interest. And now you have the idea of the day before a very consequential election that they decided to weigh in this way.

There's still more ahead, though, related to Donald Trump.

KEILAR: Yes, there's just no way around it when it comes to getting into the fray of politics here.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

KEILAR: Joan, something that was interesting here was that there were two concurring opinions. You had everyone agreeing unanimously on the ruling, but they didn't agree completely on the, I guess, broadness of the ruling.

So what does that split tell you? And it's not just four, four justices. You actually had three having a concurring opinion, one having a concurring opinion, Justice Barrett.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's right. It does undercut the idea that this is a court that unanimously can understand what was at issue here.

I don't want to take away from the 9-0 ruling that Donald Trump has to remain on the ballot, but there's a very fundamental difference on how far the court should have even gone in terms of how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would be enforced. That's the provision that was at issues here, the anti-insurrectionist provision.

And what the majority said was that only Congress through specific legislation can enforce that. And the justices who concurred, at least the three liberals, said, what about if there was a prosecution of someone who had been in their words an oath-breaking insurrectionist?

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the three liberals that it shouldn't just be specific congressional legislation that should enforce this anti-insurrectionist ban, but she was very tempered in her approach, and she took a shot at those liberals who in writing up their concurring opinion really tried to say, you, majority, have gone too far.

They invoked the dissenting opinion from Bush v. Gore, and as if to say you are you're overstepping here in terms of your rationale.

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sided with the three liberals in terms of trying to chastise the majority for going too far, said: "In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up."

But the three liberals, Democratic appointees, were not going to keep that temperature down, especially in a case like this that involves Donald Trump.

SANCHEZ: Yes, interesting language there from Amy Coney Barrett.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Joan Biskupic, Laura Coates, thank you both so much.

Let's get some reaction from Trump world. We heard the former president speaking just moments ago.

CNN's Kristen Holmes has been tracking the latest from West Palm Beach, Florida.

Kristen, Trump took a victory lap here, saying that he respects the Supreme Court. I'm wondering how this is being received by the Trump campaign and how they think the court might rule on the question of immunity.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, of course, Donald Trump respects the Supreme Court when he wins in a 9-0 vote, which is essentially what he said.

He went on a radio show, which we didn't play, where he said he was honored to be a 9-0 vote, that it was a big win for America. You know, we will see what happens if he doesn't win in the Supreme Court. Now, the thing to point out here as we talk to the campaign on that claim of immunity, Donald Trump himself is obsessed with this idea.

He has become incredibly fixated on it. He talks about it all the time, as we have played some of his clips on air. He even pivoted almost immediately after this win to start talking about that immunity claim. Now, when I talk to various advisers and allies, they don't believe that that is as strong of an argument as this was.

This ballot case, they really went into this confident that they were going to win. They believe that they had a solid background legal standing in this argument. It's a little bit squishier when you talk to them about this immunity claim.

Now, the one thing that they are all very happy about is the fact that the Supreme Court actually agreed to take this up, because they believe that this will likely push that trial beyond the November election. Now, of course, we haven't confirmed that. We are just talking about what the Trump team themselves believe.

But if you talk to Supreme Court reporters and scholars, they believe that we wouldn't get a decision in this until June on the immunity claim. And that would likely continue to delay, delay, delay that trial, which has been the big effort of Donald Trump and his legal team, to try and get this pushed beyond the November election, so that Donald Trump can, if this happens, win the presidency and then essentially dismiss all of these cases.

Obviously, there is another outcome there where he doesn't win. But that is what they have been focused on, is this delay tactic. And that is where they are very confident that their avenues that they have exhausted have really been working in their favor.

[13:10:07]

KEILAR: All right, Kristen Holmes, thank you for that perspective.

And we're joined now by an attorney on the team that brought this lawsuit to remove Trump from the ballot, the primary ballot there in Colorado. Mario Nicolais is with us now.

Mario, what's your reaction to the ruling?

MARIO NICOLAIS, CHALLENGED TRUMP'S BALLOT ELIGIBILITY IN COLORADO: Well, first, obviously, we're disappointed that we didn't win everything.

But I want to be clear this in no way exonerates former President Trump from being an oath-breaking insurrectionist. The Supreme Court took great pains to avoid addressing that at all and simply kicked the can down the road. That's really what the Supreme Court says. Oh, well, this is still out there and this is still an issue and Congress should deal with it, is effectively what they said.

And I think that when you compare the fact that it took a month for the Supreme Court to issue a 13-page opinion, when we had a 100-page lower court opinion and a 103-page Colorado Supreme Court opinion that went into the evidence and analyzed it and found that he was an oath- breaking insurrectionist, that still stands.

All they did is, is say, well, courts and state courts don't have the jurisdiction to do that. They in no way said that he was exonerated from what he did on January 6.

KEILAR: There are -- and I know you have read them -- some very interesting concurring opinions that were written here, one by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the other by justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, all four saying, while they agree with the ruling, the other five justices decide more than the case requires them to decide. What did you think about that?

NICOLAIS: Yes, I think it's extremely interesting.

And that probably has to do also with why the opinion was so short and so brief. I think that they are concerned about where we go from here. And I will be blunt. I think that the decision was an act of cowardice in a lot of ways, in that they did not want to deal with the primary issue of whether there was an insurrection, whether Donald Trump engaged in it.

So, again, they kicked the can down the road. My concern is that act of cowardice today will lead to bloodshed in the future, that it will lead to violence in the future. And I think some of these justices wanted to at least give some sort of ability to stop that from happening by saying, hey, look, there are other avenues which this could go through, such as a conviction.

KEILAR: Is it clear to you how Congress would go about enforcing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment if it requires a vote of the full Congress, say, following an impeachment and conviction for insurrection or following a criminal conviction for insurrection?

NICOLAIS: I think it's not entirely clear.

And I think that was some of the debate that you're having between the justices who join the majority and those who concurred, but wrote separately, because I do not think it's clear. And, furthermore, I don't think it's clear that it requires impeachment and conviction by the Senate.

In fact, that's not even brought into here because he's a former president. There's no impeachment of him at this point. I think the concern is, well, what do we do? Is it something where Congress has to pass legislation now and we could then bring a case immediately, or is it something where, on January 6, 2025, they could actually proceed and say, hey, look, we're proceeding right now and saying he's not eligible to hold office?

I think those are some of the concerns that I have with the court choosing to kick the can down the road and kick it across the yard into Congress' yard, is now Congress is sitting on this live hand grenade that is likely to blow up some time between now and next January.

KEILAR: Well, Mario, it is so important to hear your perspective today. So thank you for being with us.

NICOLAIS: Thank you for your time and thank you for having me.

KEILAR: Mario Nicolais, we do appreciate it.

And ahead this hour on CNN NEWS CENTRAL: It's a sign of just how dire the situation is in the Gaza Strip. One of the main cemeteries there has reportedly run out of room to bury the dead, with new bodies piling up daily. Coming up, we will have the latest on cease-fire talks.

Plus, renewed hope for one of the world's most puzzling aviation mysteries -- what Malaysian officials now say about the disappearance of MH370.

And after voters passed a radical drug policy legalizing the use of cocaine, heroin and other hard drugs, Oregon lawmakers are hitting the brakes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:19:04]

KEILAR: U.S. airdrops into Gaza over the weekend providing a small amount of relief, as the desperate situation on the ground spirals toward a full-scale famine.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health says at least 15 children have now died of dehydration and malnutrition in Gaza. Doctors are warning that Israel's severe blockade on aid is leaving them without basic medical sanitation.

One of Gaza's main cemeteries now says it is at full capacity. It's unable to keep up with constant -- the constant stream of dead bodies. And, today, Vice President Kamala Harris is set to meet with Israeli War Cabinet member Benny Gantz here in Washington just the day after she said that Israel had no excuses for stopping critical aid.

Right now, officials from Egypt, Qatar, and the U.S. are meeting in Cairo. They're hoping to get cease-fire talks back on track.

We have CNN's Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv for us on all of this.

Israel not at those talks, Jeremy, so can the negotiators make progress on a deal?

[13:20:05]

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that is certainly the question, Brianna.

And we know that time is running out. We are less than a week away before the holy Muslim month of Ramadan begins. And Israeli officials have made clear in the past that that is the deadline for securing a deal here. If not, they vow to press ahead with a major military offensive in Rafah.

Now, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, chose not to send a delegation to those talks, we're told, because Israel is still waiting for two key things from Hamas. The first of those is a list of the hostages who would be released under an initial agreement. And they're also waiting for Hamas to respond to the latest framework in terms of the numbers of Palestinian prisoners who they would demand that Israel release in exchange for those Israeli hostages.

Now, a senior Hamas official told us yesterday that they view the sticking points as something else entirely. They view it as Israel not having yet agreed to a pathway to a permanent cease-fire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and that there are also major sticking points as it relates to allowing Palestinians who evacuated Northern Gaza to be able to return to their homes, but no question that Benny Gantz arriving in Washington amid all of this at a very, very key moment.

He is a member of the war cabinet. He's also, of course, a rival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's. And he's also been a key proponent in pushing for the importance of securing the release of the hostages, whereas the impression here is that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is more focused on destroying Hamas, putting that above the goal of releasing the hostages.

So, certainly, these meetings are happening at a critical time. The question is whether, when he returns to Israel, if he can influence the direction of those talks and whether or not there can actually be a hostage deal struck by the end of this week.

KEILAR: And, Jeremy, the U.N. aid agency in Gaza is now accusing Israel of coercing staffers into making false confessions about ties to Hamas. What are you learning about this?

All right, I think we're having some technical issues with Jeremy's IFB there.

Jeremy Diamond, thank you so much for that report for us from Tel Aviv -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, let's dig into the issue surrounding the situation in Gaza with CNN political and national security analyst David Sanger. He's also the White House and national security correspondent for "The New York Times."

David, thanks so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us.

Let's start with the meeting scheduled for today between the vice president and Benny Gantz, the Israeli war cabinet member. There is reporting that indicates that he's making this visit to D.C. against the wishes of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Put this meeting into context for us, especially given the tension between the White House, the Biden administration and the Israeli leadership right now.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It's a really fascinating issue, Boris, because Benny Gantz, who, of course, previously was the chief of the Israeli Defense Forces, the IDF, is a member of the war cabinet, opponent of Prime Minister Netanyahu, ran against him unsuccessfully.

He is showing up in part to make a case that I believe Netanyahu would not. And I think you heard a little bit of this from Jeremy, that we -- that his argument is that Israel first needs to secure the hostages and then can go about the slow process of trying to dismantle Hamas.

I think, because of his military background and a bit more of a pragmatic view in the minds of many in the Biden administration than Prime Minister Netanyahu has, I think he recognizes that you may take out the top leadership of Hamas, but Hamas is an idea about resistance to Israel, and they're never going to wipe out all of that.

So the question is, how do you do this with the least loss of innocent Palestinian life and with the maximum number of hostages released? The big question is, if they come to an agreement on this issue, can he sell it back home to the rest of the war cabinet?

SANCHEZ: Yes, undetermined question at this point.

David, regarding the ongoing talks in Egypt, Israel does not have a delegation there. The White House has said that they have basically accepted this six-week cease-fire proposal. Hamas does have a delegation in Cairo, but they have not yet responded to several Israeli demands.

What do you think needs to happen for there to be an agreement in place before Ramadan? That's less than a week away.

SANGER: Well, there's not much time.

And, of course, a week ago, you heard President Biden express optimism that there might be an agreement by today.

SANCHEZ: Right.

SANGER: Obviously, that's not happening.

[13:25:01]

These are sort of strange talks, because the group from Hamas that they're negotiating with is the political wing of Hamas. They then have to pass their messages through to the leadership, a very -- of the military side, a very slow process because they're all hiding away in the tunnels and trying to avoid being killed by the Israeli forces.

So -- and, of course, those are the people who put together the awful October 7 attack.

SANCHEZ: Right.

SANGER: So, the big question is, can they agree on this first step, six weeks of a pause in the fighting, which, interestingly, Vice President Harris referred to yesterday as a cease-fire, a word the administration has avoided until now...

SANCHEZ: Right.

SANGER: ... then a follow-on, perhaps another six weeks, and more of the hostages, hopefully all of them? But that seems unlikely.

And it looks like what Hamas wants is an agreement in which Israel is going to completely leave Gaza. That's not likely to happen, particularly if they fear that they could be attacked again.

SANCHEZ: Yes. SANGER: So, the question is, is Hamas ready to deal on the narrow

issue, or are they going to insist on these broader ones?

SANCHEZ: And, David, you brought up something I wanted to get your thoughts on, Vice President Harris making the most ardent public comments that we have seen from the administration thus far. This was over the weekend during a speech in Selma. She called the conditions in Gaza inhumane.

She urged Israel to get more aid in. Do you think it's significant that those lines are coming from Harris, rather than the president, President Biden himself?

SANGER: Yes, I do.

I mean, first of all, she went into a detailed account of the suffering of the Palestinians under this bombing that we have not heard from the president. The president has said that the Palestinians have suffered, but she described in many ways in vivid detail about.

Second, she used the cease-fire phrase, which has a sound of more permanence to it and something that the administration would not say even a few months ago. They wanted to use the phrase a pause in the fighting while there was an exchange of hostages.

The third thing I think that she did was criticize Israel with a severity that I don't think we have heard from the president. The president has referred to indiscriminate bombing. He's at other moments said that the Israelis were over the top.

SANCHEZ: Right.

SANGER: The vice president said they had engaged in unacceptable activity.

Clearly, they recognize that this is a huge issue for the Democratic base and that she's got a lot of credibility coming out on this topic.

SANCHEZ: David Sanger, always appreciate your perspective. Thanks so much.

SANGER: Great to be with you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: So, one of the headlines I did not expect to read today, nearly 10 years after an airliner and its more than 200 passengers and crew vanished, there could be a new search for MH370. We will explain why.

And crews battling Texas' largest wildfire in history now have a critical chance today to get flames under control. We're going to take you live to Texas for the very latest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)