Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Soon: House Votes On Whether To Hold Attorney General In Contempt; Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) Discusses About Republicans' Push To Obtain Joe Biden's Interview Audio; Ceasefire Talks In Turmoil As Hamas Responds To Proposal; Trump-Backed Candidates Sweep Critical GOP Primaries; Supreme Court Ruling Could Help A Hunter Biden Appeal. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired June 12, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:35]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: A months long dispute between House Republicans and Attorney General Merrick Garland now spilling onto the House floor, where lawmakers are expected to vote soon on whether to hold Garland in contempt of Congress. But does the GOP have the votes they need to get this done? We're live from Capitol Hill.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And Secretary of State Antony Blinken says he is frustrated after Hamas suggested several changes to a proposed ceasefire deal in Gaza. How negotiators are now trying to look ahead to what happens after the fighting stops.

And a somber ceremony, the children who survived the Sandy Hook school shooting are now graduating from high school. How they're reflecting on 12 years since that terrible day.

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

Attorney General Merrick Garland has dedicated his career to following the law. And now he could soon be sanctioned on Capitol Hill for breaking the rules. This afternoon, the House is expected to vote on whether to hold him in contempt of Congress for not fully abiding by a subpoena. Garland has refused to turn over audio from President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, who in February chose not to charge the President over wrongfully possessing classified documents.

Garland has said that he won't be intimidated and that releasing the audio could discourage future witnesses from being recorded. CNN Capitol Hill reporter Melanie Zanona is with us now on this.

Mel, it made it out of the rules committee. Is the full House though going to pass this vote to hold the AG in contempt?

MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Yes, well, House Republican leaders are confident that they're going to have the votes ultimately to get this over the finish line here in the next hour or so. And this is despite the fact that, as me and my colleague Annie Grayer reported, several moderate Republicans did privately voice some concern about having to take this consequential step.

But members like Don Bacon, who represents a swing district, told me that even though he doesn't like having to take this vote, ultimately he is going to vote yes. And just as a reminder, this all stems from the DOJ's refusal to hand over those audio tapes from the Special Counsel's interview with President Joe Biden over the special classified documents case.

Now, the DOJ did hand over transcripts of that interview, but Republicans say that is not enough. It's not the same thing. They want to be able to hear those audio tapes, to check it with the transcript and make sure it's correct. Just turn to Congressman Andy Biggs, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, explain it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): Because the transcripts do not reflect important verbal context such as tone or tenor or non-verbal context such as pauses or pace of delivery, all of which went into the decision by Mr. Hur not to prosecute a crime that he said was committed. That prosecutorial discretion is under review by our committee legitimately and constitutionally. We have the right to that audio recording.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZANONA: Now, we should point out that Biden did assert executive privilege over those audio tapes. And nonetheless, Republicans are pushing ahead with this vote. And if it passes, as we expect it to do, then it heads over to the Department of Justice. But they are under no obligation to pick this one up. Brianna.

KEILAR: Yes, very good point there. Mel, thank you for that report. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with Republican congressman, Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin.

Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. This vote is expected to happen within the hour. How confident are you that it's going to pass?

REP. TOM TIFFANY (R-WI): Yes, I believe it will pass. I think that's why leadership has brought it to a vote today and I expect it to pass.

SANCHEZ: If it does, what would the next step be? As our correspondent on Capitol Hill just pointed out, the Justice Department doesn't really have to do anything with this contempt referral.

TIFFANY: Well, the Justice Department should act on it and provide those audio tapes that we're requesting. In order to get a full record of what happened with Special Counsel Hur in his interviews, we should be able to see the full documentation, not simply a transcript, but be able to hear the audio also. [15:05:04]

Because then we will get the full information and the full impact of what President Biden testified to with Special Counsel Hur.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, do you have evidence that the transcript is inaccurate or in any way has discrepancies?

TIFFANY: I think the big concern there, Boris, is that since the first of the year, there's been 150 different times that the White House has altered transcripts of things that President Biden has said. We want to make sure it's there. And by the way, President Biden himself said that this was mischaracterized. So if it was, let's hear the audio tape and let's just give full transparency to the American people.

SANCHEZ: I think he was arguing that Hur tried to make it seem like he wasn't fully there as he was explaining certain things. He argued that arguments about his memory were taken out of context.

With that being said, you pointed out the transcripts from the White House. This is the Department of Justice. This isn't the White House. And Robert Hur could have come out and said that there were issues with the transcript. He hasn't yet.

TIFFANY: This just goes back to full transparency for the American people. I mean, you actually made the case in the comments there that President Biden said he was mischaracterized with this. You have this volleying going back and forth, whether it was accurate. Prove the accuracy with the audio tapes.

And by the way, we just passed a bill called the FAIR Act through the Judiciary Committee in the last two months, which does that with the Department of Justice that requires audio recordings whenever witnesses, they are - their testimony is taken by the Department of Justice.

Every Democrat in judiciary voted for this. It is - for the FAIR Act, this is very similar. Let's just provide full information to the American people.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, what about the argument that turning over audio of the President's interview could discourage future witnesses? This is something that Merrick Garland has put forward.

TIFFANY: I think he's just obfuscating at that point and trying to figure out a way not to do this. I mean, if you have nothing to fear, then just put the audio tapes out there. I mean, let's have full transparency. That's what it all goes back to, so we have a full record.

And, I mean, there's an inquiry that's going on here at this point. We want the fullest, most complete information. And we accomplish that by having the audio recordings, not just a transcript.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, you have argued that there should be further accountability of not only the President, but his family. This is what you tweeted out after Hunter Biden was convicted just yesterday. You write, quote, "This is just the beginning of holding the Biden Crime family accountable. Now let's do Joe Biden."

Congressman, what specific charges would you like brought against the President?

TIFFANY: This is why we continue to seek the information that we've steadily, methodically put together in the last year and a half with the Oversight Committee. And when you look at it, we still have the record out there of 20 shell companies, 20 phone calls that Joe Biden made to his son and over $20 million that flowed through those shell companies.

We want to get all that information before the American people, because what happened yesterday in regards to Hunter Biden and the gun crime that he was convicted of, that is just the beginning of making sure that they're held fully accountable. And that actually was the least of the crimes that may have happened here. When you look at all this money that's flowed in from foreign countries, including our adversaries like China, Russia.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, there are some details there that that I don't think reflect the record of what the Oversight Committee has actually put out. In fact, it wasn't $20 million. It was $15 million that went to Biden family associates. And there's no evidence in any of the documents put out by the Oversight Committee that a single dollar went to President Biden when he was in office. Therefore, there's no evidence that he did anything illegal, that he abused his power or that he abused his power in office to help his family members or friends get wealthy.

TIFFANY: Yes. Well, Joe Biden has a check in the amount of $40,000 that has - his name on it. You got another $200,000 check that came from Jim and Sarah Biden to him. I mean, there's over $20 million ...

SANCHEZ: Sir, I have that check here. Sir, I actually have that here. That was a check from 2018 when he was not vice president and it actually says that this was a reimbursal. This was a loan repayment from his brother.

TIFFANY: So you can make the case that the Bidens did not do this while Joe Biden was vice president. But I think it's contrary to the record.

[15:10:00]

And it's contrary to what happened when Joe Biden was vice president and he went and called off the prosecutor in Ukraine in regards to the Burisma investigation.

SANCHEZ: Well, sir, that has been that has been debunked. That prosecutor was unanimously disliked by both Republicans and Democrats. And even EU officials said that he was corrupt and they wanted him out. Nevertheless, Congressman, we do have to leave the conversation there. We do appreciate you coming on. We hope you'll come again soon.

TIFFANY: Good to join you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Take care. Brianna?

KEILAR: New developments in the war in Gaza, the fate of the latest ceasefire and hostage deal now hanging in the balance. Today, Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling on Hamas to accept the U.S.- backed proposal. But he says the terrorist group keeps changing its demands.

Blinken says what happens next is up to Hamas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: If one side continues to change its demands, including making demands and insisting on changes for things that it already accepted, you have to question whether they're proceeding in good faith or not. The longer this goes on, the more people will suffer. And it's time for the haggling to stop and a ceasefire to start. It's as simple as that.

KEILAR: CNN's Paula Hancocks is joining us now live from Jerusalem.

And Paula, frustration there from the Secretary of State during this long and difficult process. Is there any hope that an agreement can be reached?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, there's certainly continuing attempts to make sure that an agreement can be reached. I mean, we've heard optimistic words from some of those mediators, but also very realistic words. We've heard Secretary Blinken, for example, saying that he does believe that the gaps are bridgeable, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those gaps will be bridged, being very clear that it does depend on certain people saying yes to this U.S.- backed proposal.

So at this point, we know that it took Hamas 11 days to come back with an official response after the U.S. president, Joe Biden, publicly endorsed this proposal that was on the table. So certainly there is concern that that it could take even longer to get another response, even when a response is given back to Hamas.

They have said that they want certain amendments. For example, they want a specific timeline when it comes to a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. And this is something that we know the Israelis - certainly the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has not been willing to put an exact timeline on the phase one of this three-phase deal is a six week ceasefire, and that is meant to evolve into a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

But certainly from the Israeli standpoint, they prefer that that second part to be more vague. They don't want it to be an exact timeline. Hamas also saying that they want the complete withdrawal of troops from Gaza. But in phase one of this proposal, it is only meant to see the Israeli troops come back out of the populated areas in Gaza. So gaps still remain even after all these months of negotiations going back and forth, so I think you really do hear the frustration coming out from the secretary of state at this point. He is pointing out that he believes that Hamas is now asking for things that previously they had already agreed to, Brianna?

KEILAR: And a U.N. inquiry, Paula, into the first few months of the war in Gaza has concluded that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes as well as grave violations of international law. What can you tell us about this report?

HANCOCKS: So this is a report that the U.N. has been preparing for some months now, a 200-page report. It looks at the timeline from October 7th until the end of 2023. And what it says when it comes to Hamas is that they believe Hamas intentionally attacked civilians. They accused them of murder, torture, taking hostages, including children. And when it comes to the Israeli side, this report alleges that that Israel committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, specifying about starvation, arbitrary detention and killing and maiming 10s of thousands of children.

Now, Israel has rejected this out of hand, saying that it's trying to create a false equivalency between Israel, the state of Israel and Hamas, also pointing out that it proves systematic anti-Israel discrimination when it comes to this particular group.

[15:15:00]

So it's been rejected out of hand by the United Nations, we - excuse me, by Israel. We have asked Hamas or Hamas has been approached about a response. But at this point it's not responding to this kind of report. But it is something that Israel is angered by and has said that it does try to create that false equivalency between Israel and Hamas, which simply does not exist. Brianna?

KEILAR: All right. Paula Hancocks, we appreciate the report.

And ahead, the value of former President Trump's support as Tuesday's primary races in several states bring the November elections into sharper focus.

Plus, why an expected Supreme Court ruling could potentially help Hunter Biden with his expected appeal.

And survivors of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting are now graduating from high school, how they're honoring the classmates they lost.

We have those stories and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:22]

Some bragging rights today for former President Trump, the Republican candidates who got his endorsement were winners in multiple state primaries, and here they are. All six were endorsed by Trump and it paid off for them. They all took home victories in their races yesterday. We have CNN Senior Political Analyst, Mark Preston, here with us.

All right, Mark. And look, every race is different. What's your takeaway with these?

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, look, six for six, two hat tricks if you're playing hockey. I mean, good night for Donald Trump. But the fact is he is the Republican nominee. One race, certainly - well, certainly a couple of races, but let's talk about South Carolina where Nancy Mace, you know, she is somebody who was on the wrong side of Donald Trump, got on the right side of Donald Trump. But she got on the wrong side of Kevin McCarthy. Kevin McCarthy, the former House Speaker, spent money, certainly had money directed towards that to try to have her defeated, yet she won. So Kevin McCarthy lost that battle.

KEILAR: Yes, he was not influential. We see that kind of continuing a little bit.

Key victory for Republicans in Ohio's special election. It actually means that Republicans have expanded their narrow majority in the House. Still narrow, just to be clear. But it's important to look at what the victory was. It was a nine-point victory. And Trump actually won this district by 40 points. So how are you reading this?

PRESTON: Well, a couple of things. One is this is an incident where every vote counts, specifically now where we see the divisions in Congress, so dividing not only the House, but the U.S. Senate.

Look, if you're Republicans, you're going to have some concern, obviously, because that is - there's an incredible drop off. However, let's remember, this was a special election. You're not going to see the same turnout you are in a special election as you are in a general election. We'll see in November.

I bet you Democrats are going to be looking at this as well, Brianna, to see if any of these moments in Ohio helped, you know, cut into that lead that Trump had in a very conservative district.

KEILAR: I always think it's a tough race when both contestants have the same name, Michael and Michael, right?

PRESTON: Right.

KEILAR: That can be difficult here, okay. Looking at North Dakota ...

PRESTON: Right.

KEILAR: ... what are Democrats doing to fortify their position in the state?

PRESTON: Well, a couple of things. One is, you know - let's talk about Nevada and what they're doing in Nevada to fortify the state.

KEILAR: Okay.

PRESTON: Right? Because what they're doing there is trying to put as much money as they can to Jacky Rosen. In fact, before I came on set today, Gavin Newsom has a fundraising email out for Jacky - for Jacky Rosen, trying to make sure that she has enough money to fight back this challenger, this Republican challenger who was endorsed by Donald Trump at the last minute. This gentleman is a decorated war hero. So they really have to battle there in Nevada. That is a seat that could potentially decide what happens to control of the United States Senate.

KEILAR: Yes, that's a big one. Mark Preston, thank you so much. We do appreciate it.

PRESTON: Thanks, Brianna.

KEILAR: Boris?

SANCHEZ: Now, to Hunter Biden's historic conviction on three felony gun charges, the President's son could face up to 25 years in prison and a seven hundred and fifty thousand dollar fine. But it's possible that the Supreme Court could help him appeal his conviction. CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst, Joan Biskupic, joins us now with the details.

So, Joan, help us understand how this could work.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure. Good to see you, Boris. And the timing is really interesting and very coincidental. Hunter Biden's verdict just came yesterday and this Supreme Court ordeal has been building for the past two years.

And let me just bring you back to 2022, when it all started, when the Supreme Court really expanded Second Amendment gun rights and said that a federal gun regulation or state regulation could be upheld only if it's in keeping with the historical tradition of firearms regulation. If there's some sort of historical analog comparison dating back centuries to whatever the modern regulation is. Now, that's a really tough standard for governments to meet as their gun regulations are being challenged and it's also a very confusing standard.

So the Supreme Court got lots of appeals up to it. And it's now resolving a case that involves a federal prohibition on firearm possession for anyone who would have been subject to a domestic violence restraining order. Now, that's not an issue in the Hunter Biden case, but it's another provision of federal firearms that prohibits gun possession if someone is an unlawful drug user or addict.

And the test for historical analog comes into play in both situations. The federal government is urging the Supreme Court to rule. And this could happen as soon as tomorrow. And I'll explain a little bit of that - the timing in a second, Boris.

[15:25:03] But the federal government is urging the Supreme Court to rule that when lower court judges and when the Supreme Court itself looks at a modern gun prohibition and is trying to compare it to some sort of historical tradition to look more broadly, to look at, you know, is this something that is aimed at people who would be dangerous to society. It doesn't have to be a complete match to something that might have existed back in the late 1700s, early 1800s.

So this is a really important test that the justices are going to weigh in on. And however they decide the case involving this individual who was convicted because of a restraining order for domestic violence, it could shed light on all sorts of other gun prohibitions, including in Hunter Biden's case, somebody who would fall under the prohibition on gun possession if he or she had been a drug user, a drug addict.

Now, for timing, Boris, you know exactly where we are right now. We're in June when the justices biggest cases are going to come down and we're going to see another set tomorrow on Thursday. And that case of United States versus Rahimi, that's the one that could clarify the 2022 standard that could come as soon as tomorrow or it could come as late as the end of the month.

But whenever it does come, I am certain that Hunter Biden's lawyers and lawyers for plenty of other defendants involved in gun related offenses will be scouring the opinion to see will it help them on appeals, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, it is decision season. And this is one of many we are anticipating.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Joan Biskupic, thank you so much.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: So it's been nearly 12 years since a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, took the lives of 20 students. Now, the survivors of that horrific day want to make sure the memories of those lost live on through them as they graduate high school.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)