Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) Discusses Harris Defending Policy Shifts, Trump's Position On Florida's 6-Week Abortion Ban, Trump Proposal On Paying For IVF; MD Supreme Court: Adnan Syed Murder Conviction Should Be Reinstated; NFL Embraced Soft-Shell Helmet Covers, But Are They Effective? Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired August 30, 2024 - 14:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:34:20]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Vice President Kamala Harris is pushing back on criticism over changes to her stance on certain policies. Here's some of her exclusive CNN interview with Dana Bash.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Let's be clear, my values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.

I believe it is important to build consensus and it is important to find a common place of understanding of where we can actually solve problems. And that --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:35:03]

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss this and more with Florida Republican Congressman Mike Waltz.

Congressman, great to see you as always.

REP. MIKE WALTZ (R-FL): Thank you.

SANCHEZ: You already had a conversation with my colleague, Laura Coates, last night saying that you were unsatisfied by the vice president's answers on immigration.

So I want to get your thoughts on her clarifying that she's no longer opposed to fracking. She pointed out that, years ago, she cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate on a bill that expanded fracking.

So is it accurate now to say that she's anti-fracking?

WALZ: Well, you know, first, Boris, we shouldn't be cheerleading one -- I think she spoke for a total of 16 minutes -- one interview in the last month since she was coronated as the nominee.

I mean, President Trump has given, I think, two to NBC just in last couple of weeks and is taking press questions literally every single day.

And Walz, for that matter, I mean, he was on, what, your channel and others all the time throwing out the weird monocle, doing interview after interview, and hasn't done a single on.

And certainly has a lot to answer for with his record on crime in Minnesota, on the amount of capital and business that's leaving Minnesota.

I mean, let's just not get carried away with cheerleading the one interview. They need to be doing them daily, at least weekly, between now and the election.

On fracking, what I find so fascinating is, right now, as we speak, she's the sitting vice president and we have an LNG ban in place right now for what's already out of the ground.

You just did a section -- you just did a section on Ukraine. Heck, I'm talking to European allies, including ones on the front line, like Lithuania, that used to buy from us and are saying, are we're going to have to go back to buying from the Russians?

And, oh, by the way, this would kind of do a lot to help our inflation and bring down prices for the middle-class if we drove down for transportation costs.

She could walk to the Oval Office right now and say, President Biden, lift the ban on LNG, if she's suddenly so pro-energy and pro-natural gas. It's a farce. It's fake.

And she's just telling anybody what they want to hear in order to get elected. She's telling the progressive left what they wanted in -- in the primary.

Now she seems just to be telling the rest of America what she thinks they want to hear in a general election. And we're going to -- we're not going to let her get away with it.

SANCHEZ: I just want to point out we actually just did a piece on how oil prices are down year over year and the U.S. has had an oil boom during the Biden administration, record profits for oil companies.

It would not be the first time, Congressman, that an elected official has shifted on a specific issue. Case in point, the person you're supporting for president, Donald Trump, on reproductive rights.

He was asked about overturning Florida's six-week abortion ban. He said he would be voting that we need more than six weeks. His campaign says that he doesn't mean that, that he's not actually saying how we would vote.

Do you think the former president has been clear enough about where he stands on this issue?

WALTZ: To your point on oil, demand is down because the Chinese economy is slowing down. Russia is selling more of its oil and gas than it did pre-war through China, through India.

If you really want to end the Ukraine war, let's dry up the Russian war machine and it's the economy, which is based on oil and gas sales.

So it is actually-- we could be pumping so much more if she would simply lift the LNG ban, which she could do with President Biden right now. She really lived her values on that.

On President Trump, I actually think this, in many ways, reflects his personal opinion. And the beautiful thing about getting rid of Roe versus Wade is that every American can now vote their conscience on when they believe life begins. Is it conception? Is it six weeks? Is it 15 weeks?

I mean, that's the debate before us. It is incredibly difficult and personal -- and a personal issue. But he has said very clearly, as did J.D. Vance, he would not support a federal law in this regard.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Will you acknowledge --

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: You do acknowledge though -- you do acknowledge though, because we actually have a timeline here that his stance has shifted on this issue. Back, I think in the -- in the late '90s. Yes, 1999. He said he was very pro-choice.

In 2016, he actually talked about there being some form of punishment for women who seek abortions. He backtracked on that. In 2018, he said he supported a 20-week federal ban.

In March of this year, he said he was considering a 15-week federal ban. Then in April, he said it should be left up to the states. And then yesterday, he had this, like, back-and-forth on what he sees for the Florida ban.

So you recognize that elected officials often change their positions on things. Do you think that this issue is a problem for him?

[14:40:04]

WALTZ: So I would say two points here. Number one, the research has changed dramatically in the last couple of decades in understanding when children can feel pain and understanding what goes on in the fetus, certainly since the '90s or even the '70s when Roe was first put in place.

So a lot of people have shifted over the years. The difference with -- the difference with Kamala Harris that apparently everybody wants to ignore, is that she feels something is the right policy right now. If she really has changed her mind, she could do something about it right now. Are you telling me she couldn't go to Joe Biden and say, let's drive down prices, let's pump more oil and gas? And oh, by the way, that'll help us overseas with Iran and Russia, too.

She is in the position and we're pretending like the last four years don't exist, or that she couldn't do something right now, whether it's about helping the middle class, whether it's about the border or whether it's about oil and gas prices and inflation.

SANCHEZ: I think, in her view, there is a balance between climate change and addressing that and making record profits for oil companies.

I do want to get your thoughts quickly on --

WALTZ: Let her express her views.

SANCHEZ: What --

(CROSSTALK)

WALTZ: Let her do some more interviews than 16 minutes and actually share her views versus your --

(CROSSTALK)

WALTZ: -- versus you and I having to kind of --

SANCHEZ: She's more -- she's more than welcome to. I was asking you about the candidate that you support, Donald Trump.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But one more thing about something he said, this promise to pay for IVF treatment nationally. Would you support that? And how is it going to be paid for? HHS estimates that for successful IVF conception, it's like $40,000.

How is the government going to pay for that? And would you support that bill?

WALTZ: Well, look, I'll -- I'll let the Congressional Budget Office to do a score. But he also said pressing private health insurers. And I think that option would be -- would be the first priority and the first route. And then we'll see where government has to step in.

But the president, the vice president or Senator Vance had been very clear about supporting pro-family policies. We have, in every developed nation in the world practically, a demographics problem.

You look at places like Italy and Japan, whole villages, whole communities have gone vacant. They're losing their tax-base. They're losing their workforce.

And we certainly need to have pro-family policies. And that's what the president is getting at. I think we'll get to the details of that when he's back in office. But first and foremost, with private insurers covering it.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Mike Waltz, we appreciate the conversation. Look forward to the next one.

WALTZ: All right, thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Next, the popular podcast raising doubts about his guilt, but Maryland's Supreme Court has just reinstated Adnan Syed's murder conviction. What it means, after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:47:22]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Just a shocking development for murder defendant, Adnan Syed, who is widely known from the popular "Serial" podcast.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The Maryland Supreme Court ruled today that his conviction, which was overturned in 2022, amid those cheers that you hear there, should be reinstated because of procedural errors.

In 2000, Syed was found guilty of killing his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, in Baltimore, and he was sentenced to life in prison.

But then, in 2022, prosecutors said they uncovered evidence of other suspects. Syed's conviction was overturned and he, as you saw there, walked free.

SANCHEZ: But then Lee's brother appealed, saying that her family was not properly notified about the conviction being overturned. The state's highest court agrees.

We're going to our CNN legal analyst, Joey Jackson, a criminal defense attorney.

Joey, great to see you.

Why did the Maryland Supreme Courts side with her family?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, Boris and Brianna, good afternoon. This is a procedural ruling really which protects crime victim's rights.

And I think when you analyze and assess the vacatur hearing -- and what is a vacatur hearing? It was a hearing to assess on the merits whether or not this conviction should be reversed.

At that hearing, certainly, the victim, right, the victim, of course, is dead. But her brother wanted to be present and very much wanted to be involved.

The hearing was set on a Friday to happen on Monday. And so the brothers said, hey, listen, can we postpone this for a week to give me an opportunity to be heard. The judge said no and scheduled the hearing again late Friday afternoon for Monday.

The brother of the victim was allowed to appear by Zoom and was allowed to give a statement. After giving the statement, his attorney, the brother's attorney said, listen, can I speak? The judge said no, and then proceeded to vacate the conviction.

And so essentially what the Supreme Court said is that this is not how crime victims should be treated. Crime victims are entitled, number one, to proper and appropriate notice.

Number two, they're allowed to appear in -- in person. And number three, they certainly are entitled to be heard through counsel.

And so to the extent that that didn't happen, that is what the procedural issue is. It did not address the merits with regard to the evidence that was not turned over and how that ultimately impaired on the merits, the actual initial conviction in 2000.

KEILAR: I mean, I wonder, Joey, if they could have seen this coming from the beginning. We interviewed, here on CNN, Marilyn Mosby, who made the announcement for the state that this was going to be vacated shortly after it was.

[14:50:01]

And this issue was raised immediately by the family. And she said to us, it's funny, to me, that he gets up there and he says that they we're blind-sided, talking about Hae Min Lee's family, her brother in this case.

"Well, you should talk to your attorney because I reached out to him and we -- I attempted to speak to him and he refused to acknowledge why, substantively, we we're compelled in the interest of justice and fairness to dismiss this case."

Should she have seen this coming?

JACKSON: So I think so. But I think, ultimately, crime victims are certainly entitled to, as was noted in the opinion, decency, respect, and some level of sensitivity.

And in light of that, if you're going to do something as significant as overturn an actual jury verdict after it's been in place for 22 years, the families should have something to say about that.

Now, people will argue with me in terms of the statement I made. Why would they argue, Brianna? They'll argue because the actual vacatur, right, big word for we're having a proceeding at deals with whether we should vacate, set aside, dismiss the actual jury verdict, whether it entitles you, even as a victim, to come forward.

The dissent in this case, said no. The Supreme Court, ultimately, the majority said yes, that wasn't done. And here we are.

I think ultimately, though, this -- he'll remain out and the case will be dismissed and this will be just for the ability for the victim to be heard.

KEILAR: Which is important.

Joey Jackson, thank you so much.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:55:38]

SANCHEZ: This could be a game changer for the safety of NFL players.

KEILAR: Yes, they're called Guardian Caps and already they're mandated for most players during practice.

CNN's Coy Wire has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Each football season, sporting cathedrals, like this, Mercedes-Benz Stadium, are full of excitement about the game. But each season also brings concerns for families and players about the dangers that come with it.

There has been a recent uptick in efforts to make the game safer. One of them, these protective helmet covers called Guardian Caps. But do they work?

(voice-over): The Georgia-based company aims to reduce damage that can be caused to the brain by the sudden stopping or rotation of the head.

The NFL's research led them to make these caps mandatory for all players during practices, aside from kickers and quarterbacks who are off limits for contact. Players can also choose to wear the caps during the games.

NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Miller says the statistics show the caps increase safety.

JEFF MILLER, NFL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT: As a result of the last two seasons, we saw about a 50 percent decrease in concussions in the positions that we're mandated to wear them. So of course, we said, OK, all positions will now wear them in this preseason.

WIRE (on camera): Now NFL rule changes and advancements in the helmets themselves could also be leading to a decrease in concussions. (voice-over): The company says that more than 3,000 high schools and more than 750 youth programs currently use the caps. One question is, if the NFL is making them mandatory for the pros, why aren't they mandatory for kids?

(on camera): One potential drawback could be cost. Each one of these runs about $70, $56 when bought in bulk for a team. Many schools are already struggling with funding.

(voice-over): And the National Athletic Trainers Association has said that such products come with little to no independent scientific evidence showing that they actually work.

STEVE ROWSON, VIRGINIA TECH HELMET LAB: The helmet and heading protection is really the last line of defense. The first thing to do is minimize the number of head impacts that kids and other athletes are experiencing.

WIRE (on camera): One other potential drawback is the way it feels. Some NFL players saying that it makes them feel top-heavy at times.

Well, the research will continue to be done as the push to make the game safer continues.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: Our thanks to Coy Wire for that report.

They may mandate that I we're a Guardian Cap in the studio. I've run into that jib arm --

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: The camera.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

KEILAR: That did happen.

SANCHEZ: Plenty more news to come this afternoon. Former President Trump putting reproductive rights front and center in this election, but is his own campaign on the same page? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)