Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

New CNN Poll: Race Virtually Tied With Six Weeks Until Election Day; Judge Allows Prosecutor Jack Smith To Provide 180 Pages Of Evidence Against Trump In Jan. 6 Case; IDF: New Round Of Strikes Against Hezbollah Underway. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired September 24, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:45]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: No margin of error with just six weeks left until the election the race for the White House could hardly be closer. New CNN polling shows just how tight the race is and suggests where each candidate needs to make up ground.

And a new storm takes aim at Florida and resurrects memories of an old one Helene is forecast to hit the state as a major hurricane that could follow the same path as Ian which you'll remember two years ago left a trail of destruction in its wake.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And an incredible moment on the football field for a player who nearly died playing the game he loves.

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

SCIUTTO: Well, Election Day is just six weeks away, new CNN polling shows a virtual tie between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump with likely voters nationwide supporting Harris in the race for the White House 48 percent to Trump's 47 percent. On the issues, about 40 percent of likely voters say the economy is the most important one to them. That is followed by protecting democracy, immigration also abortion rights.

But when it comes to trust the data shows voters overall back Trump to handle the economy 50 percent to Harris' 39 percent. Earlier Trump turned his attention to that issue when he pitched his economic vision to voters in the battleground state of Georgia, that is where we find CNN's Kristen Holmes live in Savannah, where Trump just spoke.

Tell us, did he stick to the economic message or did he go elsewhere?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean - well, Jim, he almost never sticks to a message entirely and that was the case again today. We saw him veer off message into various tangents multiple times. He re-litigated the ABC debate attacking Kamala Harris, attacking ABC, called names, Kamala Harris. He went through the details of both the first and second assassination attempt. And at one point he was talking about standing over French fries at McDonald's as he accused Kamala Harris of never working at McDonald's.

But this was billed as an economic speech and the reason why his campaign continues to hold these events in smaller venues to try and get him focused on the economy is because of the polling that you just talked about, because of the polling that shows that among likely voters 50 percent of the voters are more likely to trust Donald Trump with the economy than they do Kamala Harris at 39 percent. That is a huge margin. But again, Donald Trump has a hard time staying on message when he did talk about the economy.

One of the things he promised was to essentially bring foreign jobs here as well as American jobs back to American soil. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: With the vision I'm outlining today, not only will we stop our businesses from leaving for foreign lands, but under my leadership, we're going to take other countries' jobs. Did you ever hear that expression before? Have you ever heard that we're going to take other countries' jobs? It's never been stated before. We're going to take their factories and - and we had it really rocking four years ago - we're going to bring thousands and thousands of businesses and trillions of dollars in wealth back to the good ole' USA.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, just to be clear, we still don't really have any idea of how exactly he would plan to pay for any of this. One of the things he has said is through tariffs, but one of the fact checks that we have here is on those tariffs essentially the fact that he has said that he would charge some countries 200 percent on those tariffs. But according to the Tax Foundation, they believe that this would actually raise taxes to $524 billion and reduce full-time jobs.

Now, Donald Trump seemed to be pushing back on some of this that we've heard from economists that tariffs would not help the economy today arguing that it wouldn't impact inflation. It would actually bring down Inflation that is not what we have heard from economists really across the board when it comes to these tariffs that Donald Trump has been proposing.

[15:05:05]

SCIUTTO: Because of the simple fact that consumers pay for tariffs, that's just how it works.

Kristen Holmes in Savannah, Georgia, thanks so much.

Let's turn now to CNN's Matt Egan.

So Matt, Trump, of course, focusing on the economy, speaking about jobs, tax cuts, tariffs, among other things, what did you hear in his remarks that stood out to you? Was there - were there new proposals in there? MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Jim, former President Trump spent a lot of time talking about how he wants to create a manufacturing renaissance by a combination of, yes, lower taxes and, as Kristen was just saying, higher tariffs. But there were a number of misleading or even false statements in these Trump remarks. We've got to address a few of them.

First on tariffs, he said that tariffs would not cause inflation, even though many, many mainstream economists that I talked to, they say the exact opposite. The Peterson Institute has said that the Trump tariff plan would cost a typical middle-income family $2,600 per year and that doesn't even account for the almost definite retaliation from other countries.

Trump also - he falsely claimed that Vice President Harris wants to ban fracking and end all fossil fuel production, even though Harris has said that she no longer wants to ban fracking. And ending all fossil fuel production would send gasoline prices to the moon. We should also note that under Biden-Harris, the U.S. is producing more oil than ever before.

Trump also did talk up his 2017 tax cuts, but he said they were the biggest ever - even bigger than under Ronald Reagan, that is not true, as CNN has repeatedly fact-checked. It's not the biggest on an inflation-adjusted basis or relative to GDP.

Also, we should note that tax cuts, like what former President Trump is calling for, would be very expensive. The nonpartisan budget model at Penn Wharton, where Trump went to school, has estimated that his tax cuts and other policies would cost almost $6 trillion over a decade. That's just one estimate, but still it is very telling.

Now, on tariffs, Trump just yesterday was in Pennsylvania, where he talked up the idea of a 200 percent tariff on an American company, John Deere. He said if John Deere goes forward with their plans to move jobs and shut down production in the Midwest and move it to Mexico, then he would impose this 200 percent tariff.

This is something that billionaire Mark Cuban has blasted. He was on Twitter, where he said that that idea is, quote, "insane," and he said that would be a good way to destroy a legendary American company and increase costs to American buyers.

One other point here, Jim, is Vice President Harris, of course, is going to make her own economic speech tomorrow. And ahead of that, she has landed a major endorsement from more than 400 economists and former policymakers, many of the policymakers from Democratic administrations, including Jason Furman, Alan Blinder, Brian Deese, also some notable academics, University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers and Claudia Goldin, who just won the Nobel Prize for economics.

And yet, still, despite these endorsements, we do know that the CNN poll shows that the number one issue for voters right now is the economy and that voters trust Trump, not Harris on the economy. SCIUTTO: Yes, the track record of those big letters, whether they be economists or national security experts actually moving the vote, at least uncertain. Matt Egan, thanks so much. Brianna?

EGAN: Thank you.

KEILAR: All right. Let's talk more about what we're seeing with pollster and communications strategist Frank Luntz. And I think what's really interesting in this latest poll that we're seeing, this new CNN polling, Frank, is that by and large, the economy, of course, is what matters to people that is further cemented, right? They also care, of course, about immigration. They care about abortion. They care about protecting democracy. But the economy is really the issue. And yet this is it. You see 48, 47, neck and neck. What does it take for these - for one of these candidates to really break out?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: Well, let me be explicit. It's not, in fact, the economy. It's affordability. It's prices for housing and health care, for food and fuel. And this has been the issue now for the last year. It is Donald Trump's strongest case for his presidency and Kamala Harris' weakest case. And yet Trump doesn't seem to want to make it.

And even today, as you point out, that he gets off track, off message, that he's incapable of drawing that distinction. If he can do it, this puts him in the driver's seat on the two key issues, immigration and affordability, Trump has the advantage. But on the attributes, on the type of person the candidates are, Harris has the advantage.

[15:10:07]

And as a observer of this now for more than three decades, it is mind- blowing to me that Trump doesn't seem to understand this and that Harris has not been more forthcoming about the details of her economic plan. And both of those are essential to the outcome, and both of those makes an observer like me wonder what the heck is going on.

KEILAR: So there's affordability, which is a drag on Harris. We see that in the poll numbers. There's favorability, which she has made strides on and which is buoying her, right? The fact that that has really made some movement since July for her and then also the fact that more people voting for her or who say they're voting for her or likely voting for her, say now that it is actually a vote for her, not just against Donald Trump. She's made a switch, it seems, with a sizable fraction of people. What do you make of that?

LUNTZ: Well, the candidate that's done the most that has improved their favorability the fastest in modern times is George W. Bush right after 9/11 and Harris is second. It's been that significant, that positive. And that is the reason why she's tied or leading in some of these key swing states, which is something I need to emphasize to your viewers.

The actual overall numbers don't matter. It only matters in the seven swing states and she's doing reasonably well in those places. But even with the negativity, and even with the debate performance of the former President Donald Trump, he's still holding on, he's still dead even with her. And the thing I'd emphasize is that whoever is the focus of the coverage seems to be doing worse. When the cameras and the lights are on, Harris and before that Biden, their numbers decreased. When the same thing happens to Donald Trump, his numbers decreased.

My advice to both candidates, which you'll appreciate, Donald Trump needs to say and speak less. And Kamala Harris needs to say and speak more. It's the exact opposite advice, because the candidate situations are diametrically opposed.

KEILAR: Very interesting. CNN has learned that Harris is planning to visit the southern border when she goes to Arizona on Friday. CNN polling, of course, shows Trump leading Harris on the issue of immigration by 14 percent. Is a visit to the border at this stage in the race, something that she can capitalize on or is that going to be really tough?

LUNTZ: I actually would have advised against it, that her time to have gone to the border was last year or the year before that. And now it only highlights the fact that she hasn't really focused on this issue, even though she had some - we can't determine what the actual responsibility was that she had in the administration, because it's been muddied. But this is an area that Donald Trump can say, just look at the numbers, look at the immigration statistics, look at the illegal immigration that took place under his administration, and under the Biden-Harris administration.

But once again, he starts to focus on eating dogs and cats. I don't understand this. It's as though he's trying to lose this race. If he actually could stay on message, and could do the statistical comparisons side by side, I think he would be the front runner. But he's been incapable of doing that. He's chosen not to do a debate with her. And her going to the border is only going to remind voters that things have gotten worse over the last three and a half years, so it's an interesting strategy that maybe I would not have recommended.

KEILAR: Yes, very interesting. And we'll be looking at that visit on Friday. Frank Luntz, thanks so much. Always appreciate it.

LUNTZ: Thank you.

KEILAR: Jim?

SCIUTTO: Thanks, Brianna.

Turning back to our breaking news, Judge Tanya Chutkan has granted the Special Counsel Jack Smith, his proposal to submit a brief containing hundreds of pages of information and evidence related to the election interference case here in Washington, the federal case. There is a chance that could be released before the election. CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig joins us now.

Elie, good to have you.

Walk us through what specific information and evidence we'd be likely to see when this is released and would it be new evidence we haven't seen before?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So I think the answer is yes, Jim, we are about to see some new important evidence from Jack Smith. Now, this whole disputes arises in the context of the question of does Donald Trump have criminal immunity from prosecution. We know he does, but now the question is, how much does he have? That's based on the Supreme Court's opinion that came out back in July.

[15:15:03]

What the parties are trying to do now is litigate that question. Jack Smith said, okay, the normal maximum for a brief here is 45 pages under the rules. But he asked for special permission to file a brief four times that size, 180 pages. Yesterday, Donald Trump objected to that. He said it would violate my rights. It would harm me with the jury pool. It could harm me in the election. And today, Judge Chutkan said, essentially, I don't so much care about those concerns. I'm giving Jack Smith the right to file a brief up to 180 pages.

And, Jim, I think we're going to see all sorts of new and very interesting evidence attached to Jack Smith's filing when it comes in on Thursday.

SCIUTTO: Trump's team, as you note, argued it would be unfair politically. How did Judge Chutkan answer that argument?

HONIG: She rejected that argument out of hand. Essentially, Donald Trump's team was arguing DOJ is violating its own policy, its own policy that you don't take steps too close to an election that might influence that election. And Judge Chutkan's response essentially is why is that my concern. I am here as a judge. I'm part of the judicial branch. DOJ is over there in the executive branch. I don't make their policy for them. I'm not responsible for enforcing it.

So she rejected that argument. It's part of the reason why she came out the way she did.

SCIUTTO: Now, the judge, of course, noted the Supreme Court's immunity ruling in this decision, given its effect - I mean, it certainly affected Jack Smith's filing here. Tell us how exactly she referenced that. Is there some irony there?

HONIG: Yes. Well, it's perfectly appropriate that the judge referenced the Supreme Court opinion. That's why we are here, the Supreme Court's opinion. And again, here we are in Jack Smith's January 6th federal case. The Supreme Court said, no. A lot of the things that Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with are going to be immune. He's going to be immune for it.

And Judge Chutkan cited the Supreme Court because one of their criticisms, the Supreme Court of Judge Chutkan, is that she did not do fact finding the first time around. And so now Judge Chutkan says, well, look, the Supreme Court criticized me and us for not doing enough fact finding. So if one of the parties wants to take more pages so we can do thorough fact finding, that's exactly what we're going to do now. SCIUTTO: That's interesting. Okay, so could be released before the election. When will we know and how will that be decided?

HONIG: So Jack Smith's filing is due on Thursday, two days from today. Now, the question is what will we see. During the oral argument, Jack Smith's team referenced the fact that they may attach certain grand jury transcripts, certain what we call 302s, which are FBI memos about interviews. However, both Jack Smith's team and the judge have said they will be redacting out certain sensitive information.

So I think it's fair to say that on Thursday, we are going to see a lot of really interesting new information about Jack Smith's allegations, but we're not going to see all of it all in one shot.

SCIUTTO: Elie Honig, we know you'll help us read through those whenever they do come out. Thanks so much.

And ahead this hour on News Central, the Israeli military says a new round of what it describes as extensive strikes on Hezbollah is currently underway in Lebanon as we speak, after one of the deadliest days in Lebanon in nearly two decades already, yesterday. We're going to be live with the latest.

Plus, a Missouri death row inmate scheduled for execution tonight despite objections from both the victim's family and the prosecution, why? They're raising questions about the case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:48]

SCIUTTO: We continue to monitor breaking news out of the Middle East where the Israeli military says it is launching a new round of strikes on Hezbollah targets inside Lebanon. And right now the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is holding a security briefing on the situation.

The IDF claims a strike earlier today killed three Hezbollah missile commanders, this - in a suburb of Beirut, the escalating conflict, very much stoking what were already high fears in the region. Let's speak about more of this - all of this, joining us now CNN National Security Analyst, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner.

Beth, good to have you on as always.

BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Listen, for months, almost a year now, going back to October 7th, the fear had been that this war expands beyond Gaza, where it's already been enormous and quite deadly to other fronts. We saw yesterday the deadliest day in Lebanon since the 2006 war, the last time Israel went to war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Are we on the brink of that all out war folks have been worried about or are we already there to some degree? SANNER: I really feel like the latter. I mean, I think it's hard to look around and see what's going on and not feel that this is war. I mean, we have over 500 people dead in Lebanon. We have a million people in Israel who have been running to shelters because rockets and missiles are coming in from Lebanon.

And, you know, since October 8th, you've had over 8,000 missiles and rockets exchanged by both sides. So this front has been active. But now we are, as you said, at the most intense operation we have seen since the 2006 war where Israel went into Lebanon.

SCIUTTO: That's a good point. I was in northern Israel again a couple weeks ago. There's still a large portion of northern Israel that have been forcefully evacuated. Some 60,000 Israelis forced to move south because of those strikes.

[15:25:02]

And to our understanding, close to a hundred thousand Lebanese have been forced to move north in the border. So folks have already been reacting to that fire.

I wonder if you see a ground operation, a ground invasion coming following these airstrikes. To date, it's been largely airstrikes plus this unprecedented attack blowing up thousands of pagers and walkie- talkies. Is that the next step of this, a ground invasion?

SANNER: It could be. I mean, I think that what we're seeing right now are a couple of things. I think we're seeing an effort to really eliminate, decapitate the senior leadership, military leadership of Hezbollah, okay? And they have pretty much killed all of the most senior commanders and, you know, taken out a lot of mid-level commanders as well from the pager attacks and then what's going on now and even before that.

And then the missile attacks that this air campaign that we are seeing in full force, and one Israeli Air Force person said - officer said that this is the most intense campaign that the Israeli Air Force has conducted in its history. And so those are aimed at eliminating all of the missile and rocket force, the actual missiles and launchers that they can find. And clearly, Israel has mapped those out over the years.

But the other part of this is, is Israel trying to escalate to de- escalate? We hear this all the time. In other words, forcing them to the negotiating table or are they actually preparing the way for a ground invasion and maybe both of those things.

SCIUTTO: I mean, I wonder, though, because there was an effort for a negotiation in Gaza, right, for a ceasefire - just a ceasefire. And to get some of those many dozens of hostages that are still there, and that hasn't gone anywhere. Arguably, those negotiations are going in the wrong direction. It was those negotiations that were supposed to help keep Hezbollah from getting involved to a larger degree, because they wanted to give some oxygen to the negotiation.

So what are the actual prospects for a negotiated settlement to this, given the negotiations to find some way forward in Gaza have really gone nowhere?

SANNER: Well, one of the things that's really different about this campaign in Gaza is that there is pretty much uniform agreement among all military political leaders and the Israeli public that this campaign in Lebanon is necessary. There is no, like, hostage, you know, hostages are more important, none of that. All agree.

And the reason is because, basically, this part of northern Israel, there's - and villages that are completely destroyed now, but no one will feel safe to go home. So you're basically saying, like, this entire part of Israel is uninhabited - uninhabitable. And this is one of the goals of the axis of resistance, right?

And so, you know, I do think that it's very different there. There is a chance that they would go to the negotiating table, but I don't think we should forget, and I'll like to add this context, is that the U.N. Resolution 1701 that ended the 2006 war actually required Hezbollah to move north out - away from the border and create this buffer zone. That was never enforced. And so it allowed Hezbollah to move all these missiles in, and the threat that Israelis feel now in the north is too much for them to handle.

SCIUTTO: Listen, going back again just to the wake of October 7th.

SANNER: So the ...

SCIUTTO: Well, one thing I heard consistently from Israelis is that once the war is finished in Gaza, to finish the job, you would often hear that phrasing in the north. Beth Sanner, thanks so much.

Coming up, back here in the U.S., a Missouri death row inmate is scheduled to be executed tonight. That, despite the fact that the prosecuting office, who tried that case against him, says his conviction should be overturned, why? New evidence revealing he could be innocent.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)