Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

U.S. Resists Putting "Russian Aggression" In G7 Statement On Ukraine; Musk Uses Chainsaw To Highlight Massive Cuts To Federal Workforce; Mangione To Appear In State Court For Murder Of UnitedHealthcare CEO. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 21, 2025 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:31:10]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning two words are causing a major divide among G7 nations. Those words, "Russian aggression." That is the phrase the Trump administration refuses to include in a G7 statement, which addresses the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Apparently, the president does not want to call the Russians aggressors.

With us now is CNN senior military analyst and retired Navy Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied commander. He's a partner in the Carlyle Group, a global investment firm, and he serves on the board of advisers for a handful of defense-related companies.

I want to get to the G7 in a moment. But first, I want to hold up the cover -- and I don't know if you can see this, Admiral -- of the New York Post this morning. The Rupert Murdoch New York Post very supportive of President Trump normally, but on their cover today they show a picture of Vladimir Putin, and it says "This Is A Dictator" -- following, of course --

ADMIRAL JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, PARTNER, CARLYLE GROUP (via Webex by Cisco): Yeah.

BERMAN: -- President Trump calling Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator.

What do you think of that?

STAVRIDIS: Well, I think they should have put up "These are dictators" and put up photographs of Kim Jong Un, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. There are a lot of dictators. And by the way, sometimes those dictators fail and lose. Thing Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a monster who has now given shelter in Moscow.

So I'd love that cover. I would have expanded it to "these are dictators" and make the point there are some truly bad actors out there in the world. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not one of them.

BERMAN: No. And one wonders were Alexei Navalny still alive, were Boris Nemtsov still alive --

STAVRIDIS: Right.

BERMAN: -- or any number of the people who fell mysteriously out of windows in Moscow or officials who were --

STAVRIDIS: Yes.

BERMAN: -- killed around the world -- what they would think of labeling Zelenskyy but not Putin a dictator.

STAVRIDIS: Indeed. And by the way, just in terms of disclosures we should point out I am personally sanctioned by the Kremlin and I'm very proud of that, John. I have 50 medals. Twenty-eight of them are from foreign nations, stemming from my time as NATO commander and commander of Southern Command. I could not be prouder to be sanctioned by the Kremlin for all the reasons we're discussing.

BERMAN: Have you ever been sanctioned by -- sanctioned by Ukraine?

STAVRIDIS: (Laughing) No. I think I'm safe on that one.

I will say back to Zelenskyy, I think he is a heroic figure, not a dictator. And John, I just go back to three years ago close to the day as Russian tanks were rolling into his country.

Our CIA director Bill Burns went to Zelenskyy and said you can't hold out. Your country is going to fall -- the whole country. Let us give you a ride. We'll put you in a helicopter. We'll take you out of your country. Go to Warsaw and form a government in exile. Zelenskyy said, and I quote, "I don't need a ride. I need ammunition." That's a pretty good line.

BERMAN: So I'm going to actually move past the idea of taking "Russian aggression" out of the G7 statement because it does seem that you'd be more than willing to call it Russian aggression.

And let me ask you about this so-called mineral deal that the United States keeps pushing for because there's some reporting this morning that the U.S. is going back again, maybe having revised some of the language here and pushing Zelenskyy, and maybe he's considering it.

Is the idea of a deal completely out of the question or some kind of agreement on Ukrainian minerals, and should it be included in these talks?

STAVRIDIS: I think it is not outside the boundaries of normal behavior for countries to look at -- OK, we're going to come and help you over here in zone A and therefore, you can help us in zone B. Zone A, of course, would be military assistance. We've got a lot of that.

[07:35:10]

And while we're on that subject, by the way, John, the vast majority of all of that money the U.S. spends on weapons for Ukraine actually goes to U.S. defense companies. That's worth knowing. That's not a check we hand Europe. It goes to our own defense industrial base.

That money I think can reasonably be coupled with the idea of let's also pursue commercial opportunity that can be a win-win to help Ukraine reconstruct itself. I think we are capable as a nation, and so are the Ukrainians, of holding both those ideas together.

BERMAN: Right, with security guarantees, which were reportedly not part -- really, explicitly, of the first memo that was handed to them.

Admiral James Stavridis apparently safe from Ukrainian sanctions. We appreciate you being with us this morning -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Thank you, John.

New this morning legal experts now warning one of President Trump's latest attempts at a power grab could dissuade military commanders from refusing to follow illegal orders. It's all tied to the executive order Trump signed Tuesday giving him greater control over independent federal agencies. That some order -- that same order includes language giving him and the attorney general the power to interpret the law, and that has caused new worries about his possible interference with the military's justice system.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand has this new reporting. What exactly are the concerns here because they sound like really big ones?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Sara. Legal experts told my colleague Haley Britzky that this all stems from that executive order issued by President Trump this week that seems to give him huge power to interpret the law, which these experts fear could cause military commanders to be dissuaded from refusing unlawful orders.

Now, that executive order says that Trump "...shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch" of which the defense department, of course, is a part.

Now, a retired Air Force colonel who previously served as the Air Force's chief prosecutor told CNN that he worries about this chilling effect that this could have on military judges and the military justice system, saying, "I can definitely see people hesitant to fulfill their duties because they're afraid Trump will have them punished."

Now, a concern that we heard was that military commanders who typically might consult their military lawyers on an order if there are any legal questions could simply stop doing that and just follow a Trump directive given the sweeping new executive order.

And we should note the question of whether Secretary of Defense Hegseth would push back against any illegal orders issued by Trump was a key part of his confirmation hearing before the Senate in January. But he sidestepped questions about it by saying that "I reject the premise that President Trump will be giving any illegal orders at all." Now, Trump, of course -- he already has the authority to interfere in the military legal process and he notably did so if you'll recall in his first term in 2019 by issuing pardons in high-profile war crimes cases with Hegseth's encouragement against the advice of Pentagon leaders. CNN reported at the time that then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and other senior military leaders told Trump that his actions could damage the integrity of the military justice system.

But experts said that the impact of this could actually go even beyond the uniform code of military justice and could actually impact the civilian workforce and defense contractors too, potentially creating political pressure on things like federal contracting, safety inspections, promotions, and demotions.

As another former Air Force judge told us, "I worry about the cascading effect of legality," Sara.

SIDNER: Wow. Natasha Bertrand, great reporting. Thank you so much for that.

All right. Elon Musk used a chainsaw to drive home the massive cuts he and his DOGE team have made to the federal workforce.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELON MUSK, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy -- chainsaw.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: OK, then. That was Musk in front of a cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, in Maryland, celebrating the purge that has left thousands of people out of work.

Let's discuss now with CNN political commentator Karen Finney and Democratic strategist Matt Bennett.

All right, Matt, I don't think I've ever seen an administration celebrating cutting jobs even if it is the federal government. Is the point just to be cruel to the government workers whose jobs he has slashed?

MATT BENNETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, THIRD WAY: Yeah. So it kind of seems that way. I mean, they keep celebrating all of these firings. They're firing people in unbelievably mean and ridiculous ways, accusing them of misconduct that where they're stellar employees.

[07:40:00]

But I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that a narrow plurality of Americans voted for Trump because they thought he would restore order to what they thought was chaotic -- inflation, crime, the border. And this is the very essence of chaos. He is firing essential personnel. People that do things like air safety, TSA, fight wildfires, park rangers -- people that Americans want on the job keeping them safe from Avian flu, researching cancer and Alzheimer's.

It is insane the way they are going about this. And they have taken a chainsaw and not a scalpel to what they claim to be waste in the federal government, and that is the opposite of what Americans were voting for.

SIDNER: Karen, what did you see in this illustration of chainsaw -- I don't know, cheering?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER AND SPOKESPERSON, 2016 HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN (via Webex by Cisco): Chainsaw Musk? Yeah. It was absurd but it was also a flex of a man who has absolutely no idea what he's doing. We saw it when he took over Twitter and there was chaos. And I agree with what Matt said that it's chaotic.

But, you know, it's this machismo that he seems to think is cool, right? I mean, you know, he had the sunglasses on. But it's not cool because here's what's also happening. This is impacting cities and communities around the country.

This is not just -- this is going to be one of the best civics lessons Americans could ever get because when you talk to -- I was just on the phone yesterday with some folks in Tucson, Arizona and they were talking about how depressed people are in Tucson and Phoenix because so many people who actually work for the federal government have been laid off.

They were expecting -- there's about another 30,000 people, for example, in Kansas City who work for the federal government in different capacities.

These are people who, as Matt pointed out, they're experts in what they do whether it is working for the national parks, or scientists and researchers, or VA doctors. But the impact that it's going to start having on communities, both in terms of unemployment and in terms of other businesses -- small businesses that support those employees. And that's where, again --

And we're already seeing it in our CNN poll, right? The people are feeling like that Trump is not doing what he said he would do to bring down inflation. He said he would do it on day one. And instead they see this -- you know, they're starting to see their communities be impacted. Soon they're also going to see services.

And then you see Elon Musk, you know, walking around on a stage glorifying it with a chainsaw.

SIDNER: Let me speak to that because you talked about what's happening in Arizona.

And in deep red Georgia The Atlanta Constitution-Journal -- let me -- let me pull up this headline here. It shows that one of the GOP representatives, Rich McCormick, got quite a surprise when he walked into a town hall. This is what he heard with people really upset about some of the things, including the cutting of jobs at the federal level in their community.

TEXT: Georgia congressman confronted by angry crowd over support for Trump's agenda.

SIDNER: This is what he heard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RICH MCCORMICK (R-GA): When you talk about presidential power, I remember having the same discussion with Republicans when Biden was elected.

CROWD: (Booing).

MCCORMICK: The funny thing is -- the funny thing is --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: That --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCORMICK: The funny thing is you're sitting there --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: That is -- that is outright booing there that you hear when you hear him talking about presidential --

FINNEY: Yeah.

SIDNER: -- power.

Matt, to you. What does this tell you about how Republicans -- what Republicans may face in 2022 if things keep going the way they are?

BENNETT: Yeah. You know, for Karen and me, that is hauntingly familiar because in the summer of 2009 when the Tea Party was just getting going and in the summer of 2010, Democrats were facing that kind of blowback in the town hall meetings that they were going.

I think it's going to be worse for Republicans because as Karen and I have been saying, the things that these guys are cutting are things that people want and need, and it's only going to become more apparent to them as this goes on. We've only been doing this for a month.

If you look at the kinds of things that he's cutting -- take, for example, the 9/11 first responder fund, which the Republicans proudly passed. They just cut a whole bunch of people running the first responders fund, which Republicans in New York are panicked about.

So you are going to see an increasing number of House and Senate Republicans freaking out because they're going to go home and they're going to get an earful like that from their constituents saying what are you doing? You're creating unemployment in our communities and you're cutting essential services that we desperately need. [07:45:00]

SIDNER: Yeah. It's interesting though because some of this is what Donald Trump ran on. Although the thing that he ran on the most was the economy and immigration and now you are seeing the response to what is actually happening.

Karen Finney, Matt Bennett, thank you so much. I really appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: All right. Overnight, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vows revenge and a Trump administration official is threatening "total annihilation" after Hamas turned over remains that were not a match for any Israeli hostage.

And "They are truly my angels." This morning a woman reunited with the first responders who saved her from a burning vehicle.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:50:20]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Vote-a-rama makes it sound almost fun. It happened in the Senate while you were sleeping, and a lot happened. We'll get to that.

The end result though, Senate Democrats were able to force Republicans to take some uncomfortable votes. Republicans get what they want in the end. But Democrats -- they made the whole part is -- the whole process is basically a ritual that is as old as Senate time where Democrats or Republicans -- they can force votes on a litany of things like tax breaks for the most wealthy to make people take awkward votes.

Here's Sen. Mark Kelly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): We're debating who in this country is so rich that they don't need a tax cut. Um, yeah -- but that one didn't pass. So here is my proposal.

Can we at least agree among all of us that no one making more than $100 million per year should get a tax cut? The median income in this country, Mr. President, is about $80,000 per year, and it would take 1,245 years for someone making the median income in America to earn $100 million. That's about 15 lifetimes.

Does somebody that rich need a tax cut? I don't think so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: In the end, they vote on a slew of things -- all of those things they know are not going to become law. But that's not even the point. The other end result, Senate Republicans take a big step forward in

pushing Trump's agenda ahead as they eventually adopted a budget blueprint after this night of vote-a-rama fun.

And now the real fun begins -- again, depending on your definition of fun. That's where -- that's what brings us to CNN political analyst Jackie Kucinich, also the Washington bureau chief for The Boston Globe.

I know this is your definition of fun, Jack. I know. I know. But this --

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE BOSTON GLOBE (via Webex by Cisco): I will never be funned out -- never.

BOLDUAN: Exactly.

What did we get from the vote-a-rama last night? If people were sleeping and they wake up they should know what?

KUCINICH: And this is the plan B -- the skinny budget, if you will. And this is a big victory for Sen. John Thune, the majority leader, and Sen. Lindsey Graham who really pushed this skinnier version of what the House is pushing.

Now, it's only -- now we go to the hard part, right? They got this through. You go to the House and they want to -- they want to pass something that's much larger. That you know that they'll even get it over the floor because of the very, very, very slim majority in the House, and they have to have the same bill to move forward.

So we'll see what happens down the line but right now John Thune has to be -- you know, when he wakes up in maybe an hour -- he's probably up, though -- I mean, he's got -- he's got a lot to be happy about that they got this over the line.

BOLDUAN: How much more complicated did things get? It was like it was a flare-up and then it kind of went away when President Trump came out and surprised -- definitely surprised Senate Republicans --

KUCINICH: Yeah.

BOLDUAN: -- in endorsing the House version. We've got these two strategies. In the end, everyone out there that's listening -- it's basically are they going to put all of Donald Trump's legislative priorities into one bill or are they going to break it up, which then also means it will require more time? The House wants to go big; the Senate wants to break it up. Donald Trump endorsed obviously the big version.

Did it complicate things, really, in the end?

KUCINICH: Well, he also puts -- he kind of threw the Senate a bone around 6:00 last night when he posted on Truth Social that, you know, they're doing a good job. They are moving in the right direction. He has sent very mixed signals on this, for sure.

But you saw a lot of the House bill, a lot of senators believe could open them up to a lot of political attacks because there is an assumption that there could be Medicaid cuts in the House version of the bill. Not go get too in the weeds here but that is something that you're hearing from Senate Republicans that they don't want, or some of them don't want. So really, the devil is going to be in the details.

And you're right, Kate. There was some complications but I think a lot of Senate Republicans know that Trump can change his mind -- the flip of a coin. And they -- and so they got kind of a tacit endorsement for what they pushed through as the plan B bill if the House is not able to get their version over the line.

[07:55:00]

BOLDUAN: Yeah, we'll see. Now the committees need to start doing their work, coming up with the exact dollar amounts. Who's going to get more? Who's going to get less? And then we'll see --

KUCINICH: Yeah.

BOLDUAN: -- just the fun ensue between where House -- where House Republicans get to talk trash about Senate procedure and senators can say just stay quiet over there. That's exactly what we're going to be seeing.

It's good to see you, Jackie.

KUCINICH: Speaking of a tale as old as time.

BOLDUAN: Exactly, exactly.

It's good to see you, Jackie. Thank you.

KUCINICH: Likewise.

BOLDUAN: John.

BERMAN: All right. This morning Israel is vowing to make Hamas pay for what they called -- what they call the full price for not returning the remains of hostage Shiri Bibas as promised. The mother of two was supposed to be among the four bodies returned yesterday along with both of her sons. Israel says forensic testing indicates it is not her. It is unclear who it is.

This morning an emotional reunion between a woman and the people who saved her life. A cement truck crashed into Aymee Ruiz's vehicle setting it on fire. Body camera video shows an officer breaking the window and an off-duty firefighter pulling her to safety. After a couple of days she got to meet them again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AYMEE RUIZ, RESCUED FROM FIERY CRASH: I can't thank you guys enough for my life. There's no words to describe it and there's no word big enough. There's nothing.

I seriously didn't think I was going to make it out of there with how bad it was. I seriously thought I was going to die in there.

OFFICER BRIAN LARISON, CHANDLER POLICE DEPARTMENT: When I saw that they were trying to get someone out I can't drive by and not do something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: The crash happened after Ruiz had dropped her children off at school.

So this morning are Birkenstocks just comfy, crunchy sandals or actual works of art? Germany's highest civil court ruled they are shoes. The 251-year-old shoemaker sued competitors for selling cheaper imitations saying its designs are copyright-protected works of applied art.

BOLDUAN: They are!

BERMAN: Germany's federal court just disagreed and dismissed the case, ruling that Birkenstocks' design lacks artistic achievement.

BOLDUAN: You felt that arch support.

BERMAN: I agree. Clearly, that ruling made by people who have never worn the wonderful sandals -- Sara.

SIDNER: Wow. We're going to have to bring Joey Jackson in on that one because I think he's going to have other things to say about Birkenstocks.

But first, happening today, the man accused of killing the UnitedHealthcare CEO will appear in court this afternoon. Luigi Mangione will face murder and terror charges for the killing of Brian Thompson on December 4. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to the state charges but if he is convicted he faces life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Now, you will remember -- how could anyone forget -- the weeklong manhunt for Thompson's alleged killer. It really did captivate America and even beyond and led to widespread support, actually, for Mangione after he was caught.

CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson is joining us now. All right, so today is -- we've got two different charges going on here. This is the state charges, correct?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: That's right, Sara -- yeah.

So what happens today -- good to see you. Good morning, Sara.

What happens today is that he'll be in state court. Now remember, the state court -- they indicted him on 11 different counts of different things. When you say indictment, right, a grand jury convenes -- 23 of them.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: They vote not guilt or innocence. They vote to establish a) has there been a crime committed, and b) has he been the person that in their opinion committed the crime. A simple majority needed.

Having voted out that indictment Sara, what now happens is the case proceeds. And part of that is the exchange of discovery. What does that mean? It means evidence. Information that the defense needs to prepare the case. And so today I'm sure the judge is going to want to know where we are with that.

New York State -- what you do is you file a certificate of compliance if you're the prosecutor --

SIDNER: Um-hum.

JACKSON: -- indicating that you've transferred the discovery. The defense needs it to defend the client and to challenge certain evidence. And so I think the judge will want to know what the status of that is.

Last point, Sara, and that's this. Remember, there's the federal prosecution, which is also going on. He's in court for that next month charged with stalking and murder with a firearm.

SIDNER: With a fireman.

JACKSON: And then, of course, you have the Pennsylvania issue, right, where he was originally --

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: -- arrested. So you have a lot of discovery and information that needs to be proffered to the defense for the case to proceed.

SIDNER: You are mentioning all these different --

JACKSON: Yeah.

SIDNER: -- facets and all these different cases.

How do they decide who goes first, or does it all happen sort of in the same timeframe? How does this work because his defense attorneys are going to have to prepare for all of these things?

JACKSON: Yeah, without question.

So I think what happens is you'll have some interagency cooperation. And I think everyone would agree that the nature of the offense and allegation in New York should take priority, right? He was certainly captured, as we know, in Pennsylvania. He was sitting there at 9:00 in the morning having breakfast when someone noticed him. And then, of course, he was arrested and charged with various offenses -- fake I.D., having the firearm, et cetera. But he was then extradited -- meaning brought back to New York -- and

that's where the crime happened -- alleged crime as it related to the C -- the chief executive officer.

So I think that New York State will go first, right, because they have jurisdiction.

SIDNER: Um-hum.

JACKSON: And potentially, we'll see a federal prosecution depending upon what happens in that case. And I think Pennsylvania will get last priority just based on the nature of the offenses that were committed there which, again, was the fake I.D., having the firearm itself, lying to the police, and related charges.

But New York I think will go first.