Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Justices Hear Trump's Challenge on Citizenship; Trump Comments on Peace Talks; Kurt Volker is Interviewed about Peace Talks; Ventura Returns for Cross Examination. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired May 15, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: State college killings. This is -- this is classic. This is truly classic for a killer. And the defense has to push back to all of that. But the potential jury pool can't be tainted. And that may be a huge issue today, tainting of the jury pool by so much coming out.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Jean, thank you so much. Obviously, can't -- very much looking forward to how this develops because then the trial is set for August.

CASAREZ: Set for August. Months away.

BOLDUAN: All right, Jean, thank you so much.

CASAREZ: You're welcome.

BOLDUAN: A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, a major case before the Supreme Court. Can President Trump overturn the right to birthright citizenship, and can lower courts stand in his way?

We have breaking news. President Trump says the U.S. is, quote, "very close" to a nuclear deal after Iran, quote, "sort of agreed" to its terms.

And we are standing by looking directly in the camera for the cross- examination of Cassie Ventura, the ex-girlfriend of Sean Combs, and the key witness in the federal sex trafficking case against him. How will the defense counter her emotional and very graphic testimony?

Sara is out this morning. I'm John Berman, with Kate Bolduan. And this is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BOLDUAN: All right, just an hour from now historic arguments before the Supreme Court. The justices hearing a case over President Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. He signed that, remember, on his first day back in office. It's also the first major Trump policy of his second term to wind up before the country's highest court. The court has previously upheld birthright citizenship for anyone born in the United States under the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. But the president has a different interpretation of that amendment, posting just a short time ago this, "birthright citizenship is about the babies of slaves. It has nothing to do with legal immigration for people wanting to scam our country from all parts of the world."

But this particular -- it's a more narrow case, is not really about whether birthright citizenship in and of itself is constitutional. The Trump administration is challenging the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions to block the president's agenda. Clearly, a huge issue with important, important implications here.

CNN's Paula Reid is outside the Supreme Court with much more for us.

Paula, what are -- what are you watching for? What is expected? It's all about to get underway.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Kate, the stakes could not be higher for the Trump administration. What happens here inside the high court today, which is right behind me, and what they decide in a few weeks will have enormous implications for how quickly and effectively President Trump can implement his agenda, because the issue before the justices today is whether a single judge anywhere in the country should be able to have the power to block a policy for the entire country. Those nationwide injunctions. This is something that the past of five Justice Departments have all pushed back on and wanted to limit.

Now, while the (INAUDIBLE) modern presidents have endured these nationwide injunctions, no one has had as many as President Trump. He has faced 39 in the past few months alone. So, any time he signs an executive order, there are usually legal challenges, and 39 times those policies have been blocked for the entire country by a single judge.

Now, one of those policies is his day one effort to end birthright citizenship. The idea that if you were born here, even to parents who are not U.S. citizens, you are a U.S. citizen. That's how this question has arrived here at the Supreme Court. And those who challenge birthright citizenship, they say that if you don't have one policy for the entire country, if you don't have nationwide injunctions on something like this, you're going to have chaos. You're going to have different policies across the country dictating birth certificates until the Supreme Court weighs in.

But President Trump's attorneys point to the fact that there have been many times when a lower court judge has blocked one of his policies, that eventually, when it got to the Supreme Court, they said, no, it's OK. They said they cannot have the court blocking the executive and legislative branches in this way.

So, this is really high stakes. They're not expected to delve too deeply into the question of whether birthright citizenship is constitutional. I know the president just put that on Truth Social. I've talked to his lawyers at the Justice Department. They say they are prepared to defend that policy. But that's not really the focus today. The focus is on whether a judge

should have this power. And like I said, this has been something that has plagued all modern presidents. There's an issue with bipartisan support. So, it is going to be fascinating to see how the justices handle this today.

[09:05:01]

BOLDUAN: Paula Reid, thank you so much, as always.

John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now, CNN legal analyst Michael Moore.

Counselor, great to see you.

So, there are two issues. One that's definitely before the court today, how far is the reach of lower courts in their rulings. And then the second issue, which long-term is the constitutional issue, which is birthright citizenship. Can we start with the second? How much do you think the court will get into birthright citizenship today?

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. And I'm glad to be with you.

This is interesting to me because I think the court chose this case to sort of address the issue. And that's because of the interest, and I think, frankly, the clarity of the prior Supreme Court decision and other case law dealing with the issue of birthright citizenship. So, if you think about pushing forward with the arguments that the Trump team is making, and that is in the injunction issue, that is that you have that one judge should decide, you can see, especially in a case where we're talking about babies being born and where they're being born and what judge happens to be in a district where they're being born, how ridiculous and preposterous it becomes to argue that there should not be some national decision or guidance on -- on -- on the -- that particular issue.

So, I do think they'll get into it because it gives them good leverage to push back on the arguments being made by the administration that, look, your -- your -- your suggestion that because a baby is born in New York, where it might be a judge who has said this is OK, you know, that they, in fact, are citizens, you know, that that's one thing, but yet that shouldn't apply to children being born in Texas, where a judge might view it a different way. That -- that's -- that's nonsensical.

BERMAN: OK, so this is interesting the way that you are addressing this, because a lot of the analysts and writing about it so far has been, you know, the court may -- may -- may mention birthright citizenship, and that's out there, but the case being decided today is, can a district judge issue a nationwide injunction? What you seem to be saying is, there's really not much of a way for the court to rule on that without getting into birthright citizenship.

MOORE: I -- I think that's why they chose this case. You know, the Supreme Court takes what cases it wants to hear and certainly sets what cases it decides to appear at certain times on the docket. And so you've been seeing sort of an executive, that being Trump, who has no interest at all in having, you know, co-equal branches of government. If there's been any president who's been pushing recent years to have sort of a single executive make all the decisions, it's him.

And so, this is a way that the court can come in and say, wait a minute, we have checks and balances. The courts across the country, the court system, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government. Let's talk about it in the -- in the -- in this particular case because it's -- it's -- it's a -- it produces a preposterous result and encourages people to do forum shopping and all this other that the court is generally against. And frankly too, you know, if federal judges are one thing, it's -- it's, they are loathe to give up power. And so, to have this court address whether or not federal judges actually have enough power to implement and to stop orders that they believe to be unconstitutional I think is a pretty far reach and going to be a pretty big task for the Trump administration lawyers as they push their position that the district judges don't have power.

BERMAN: So, there are -- there are people on both sides of the aisle and outside of politics who say, at some point, somehow, the issue of lower courts and how far their rulings reach does need to be addressed. So, how could it be addressed, if not by the Supreme Court in this case?

MOORE: Well, it usually means it's a good thing. When the Democrats are unhappy about it and when the Republicans are unhappy about it, usually means that you found some happy medium where things can work, and that you may be seeing that with this issue of injunctions. But to suggest that because only particular plaintiffs in a case can get the benefit of an injunction, you'd probably still be, you know, having folks having to ride in the back of the bus in Alabama, or people who couldn't go to public university because a particular judge in a particular place made a decision. That would be ridiculous. Or you think even about abortion. You're going to have abortion clinics only -- and pro-life, you know, and those clinics built only in places where you've got friendly judges. That's -- that's ridiculous.

So, they may try to fight and say something like, we're going to expedite some cases, or we're going to move it through some more quickly when it involves particular executive orders. There might be some efforts like that to -- to talk about it, but I just don't see them stripping away the power of the district court judges to actually create and impose a protection, not only for the particular plaintiffs who happen to be in front of them, but also for those who may be affected on a broader basis.

BERMAN: Yes, for those who want to see the reach of federal judges, lower court federal judges in regards to civil rights, go look up Frank Johnson.

MOORE: Right.

BERMAN: Attorney Michael Moore, always great to see you. Education, as always. Thank you.

MOORE: A pleasure seeing you.

[09:10:00]

BERMAN: Kate.

BOLDUAN: Always.

President Trump is in Abu Dhabi right now for the final leg of his Middle East tour. And he also just said that -- he told -- telling reporters that nothing is going to happen between Russia and Ukraine negotiations until he meets with Vladimir Putin.

Also, we have breaking news coming in, and exclusive CNN reporting, quote, "FEMA is not ready." That is according to an internal agency review obtained by CNN. Hurricane predictions at FEMA have now slowed to a crawl less than one month before hurricane season begins. We'll bring you that reporting.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:13]

BOLDUAN: All right, right now, President Trump is in Abu Dhabi, sitting down with top UAE officials as we speak. This is the final stop in the four-day, three nation tour he has been on of the Middle East. The president also just spoke with reporters on -- on board Air Force One about the meeting and non-meeting taking place in Turkey over peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to end that war. The president now suggesting that nothing is going to happen until he gets more involved.

CNN's Alayna Treene joining us right now with much more on this.

Talk to me about what the president is saying here.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, it's been really interesting because he's kind of been flirting all week, Kate, with this idea that he could, you know, upend some of his plans in the Middle East to go to Turkey and attend these meetings between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and potentially Russian President Vladimir Putin, if Putin were actually to go.

Now, we did hear yesterday from several top Trump administration officials that such a meeting was not on the books. That even though the president had floated it, that it was not going to happen. But then on Air Force One, and that conversation you're referring to, he again said that perhaps he could go and add it to the end of his trip tomorrow when he's leaving the UAE.

Take a listen, though, to what he told reporters on board Air Force One.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together, OK. And, obviously, he wasn't going to go. He was going to go, but he thought I was going to go. He wasn't going if I wasn't there. And I don't believe anything's going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together. But we're going to have to get it solved because so many people are dying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So, Kate, this is actually quite different from what we have been hearing from President Donald Trump when it comes to this for months now. He's now saying that he believes the only way they can find an end to this war is if he gets together face to face and sits down with Putin.

And that was really what a lot of this idea, this flirtation of trying to go to Turkey for these talks was about because essentially he is saying, if Putin goes, I will go. He didn't think that Putin would show up unless he was there.

And so, really, now we're seeing all of these talks kind of come together. We know that Zelenskyy is there. He comes, his presence, after the president had urged him to take this meeting.

I should note that Putin was actually the one who suggested in the first place that the two leaders sit down together. And I've had some conversations with the Trump administration folks about this as well. And what is the purpose? What do -- what does he want his Trump administration officials who are going, people like Steve Witkoff and Keith Kellogg, what does he want them -- what is the message he wants them to deliver to the Russians? And essentially, I was told it's frustration. That the president is very frustrated with the way that the Russians have been handling these talks thus far.

So, all of this, of course, ongoing. We're going to see -- hopefully get some details out of how these meetings go today. And still, the president is not taking off the table that he may ultimately go.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: All right, Alayna, thank you so much for that reporting.

John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now is Ambassador Kurt Volker. He is former U.S. ambassador to NATO and former U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations.

Ambassador, it's great to see you.

Given the developments that we're seeing unfold, what do you think that means from the president where he says nothing will happen until Putin and I meet in person?

KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND FORMER U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS: Well, he's just trying to keep pushing forward, keep pivoting forward. You know, he had pushed for a ceasefire to get Ukraine to agree to that. Ukraine did. Vladimir Putin rejected it. They pushed again, together with some European leaders on Sunday for a 30-day ceasefire, and again Putin rejected that but said its time for talks.

So then Trump leans in and says, OK, let's do the talks. This meeting must happen. Ukraine should accept. Zelenskyy does. He goes to Turkey. Putin rejects this again. So now he's finding another way to lean forward, saying, OK, I'll go. I'll -- I'll show up. Putin and I will get together.

Now, it has to be with Zelenskyy. This is his country after all that we're talking about. But Trump is finding every way possible to keep leaning forward, pivoting forward, in order to put pressure on Putin to actually join talks toward ending the war.

BERMAN: The question, I suppose, is to what end, though, because Vladimir Putin seems to be dictating the pace of this right now.

VOLKER: I'm not sure I would agree with that.

BERMAN: OK.

VOLKER: So, to what end? It's to end the war. I mean, that's pretty obvious.

BERMAN: OK.

VOLKER: But in terms of dictating the pace, nothing was happening along these lines three months ago. And because President Trump has been pushing and pushing and pushing for a ceasefire, and Putin has been ducking and weaving and throwing up obstacles, making new demands, raising the demands he already made. But increasingly, it is zeroing in on Putin.

[09:20:05]

The U.S. and Ukraine are now more and more in alignment about a ceasefire, about minerals, about the economy. And Putin is isolated a little bit now, and he's trying to wriggle out of this. But increasingly, the spotlight is on him.

BERMAN: You're absolutely right, pointing out to what end. To what end. To end the war. Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So, thank you for pointing that out.

I guess my point is, though, what signs do you see that Putin does feel cornered or is changing his behavior? Our Jim Sciutto reports overnight that U.S. intelligence is reporting that Russia is amassing troops to -- to bolster an invasion.

VOLKER: Yes. No, Putin is never going to not want to attack Ukraine to take over the country, eliminate Ukraine as a national identity. It's very clear that that is his objective. He's written about it, he's spoken about it, and he's acted on it. So, that's what we know of Putin.

So, what's happening here is the rest of the world, the U.S., Europe, Ukraine have coalesced around a set of policies that are gradually closing a circle on Putin to say, you've got to stop the fighting. You've got to stop.

Putin doesn't want to. He's not listening. He's trying to avoid this. But the spotlight is really on him.

Where I hope we go from here is to raise the threshold, raise the pressure on Putin through secondary sanctions, through a long term framework for addressing Ukraine, accelerated Ukrainian membership in the EU. Lots of things that will be signaling to Putin, it's not going to get better for him over time, it's only going to get worse.

BERMAN: If I can refocus geographically for a second here, because President Trump, also during his travels, just said today that the U.S. is very close -- and I'm reading this -- very close to a nuclear deal after Iran agreed to its terms. The sentence was, Iran has sort of agreed to the terms. They're not going to make, I call it, in a friendly way, nuclear dust. We're not going to be making any nuclear dust in Iran.

But the idea that we're close to a new deal with Iran. You've been very critical of really any deal with Iran. So, what do you think of this?

VOLKER: Right. Well, Iran has a way of agreeing to something and cheating. And then, at the same time, dragging their feet on actually agreeing as well.

I remember the Bush administration, we had three unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Russia at that time, that were saying zero enrichment, zero storage of enriched uranium in Iran. They could have a civil nuclear program, but they would not be able to have any means of enrichment. That slipped a bit under the Obama administration. It slipped more over time. And what Trump is implying through that statement is that we're going back to where we were, no indigenous uranium enrichment or storage.

But the Iranians have yet to say that. And even if they do agree to that, we can be fairly sure they're going to try to find ways around that, insisting on keeping the centrifuges, having facilities that are deep underground, and then looking at what they can do without detection to maintain their program.

BERMAN: Spoken like a man who's been through this before.

VOLKER: Yes.

BERMAN: Ambassador Kurt Volker, great to see you. We always hear from you in some of the most beautiful locations, this morning from Copenhagen. So, enjoy yourself there, sir.

VOLKER: Thank you.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, the key witness in the criminal sex trafficking trial of Sean Combs, Cassie Ventura, will be cross- examined by defense attorneys. How will they counter her emotional and graphic testimony.

And breaking news. An internal report from FEMA says the agency is not ready for the upcoming hurricane season.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:28:17]

BOLDUAN: And breaking news. Let's do this right now. Happening right now, after two days of emotional and graphic testimony in court, Cassie Ventura is about to face questioning in cross-examination and questions from the attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs. On the stand Wednesday, Ventura detailed the many times Combs physically assaulted her, including an incident in 2013 that left her with a permanent scar. On why she stopped fighting back, she told the jury this. "I learned that it could escalate the fight more and make it worse for myself." And she's about to be heading back on the stand today for cross-exam.

Joining us right now is CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers to talk much more about this.

Today is a very big deal. Yesterday, a lot came out. It was a very emotional and some, at points, very graphic testimony. You said yesterday was a good day for the prosecution. Why?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I thought she was a compelling and confident witness. I mean she vacillated between being calm and composed and emotional, as you would if you were kind of reliving some of these moments in her life. She's so central to the prosecution's case. I think she did a very good job yesterday.

But cross is today. You cannot evaluate a witness until they are all done, of course.

BOLDUAN: Right.

RODGERS: There's a lot of fodder for cross. So, we'll see how it goes.

BOLDUAN: So then what do you expect the approach will be from the defense team in cross-examination?

RODGERS: That's a tough question, right. They have to make that decision. Do they handle her gently. She's a visibly pregnant woman who's gone through a lot of trauma at the hands of the defendant.

BOLDUAN: That they've just heard about.

RODGERS: Yes. And much of which they admit, right?

BOLDUAN: That's right.

RODGERS: The violence that we saw on videotape, for example.

[09:30:01]

So, do they handle her kind of delicately, or do they go hard at her, right?

She's also someone who got $20 million as a result of telling this story.