Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Allows Alabama GOP Map That May Hurt Black Voters; Putin Denies Report Putin Committed to No New Military Initiatives; Georgia Prosecutor to Former President Trump, Subpoenas Are Coming. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired February 08, 2022 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:02]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: So, let's begin there with CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin and CNN Political Commentator Errol Louis.

Jeffrey, let's begin with you, because if you're to just follow what Chief Justice Roberts' opinion states, it's that the lower court followed the law. So, if that was in case true, why did the majority rule the way it did and stayed the case, stayed the law?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Because this looks like yet another example of the five very conservative justices on the court getting ready to change the law, like they're getting ready to change the law on abortion. But what's so important about this case is that it's not just about one congressional seat in Alabama, it's about how the Voting Rights Act, which is the key law that's supposed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race in all election-related matters, how that is interpreted for literally generations, since 1965, the Supreme Court has said you cannot draw district lines, you cannot gerrymander to disadvantage African-American voters. And what the district court held in this case is that's what the Republicans in Alabama did.

What the Supreme Court did yesterday, even without hearing an argument, said, no, no, we are going to reinstate the Alabama Republicans plan for the time being until we hear this case on the merits, which, of course, means in the 2022 elections, those laws will be in place. What the district court said will disadvantage blacks will be in place, but that's what the majority is doing, and even John Roberts is against it.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Errol Louis, so, already in the Shelby Case, Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, essentially turned out that provided some federal oversight of communities that make decisions like this. Section Two, and, by the way, you guys know this better than me, is the one that allows no law to discriminate on the basis of color. That's where this is going here, right? Do you view this, as Jeffrey does, to the courts leaning toward signaling that Section Two is going to be gone too?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, sure. This is an activist court. Make no mistake about it. This is a five-vote majority in favor of rapidly unraveling minority voting rights. I mean, there's just no question about it. Consider this, Jim, the three-judge panel that approved the voting plan that would have created -- were appointed by Donald Trump. I mean, this is not any way radical or unusual to have a lower court, they've been doing this since the 1980s, of sort of approve a voting plan that reasonably tries to correct some of the political excesses that go on at the local level.

And so now you have now the state that's 27 percent black and they have exactly one district out of seven as far as black voters go in Alabama. By every standard that the court has upheld up until now, that would be on its face suspicious, and after extensive discovery at the local level, they found that it was unlawful. This court has said, nope, they're going to change the law, they're going to let it go through. It's going to have implications all over the country.

GOLODRYGA: Jeffrey, what do you make of Justice Kavanaugh's argument that this is in fact related to the election, the upcoming primary election there, and that it's just too close to an election date? Do you think they would have stayed the case had this been perhaps six months ago? I mean, how much weight are you putting on the upcoming election factor in itself?

TOOBIN: I don't think this is an issue about timing. This is an issue about an agenda. And the agenda is to nullify the Voting Rights Act. And the really chilling thing about this is that the author of the opinion, which demolished most of the Voting Rights Act, Section Five, which is the -- which allows the federal government to review voting rights, that was John Roberts. And what we saw here is that the court went too far and too quickly, even for John Roberts. That tells you how quickly the court is moving in any rightward direction.

SCIUTTO: Errol, as I can understand it, part of Roberts' argument here was that, by doing this, the court is overriding its own precedent here. I've watched a lot of confirmation hearings for nominees, including those three conservative justice who profess their respect for precedent. But now with this case and with the Roe v. Wade cases, it seems like -- were they misleading? Have they changed their minds? Is the law different?

[10:05:00]

What do you see?

LOUIS: I think it was always clear that -- even as candidates, you could sort of tell, if you looked at their background, if you looked at their answers, which were kind of deliberate in some cases, like sort of with a bit of a smirk, you can see that they do have an agenda. It's completely consistent with the groups that -- those that appointed them. There is a large sort of minority rule agenda that spans several decades now where there are Republicans, there are conservatives that are saying, listen, we're going to be outnumbered in every way that counts. However, we can fight a rear guard battle if we appoint enough of these activist judges to the high court, and that's exactly what we see happening.

SCIUTTO: Errol Louis, Jeffrey Toobin, this is a court to watch, no question. Thanks so much.

TOOBIN: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the other big story we're watching this morning, uncertainty about Russia's next move as the Kremlin denies reports that President Putin committed to no new military initiatives in Eastern Europe.

Now, it comes after French officials reported that Putin made that commitment to the French president on Monday and after Russia announced this morning that it will pull troops from neighboring Belarus after the completion of joint military exercises.

SCIUTTO: Moments ago, I spoke with a source familiar with the Biden administration's reaction to these latest comments by Putin and Macron. They say this. The facts of the situation have not materially changed. They note, there is still more than 100,000 Russian forces on Ukraine's border. The administration does continue to speak with the French, I'm told, but, ultimately, notes once again, it is up to Putin as to whether he invades. So, the administration is skeptical of these comments they're hearing from France and Russia.

Joining us now, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, she's the former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia/Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council. Good to have you on.

What is your reading of these comments here? Putin -- rather Macron puts a rosy view on their conversations, Putin throws some cold water on that and the White House says they're skeptical. Where do you stand?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR RUSSIA/EURASIA, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL: I think I'm standing with the White House on this one. In large part, I don't think we saw anything in the joint press conference between President Putin and President Macron yesterday to suggest that there's any sort of breakthrough on the horizon. And if anything, I think we saw a Putin that was actually quite defiant in that press conference. He reiterated his view that Crimea is Ukraine, he called into question the fact that NATO is defensive alliance. There were even some not so thinly veiled threats targeted at Ukraine.

So, again, I think there's not a lot of room for optimism and the facts on the ground still do remain the same. The security environment is deteriorating, and so that really -- that picture stands in sharp contrast to what I think the French are portraying.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, I agree with you, Andrea. I was a bit puzzled to see Macron's response this morning and his assessment of their over five- hour conversation. Because from what we saw from Putin yesterday, he was riled up, he seemed very angry.

And that just leads me to, what happens next, right? Because, obviously, avoiding war in more conversation is a good thing. But I'm just wondering at this point, is it getting too convoluted? We know that chancellor from Germany, Scholz, is going to Moscow and Ukraine next week.

At this point, how many more meetings are possible before we see any sort of resolution, any sort of de-escalation?

KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, I think we're in a Hail Mary territory. And so I actually think it's good, the more leaders that are talking to Putin, the better. And I think the goal at this point is to test the proposition of whether there's some sort of agreement that falls short of Putin's maximalist objectives that he could take and walk away with and that the Ukrainians and NATO member states could be happy with. And so that's the proposition that I think the United States and European leaders need to continue to test because the stakes are just so high.

But the fact though that Russian forces continue to build on the border, we're ticking through a number of very concerning kind of military indicators that suggests that an invasion could be coming soon. So, there's ample reason to be pessimistic and I think why we hear the Biden administration reiterating that they're really ready for anything because the facts on the ground do suggest we're moving in a pretty concerning direction.

SCIUTTO: One of Putin's comments regarding France -- rather, this is Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, regarding France, he said that France is a member of NATO but Paris is not the leader there. In this bloc, a very different country is in charge. So, what deals can we talk about, basically saying Mr. Macron, you don't lead this alliance, in effect, that the U.S. president does, a bit of a swipe there. Did Macron's peace mission, if we can call it that, fail in this case?

[10:10:00]

KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, we do know that the Russians have a preference for dealing with the United States. That's something that Putin takes great pride in. He wants to portray himself as that global statesman sitting at the table, kind of on par with the United States. So, that's the conversation that Putin really wants to have.

You know, it's hard to say if Macron's peace mission has failed. The door to diplomacy is not closed. But, again, I can agree and align myself with the view that Russia at this point, I think, is using diplomacy to buy time as it continues to prepare its forces for what seems to be and what could be a sizable invasion of Ukraine.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. A lot of people are reading the tea leaves yesterday noticing that Putin not once but twice referred to Macron and the informal T instead of V format. And, obviously I don't think he would have done that with President Biden.

But one thing that I did notice from Macron that caught my attention was that he said this crisis was not going to be resolved anytime soon. It may take months. Given the amount of troops we see surrounding the country, just how sustainable could it really be for the Kremlin to keep so many 100,000, if not, more troops in place for months? KENDALL-TAYLOR: I think that's one of the key questions is, you know, you're -- exactly what you're saying, how long can they maintain this heightened state of readiness? Again, Putin here is the master of optionality. He has built himself a vast set of options. I think it is a plausible scenario that they could maintain this posture for at least a while and have this kind of slow grind scenario that's intended to hurt Ukraine's economy, to wear down the nerves in the west. So, that is plausible. But, again, I think that contradicts with what we're seeing happening militarily, which does again suggest that he's poised for a military operation should Putin give the order.

GOLODRYGA: And in the meantime continuing to give Putin all the attention that he's craving, right, one world leader after another coming to meet with him at very long tables, I might add. Andrea Kendall-Taylor, thank you so much.

KENDALL-TAYLOR: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, up next, a CNN exclusive, the prosecutor investigating Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the election in Georgia speaks one-on-one with CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you worried that former President Trump could somehow be able to avoid, delay what's going on with your investigation?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: What she's revealing about that key question in the investigation.

SCIUTTO: Plus, pressures mounting on the White House and CDC as more states, red and blue, drop mask mandates in schools. Hear from a health care worker and mother of four who says, in her view, it's time to stop masking children.

And an NFL lawsuit alleging racial discrimination prompts a meeting between Roger Goodell and civil rights leaders. Are changes to what's known as the Rooney rule coming? We're going to have a live report coming up ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: A potential warning to former President Donald Trump, a special grand jury will be seated and the subpoenas are coming, that from Georgia's Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis. Now, she tells CNN that the criminal investigation will not be delayed by what she calls the former president's games.

GOLODRYGA: She went on to knock down the notion that Trump can't be prosecuted for potential crimes committed during his time in office.

CNN's Sara Murray has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MURRAY (voice over): The Atlanta area district attorney investigating Donald Trump says as soon as she has a special grand jury seated in May, she'll start firing off subpoenas.

FANI WILLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA: Most of them will probably start to come in a heavier flow, for lack of a better word, in June, in later months, but we will certainly start do some in May.

MURRAY: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis says she isn't worried about Trump working to slow her probe into his efforts to overturn Georgia's election results in 2020.

Are you worried former President Trump could somehow be able to avoid, delay what's going on with your investigation?

WILLIS: No.

MURRAY: Why is that? What gives you that confidence?

WILLIS: This is a criminal investigation. We're not here playing a game. I plan to use the power of the law. We are all citizens. Mr. Trump, just as every other American citizen, is entitled to dignity, he's entitled to be treated fairly. He will be treated fairly in this jurisdiction. But I plan to do my job and my job is to make sure that we get the evidence that gives us the truth. I'm not concerned at all about games to delay this.

MURRAY: And she cast out on whether Trump's often used argument that he can't be prosecuted for actions while president will protect him in Georgia.

WILLIS: I don't think that that protection will prevent a prosecution if that becomes necessary in this state case.

MURRAY: Willis has already met Trump's attorneys twice about her plans to move the investigation forward.

WILLIS: For instance, last calendar year, and I assured them what I knew. We would not bring forth an indictment in the 2021 year. I met with them at the very end of 2021 to tell them that I would be moving forward, not necessarily with an indictment but with the next step of an investigation.

MURRAY: Willis launched her investigation nearly a year ago, after an hour-long recording went public of Trump pressing Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find the votes for Trump to win Georgia.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT (voice over): All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.

MURRAY: Last month, in her request for a special grand jury, she told the court she had reasonable probability of criminal disruptions around the 2020 election.

WILLIS: I have listened to that phone call, but also I have the benefit of also having talked to a lot of witnesses and probably having read more on this than most people would like to.

MURRAY: She's digging into Trump's actions, as well as those of his allies, including former Attorney Rudy Giuliani, former Chief of staff Mark Meadows and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, witnesses she may subpoena as part of her probe.

WILLIS: I imagine that we're going to be issuing subpoenas to a lot of people and that all of them are not going to welcome our invitation to come speak with us.

MURRAY: She hopes to make a charging decision by end of 2022.

We sat down with Willis in an Atlanta hotel as her office was under lockdown from a possible security threat at the Fulton County Courthouse. Willis was already on high alert after Trump took aim at her and other prosecutors during a rally.

TRUMP: I hope we are going to have in this the biggest protest we have ever had in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta.

MURRAY: After those comments, Willis asked the FBI for help assessing potential security deficiencies and sharing intelligence on potential threats.

WILLIS: I don't want to pretend like I didn't hear what I heard. It would be just crazy for me to not pay attention to that. So, I wanted to make sure that they were also paying attention.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MURRAY (on camera): Now, we also asked the district attorney when she's planning on talking to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, who's really at the center of this, whose call with Donald Trump set it all off. She said she knows what it's like to be in the middle of a campaign, as Raffensperger is in the middle of his reelection. She said she's not going to try to get him to talk before the grand jury before the May Republican primary here in Georgia, but she's not certainly going to hold off until the November midterms. Guys?

SCIUTTO: Sara Murray, thanks so much.

CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin is back with us. So, Jeffrey, you know the law. President is on tape. He's saying -- he's a sitting president with all the powers of the office. He's saying to Georgia's premier election official, the secretary of state, find me the votes, one more than necessary to overturn the state. And, by the way, now we know that this was part of a broader mosaic of Trump attempt to overturn the election. What does the law say? What is the legal standard to establish that was potentially criminal interference as opposed to just Donald Trump talking? TOOBIN: Well, Georgia has a law that really directly addresses this whole issue, which basically says it is a crime to encourage election fraud. And the central issue in this is whether the president -- the now former president intended to have fraud committed.

The defense in this case will be, if there is a case, I was just acting in good faith, I wanted all the votes counted because I really believed I won. I acted in good faith. The question is, does this phone call and all the other evidence show that it was not a good faith attempt to count all the votes but actually to encourage fraud? That's the heart of this case.

GOLODRYGA: Well, to pick up on that, we have now, for over a year, have heard that phone call where the former president was asking to find that specific amount of votes, but what we heard from Fani Willis here was that she said she has read more and seen more than others have yet. What is the likelihood that some new information will be brought out to the public eye throughout this investigation?

TOOBIN: You know, that really jumped out at me in Sara's report, that comment from the district attorney, which is there's more than just the tape. And I think, you know, the audio tape is definitely incriminating. But I think some people believe that you just play the tape and Donald Trump will get convicted.

There is absolutely no way a responsible prosecutor would act on the tape alone. But it does appear that based on what the district attorney said, she is proceeding as if this is a full investigation of everything that went on in Georgia, and a lot of stuff went on in Georgia. For example, the question of why and how the U.S. attorney, not the district attorney, the federal prosecutor in Atlanta, was forced out of office by the Trump administration in the middle of this effort to try to overturn the election. All of that is part of this investigation and it looks like the district attorney, Ms. Willis, is operating in a methodical and fair way to make a fair decision about whether there's a criminal case here.

SCIUTTO: Jeffrey, is this solely focused on efforts in Georgia or can the prosecution make an argument that other efforts to overturn the results, again, that have been revealed in a whole host of other investigations around the country, are relevant to this case or does this have to be all about Georgia?

[10:25:06]

TOOBIN: I think, certainly, any criminal case will have to be about Georgia. The Georgia statute speaks only of election fraud within Georgia. If there is compelling evidence of a pattern of behavior, perhaps they could bring that into a criminal case. But, frankly, I think Ms. Willis has her work cut out for her just dealing with Georgia. There is, of course, the New York investigation, the federal investigation of January 6th. I don't imagine that Ms. Willis will wind up investigating in any serious way other states because there's plenty to look at there in Georgia.

GOLODRYGA: And as we heard from there, making some news that we could see subpoenas in May and more this summer. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you, as always. We appreciate it.

Well, still ahead, as states make moves to drop mask mandates indoors and in some schools, some parents say it can't come soon enough. We'll speak to a mom who's also a doctor. Hear what she says about it all.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]