Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

School Sheltering 400 People Bombed in Mariupol; Man Wounded by Gunfire During Protest in Kherson; Soon, Senate Hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired March 21, 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]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: It comes as at least eight people are dead this morning following a Russian airstrike on a shopping mall on the capital Kyiv, but the death toll expected to rise as rescue crews dig through the rubble there.

And this morning, in the southern city of Mariupol, officials say that Russian bombs are falling every ten minutes, as perhaps hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped there. The latest target was an art school where up to 400 people may have been sheltering.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: The other major story we're following this hour, Supreme Court Justice Nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson arrives on Capitol Hill as her confirmation hearing begins. Next hour, we'll bring that all to you live right here.

BERMAN: First, we want to bring in CNN's Phil Black, who has the latest on the Russian push in the southern part of the country. And, Phil, we've learned that Kherson, which is the populous city the Russians have occupied so far, there have been peaceful protests there but there's also been a development.

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's reason to believe there, John, today, Russian forces have used some sort of force to suppress the protest. As you say, occupied for about two weeks, the population there had been protesting that occupation on and off. Today, it looks like, according to videos that we're seeing out of the city, there's been another protest. People wrapped in flags, initially expressing their dissatisfaction.

But you can hear gunfire. You can hear explosions. We don't know if this is lethal ammunition that is being used or some other sort of crowd control measure but there's also evidence people have been injured. So, it does appears that some form of force has been used against citizens in Kherson.

BERMAN: Also in the south, Mariupol, which is the city under siege with maybe 200,000 people still trapped inside, there was an ultimatum by the Russians, surrender or we will, more or less, level the city.

BLACK: Pretty much, yes, or else. That was left unsaid but that's certainly the implication. The offer of the night, the ultimatum overnight was for the defenders of Mariupol to give up the fight, hand over the city, they would be let out safely and aid could come in. That was swiftly rejected. So, what that means is the siege will continue. Hundreds of thousands of people there sheltering with very little food, water, heat, under constant bombardment every single day from Russian air forces, naval forces, ground forces as well. It is tremendous suffering.

But the Ukrainian government believes it is worthwhile because the minister of defense today has said that that sacrifice, that effort is slowing Russia's advance elsewhere. And I guess, logically, if Russian forces weren't tied up in Mariupol, they would be able to turn their attention, their fire power to other cities. And so that is why the government believes other cities, like Odessa and even Kyiv are being protected.

Kyiv is still considered to be the primary Russian military target. And as you say, there was an attack there just last night, a missile strike which has killed at least eight people, hitting a shopping mall, also impacting surrounding residential buildings as well. This is just one strike.

But if it holds true that Russia is still desperate to get this, that it remains the primary target, then we can get a sense of what is likely to come based upon their actions in Mariupol. The bombardment, the blockade that gives us a sense of what they're prepared to do to take the city if they really want to.

BERMAN: And they're trying to get the Ukrainians to break but we just spoke to the mayor of Mykolaiv, a city not too far from Mariupol, who said they will fight until the last ammo.

BLACK: That seems to be absolutely the intention, yes.

BERMAN: Thank you so much for being with us. Poppy?

HARLOW: All right. Next hour, President Biden will hold a call with several European leaders to discuss Russia's ongoing invasion in Ukraine. Let's go to the White House. Our John Harwood is there. John, good morning, great to have you.

Talk to us about who's going to be on this call, what they're trying to accomplish. Obviously, this is ahead of the critical face-to-face NATO meeting Thursday in Brussels.

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Poppy, it's going to be all the major powers in Europe, the leaders of the U.K., France, Germany, Italy. As you mentioned, in the run-up to this NATO meeting in Thursday, the NATO powers and the United States have all said that they are not going to commit American forces directly to engage Russians in Ukraine because that would risk a wider war, perhaps even World War III, as President Biden has mentioned it, but they've got to talk about what to do with the mounting pressure that comes as the Russian behavior gets worse, as the targeting of civilians gets worse.

How that has translated so far has been an escalating series of sanctions against individuals, oligarchs, Vladimir Putin himself and also against sectors and institutions within the Russian economy. And you can expect that that discussion is going to continue as well as the discussion of positioning of NATO forces to defend, as President Biden has said, every inch of NATO territory, including Poland, where President Biden will visit on Friday, that, of course, has been the object of a huge refugee flow from Ukraine.

So, the president is going to see all of this firsthand both in Poland as well as the consultations with NATO leaders in Brussels on Thursday.

[10:05:07]

HARLOW: John, thank you, hugely consequential week ahead. We appreciate the reporting at the White House.

Let's talk about all of this and what's ahead this week with Ambassador Steven Pifer, he is the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and current William Perry at Stanford. Thank you very much, Ambassador, for joining us.

And I would like to begin, if I could, with the view that President Zelenskyy has now, as he told our Fareed Zakaria in that very important interview yesterday, that even if there's only a 1 percent chance that negotiations with Russia work, they are critical and he's willing to come to the table because if they fail, then we will be in the middle of World War III.

Given the Russian demands, even though they may have come off on some of us, so many of them are unmeetable by Ukraine and the west. So, where does that leave us?

STEVEN PIFER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: No, I think you have seen on the Ukrainian side now, for two weeks, President Zelenskyy is looking to find a way to end the fighting, and that's understandable. I mean, he's losing lots of Ukrainians every day from this brutal Russian attack. And he's indicated, for example, he's prepared to abandon the idea that Ukraine might seek NATO membership and pursue a path to neutrality but it's not clear yet that Moscow is prepared with those very maximal demands that almost sometimes seemed designed to elicit rejection from Kyiv.

BERMAN: The problem, Ambassador, is what does neutrality really mean. If neutrality is one of the conditions, and it does seem that the Russians are asking for that, what exactly are they asking for, because it seems like a whole lot more than just to stay out of NATO?

PIFER: John, that's a really good question. If you go back to 2013, Russia had a neutral Ukraine. It was in Ukraine's law that would have non-bloc status. But then Russia objected and put huge pressure on Ukraine not to conclude an association agreement with the European Union, that was really an economic agreement, it was not a military agreement.

So, what does neutrality mean to Moscow, and I suspect it's more than just don't join NATO, it's probably also don't get close to the European Union. And then the Ukrainians have a legitimate question. What's the guarantee of neutrality? Where does Moscow stay? And bear in mind that back 1994, as part of the agreement under which Ukraine gave up what was then the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, Russia committed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity and Russia committed not to use force or threaten force against Ukraine. Of course, Moscow shredded those statements.

So, what kind of assurance does Ukraine have that its nuclear status will be observed by the Russians?

HARLOW: Ambassador, I'm not sure if you heard the interview John did with the mayor of Mykolaiv, but he said that within the last few hours, a residential building there was hit by Russian missiles and a playground, a children's playground as well. And it's in that context that I ask you about what Thomas Friedman writes in his column in The New York Times, quote, if Putin's plan A, B and C fail, I fear he would be a cornered animal and could opt for plan D, launching either chemical weapons or the first nuclear bomb since Nagasaki.

Do you believe that Putin, feeling as though he's not advancing in the way that he obviously thought that his troops would, is willing to take those steps?

PIFER: Well, I do worry about the chemical weapons thing because the Russians have talked about chemical weapons being used by the Ukrainians, and that may be some kind of a pretext, laying an excuse in advance to blame it on the Ukrainian side should the Russians use them.

But I guess before it gets to that point, I worry much more about the Russians disusing mass artillery strikes and missile strikes and do what we saw them do in Syria, where they just leveled cities. They targeted hospitals, they targeted schools, or go back 20 years to what the Russians did in Grozny and Chechnya, where they basically leveled the place using conventional arms. So, I think that's much more of a concern. Unfortunately, that's the way the Russian army seems to operate. It usually violates war crimes by Russians. But that's, I think, the concern.

And so how does the west come up with pressure on Moscow to dissuade Moscow to back down and end this before it gets to that stage. And you see Mariupol, not only Mariupol but in Kharkiv, in Chernihiv and Kyiv.

BERMAN: One of the things they're saying is Mariupol is the new Grozny, Mariupol is the new Aleppo, which is to say a city leveled by the Russians.

Just think about that, when that is part of your tactical goal to destroy an entire city, and it's one of the things that Ukrainians have in mind when they approach this subject of negotiations.

[10:10:04]

Because what are they supposed to do or what will happen to some of these areas that the Russians have occupied or at least have troops operating in now? Is there just some assumption that the Russians will keep that area along the Sea of Azov, Ambassador?

PIFER: Yes. I think that's the big question. Again, what are the Russian goals? And you're right, I mean, what they've done in Mariupol, the Russian tactic here seems to be that the more civilian casualties, the more pressure that may put on President Zelenskyy to reach compromises that he might otherwise not do.

But I think for President Zelenskyy, for Ukrainians, and this may be a Russian miscalculation, these kind of attacks seem to be hardening the will of the Ukrainians to resist. But this also raises the question, what is the Russian vision of the end state? How much Ukrainian territory does Russia control or does Russia demand that Ukraine recognized as independent, the two little so-called people's republic in Donbas, how much of that is going to be in the Russian demands? And the more the Russians demand, the harder it's going to be for Zelenskyy who brings to a NATO settlement.

BERMAN: Yes. There is no shortage of Ukrainian will to resist. That is in abundance here.

Ambassador Steven Pifer, thank you so much for being with us.

PIFER: Thank you.

BERMAN: So, we just got some new video in we want to look at right now. This is of an explosion and gunfire at a protest in the city of Kherson. Phil Black was talking about this just moments ago. This is the first chance we're getting to see it. Just listen to the explosions and the gunfire here.

All right, what you're looking at there, what you just saw is terror. What you just saw is brutality. What you just saw is oppression. Again, Kherson is more or less under Russian occupation. That was what appeared to be a peaceful demonstration against that occupation and you saw and heard with your own eyes explosions and gunfire there.

We're told at least one person has been injured. It's unclear what the detonations were but the Russian troops have been in the region now for two weeks. We've been told they have a previously used stun grenade. We're going to bring you any updates from there as soon as we get them.

HARLOW: Still to come, how a contentious will this week's Supreme Court hearings be, we have some new indications from new by attacks being leveled by some Republican senators. What should we expect when Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson takes questions on Capitol Hill, that's next.

And more than 3 million people have left Ukraine since the war began. What happens to them? What happens to these refugees? We'll have a closer look ahead this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00] HARLOW: Well, it's a really big day in the nation's capital, a monumental confirmation hearing this morning on Capitol Hill next hour. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will begin to make her case for a spot on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Judge Jackson will be the first black woman to receive the lifetime appointment.

CNN Legal Analyst, Supreme Court Biographer Joan Biskupic joins me now for a preview of the hearing. And, Joan, and if you could just, first, speak to the significance of Judge Jackson's nomination beyond the obvious, diversity she brings to the bench, as a black woman, there's a lot more diversity that she would bring to the bench.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right. It's in her experience too, Poppy, and it's great to see you on this day. Welcome back here.

HARLOW: Thank you.

BISKUPIC: She obviously offers the first ever black woman nominated to the court but she has very distinctive experience not just as a judge, as most nominees do, but she has represented criminal defendants as an assistant federal public defender. You have to go back to the '60s and Thurgood Marshall to have someone with that kind of background. And, you know, she's got the credentials of Harvard, she's got the credentials of being a judge, but she was also on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets the punishments for all sorts of federal defenders whose cases then end up at the Supreme Court.

And, finally, another bit of diversity before we unfold the drama that will come today is that she was a trial judge, not since Sonia Sotomayor, who came on in 2009, have we had someone who had any kind of background right there at the ground level of cases being brought to the civil and criminal justice system.

HARLOW: Yes, all such important points. Something else I was thinking about, Joan, last night is the fact that she would take the seat of Stephen Breyer, who was confirmed 87-9, former Justice Ginsburg, 96-3, and since then, we've seen Justice Kavanaugh, 50 to 48, Amy Coney Barrett, 52 to 48. My point is Judge Jackson actually comes with a lot of support from conservative luminaries in the legal field, whether it's retired former Federal Judge Michael Luttig, William Burke, a lawyer for many Trump government officials, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who's a distant relative.

I just wonder if you think that matters, meaning, could she be the one who turns the tide and we start to go in the other direction of more bipartisan support?

BISKUPIC: Well, boy, that certainly is an aspiration of the White House right now, Poppy. And, really, when you step back from it, there's no reason that it shouldn't turn the tide. Those nominees that we had in the '90s who got practically unanimous support and Chief Justice John Roberts himself got 78 votes to 22. She should be able to pick up some Republicans.

Last year when she was approved for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, she had three voting for her. One of them was Lindsey Graham, who was on the committee and will be able to get a preview of sort of how he's scrutinized her at this point to see if maybe he will be one of the Republicans who comes over and votes for her for a bipartisan show of support, Poppy.

HARLOW: Just finally, Joan, quickly, before you go, it seems like the main line of attack that she's going to face is about her work representing -- as a criminal defense attorney representing indigents, representing some detainees in Guantanamo Bay. She vehemently defends the work she's done both in the private sector and the public sector on that front.

It's striking to me that that would be such a line of criticism when we know, you know, this justice system is based on representation for all.

BIKSUPIC: That's absolutely right, and I think it speaks to our time right now, Poppy, where there's this fear of crime out there that we had all sorts of issues of it, whether fund the police, defund the police. And I think President Biden is kind of nervous about that line of attack. But she can defend herself very well on that, given that she had some kinds of questions come to her last year and said exactly what you've just relayed, Poppy, that everyone deserves high quality representation.

HARLOW: Equal justice under law. Joan Biskupic, thank you so much. You certainly have a big day ahead. We'll all be watching as we watch Judge Jackson, maybe soon to be Justice Jackson entering her hearing on Capitol Hill.

Let me bring in Gloria Browne Marshall. She's a constitutional law professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She's also the author of the book, She Took Justice, the Black Woman, Law and Power. Gloria, it's great to have you.

You never thought you'd see this day. Wow.

GLORIA BROWNE MARSHALL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: I really didn't, and not because there aren't deserving black women who are amazing intellectuals and filled with the power necessary for this position. I have issues with this country's ability to be fair. And so sometimes I would rather hedge my bet and keep my hopes to myself, but this was something I'd pushed for, this is something I wanted to see but I didn't think I would see it.

HARLOW: So, when we look at what she would bring to the bench, in addition to what Joan talked about, the fact that Judge Jackson, for four years, was a member of the bipartisan commission on sentencing in this country. Really critical when you look at how they analyzed and ultimately recommendations they made for lowering sentences for a number of drug offenses, for example. And that has been an area where some have attacked her, but she said, you know, her personal experience in that work, there's a direct line, she said, from my defender service to what I do on the bench and I think it's beneficial. How do you expect her to answer some of those harder questions that will come tomorrow?

MARSHALL: Well, in order for us to dismantle some of the disparate treatment in our criminal justice laws, we're going to have to face them. And one of them was the 1 to 100 disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine that resulted in such a high number of people of color incarcerated for non-violent offenses.

[10:25:02]

And she then worked on the commission to give that to 18 as opposed to 1 to 100.

And for the five-year sentence, either way, for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, and I think she's going to have to say, in order for us to face going forward as a nation, we have to undo some things. And one of the things that had to be addressed was the disparity in our criminal justice laws. And that was just one aspect of the sentencing but there's so many other parts of it that need to be dismantled.

And she was on the commission with other people. She wasn't the only person voting on it.

HARLOW: It was unanimous. It was unanimous.

MARSHALL: Yes. And so they're going to look at her and say, well, you were part of this. You did it. You are the spearhead. I mean, she's going to take -- for that.

HARLOW: Gloria, but before you go, I just wonder -- I wonder what you would ask her if you were one of the senators on the Judiciary Committee. What do you think the American public should hear from her that they don't know?

MARSHALL: I would think that I would ask her, are you willing to be someone who will stand up for the little guy, for the average person, who's not really paying attention to the U.S. Supreme Court, but needs someone on the bench who's going to advocate for their right to vote, that the regular person has, for the right to have equal justice under law in practical terms for the regular person. Because at this point, outside of Justice Sotomayor, we are really not seeing people who are thinking about the regular person, even that regular cop on the street who has to then enforce those laws, those laws have to be understood. Can you give us law that's fit for the regular person? And I think that would be the question I would ask her.

HARLOW: And, you know, of utmost importance as well is how the justice's rule is what cases do they agree to hear, what do they take up to the court. That's critical on that front as well.

Gloria Browne Marshall, thank you. It's great to have you today.

And be sure to stay with us here on CNN throughout the entire day. Our live coverage of this confirmation hearing begins at 11:00 A.M. Eastern. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]