Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Ukraine: Five Killed, 18 Wounded In Russian Missile Strikes In Odesa; Ukraine Officials: Satellite Images Point To Evidence Of New Mass Graves; Suspect Formally Identified In Case Of Missing British Girl, Putin Set To Meet UN Secretary-General On Tuesday; Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Faces Grilling In Disqualification Hearing; FL Gov. Signs Bill Stripping Disney's Self-Governing Status. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired April 23, 2022 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:05]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR (on camera): Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

All right, new Russian attacks targeting cities and towns across Ukraine. The latest happening earlier today in the port city of Odessa. Officials now say Russian missile strikes killed five people, including a three month old baby.

The strikes targeting a military facility and two residential buildings. And we're also seeing what could be chilling new evidence of possible war crimes in Ukraine.

WHITFIELD (voice-over): Satellite images appear to show mass graves outside of Mariupol. And advisor to the mayor says they do, in fact, show mass graves, but CNN cannot independently verify those claims.

And the discovery happening as the heavy fighting continues in the long besieged port city. And an estimated 100,000 people, soldiers, and civilians still trapped. One small boy praying for a miracle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I want to see the sun, so that when our houses are rebuilt, we can live in peace. So, we can live in Ukraine, because this is our native home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD (on camera): A Ukrainian official in Mariupol, now saying a planned evacuation has been thwarted by the Russian military. He says, at least 200 civilians who thought they were on a bus headed to safe points were instead taken into Russian controlled territory in the East.

WHITFIELD (voice-over): Russia capturing dozens of small towns in eastern Ukraine, but U.K. officials say Russians have not made any major gains in the last 24 hours. And this as Russia reveals its end game in this invasion.

Top military officials saying they plan to take full control over southern Ukraine and the eastern Donbas region.

Let's bring in Scott McLean now who is in Lviv.

WHITFIELD (on camera): So, Scott, what more can you tell us about these missile strikes in Odessa?

SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Hey, Fredricka.

One city councilor in Odessa called these an Easter gift from Vladimir Putin. This is not the kind of gift that you want to get. We're talking about six cruise missiles pointed directly at the city.

As you mentioned earlier, officials say that they hit a military facility and then they also hit two residential buildings as well.

The death toll as it stands right now is at five, with 18 others wounded. And they say that, that number is likely to rise because this, so far, is just the people that they know about. One of those victims, officials say, was a 3-month-old baby.

Ukrainians say that two missiles were actually shut -- struck down by the missile defense system along with two drones as well. One person was burned inside of their car outside of one of the residential buildings that was struck as well.

Now, Ukrainian foreign minister also responding to this saying that the only point of these attacks on Odessa is to strike fear into the population. The only point is terror, he says.

He is pushing for the country to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terror to cut off cultural ties, cut off contacts, and to cut off business with Russia, given these latest round of strikes against Odessa, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Oh, my goodness. I mean, there is so much to delve into here. I also want to ask you about those satellite photos of what appear to be, at least officials, particularly in Mariupol are saying are mass graves. What more are we hearing about that?

MCLEAN: Yes. So, this -- these photos were taken -- the satellite images were taken in an existing cemetery several miles to the east of Mariupol. You see graves that have obviously been there for quite a long time. And then, you see these new trenches that had been dug, there maybe 40 -- 45 yards long, and then there are several rows of them.

Local officials in Mariupol say that this is evidence that -- of mass graves. That bodies are being quickly disposed of in graves just like these. CNN doesn't have enough information to verify those claims. But it is not the first time that officials have made it.

Just a few days ago, they also said that in another cemetery, they were quickly building graves, or digging graves about 10 miles to the west of the city as well.

Ukrainian officials say that the death toll in Mariupol is 20,000. It is impossible to know what the true scale of the death toll is given the city continues to be under siege and it is almost impossible to get in, and as we're finding out, very difficult to get out as well.

WHITFIELD: And all of this is so frightening. But this too is incredibly disturbing when this Mariupol city officials saying that this planned humanitarian corridor today was thwarted by the Russian military.

What do we know about people who were on buses, thinking they were going to safety, but instead had been bussed to Russia?

MCLEAN: We have heard this before, Fredricka. So, in this particular incidents, there were supposed to be a humanitarian corridor that was leaving from a mall on the western edge of the city.

[12:05:03]

MCLEAN: It was supposed to end up in Zaporizhzhia, which is in Ukrainian-held territory.

Now, even earlier today, Ukrainian officials were warning people who might be headed toward that humanitarian corridor, hoping to get out of the city. They were warning that the Russians may try to redirect people toward Russian-held territory, and ultimately, to Russia. And that appears to be exactly what's happened in this case.

So, when people showed up about 200 of them, there were no buses in the places -- in the place that they were supposed to be instead, according to local officials, from the mayor's office, and Mariupol, people were instead told to disperse because there will be shelling in the area.

What there were, though, were buses about 200 yards away, those quickly filled up with people. But only once people were on board did they realize that they weren't headed to Zaporizhzhia, but they were headed to another city, inside Russian occupied territory. And very likely those people will go onwards to Russia.

I've spoken to people before in Estonia a few days ago who had a very similar story. They ended up fleeing Mariupol, trying to get out and Russia was frankly the only direction that they could find any sort of corridor towards, and rather than take their chances in Mariupol, they went to safety in the very country that's responsible for bombing their homes and completely uprooting their lives.

WHITFIELD: Wow. Unbelievably alarming. All right. Scott McLean in Lviv, thank you so much.

All right. Let's bring in Colonel Cedric Leighton now. He is a CNN military analyst and retired U.S. Air Force colonel.

Good to see you, Colonel. So, I wonder what your reaction is to hear about that kind of confusion that is being promoted at what would be humanitarian corridors, people getting on a bus, thinking they're going one place told no, there is no bus, but then directed, or they see other buses and come to find out they're going into Russian territory? What is going on here in your view?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST (on camera): Yes, this is a really sinister, psychological play, Fredricka, and it's really disturbing. Hey, you know, what they are -- what they are doing is they are intimidating the population, you're very vulnerable population.

And they're doing things that, you know, kind of make them go into a world to that's kind of Kafkaesque, if I may say so. It's, you know, it's one of those things where they're involved in all of a sudden in a bureaucracy that won't let them go.

And I'm sure as Scott McLean saw in Estonia, these people, you know -- to get out of Russia, to -- it takes a lot of effort for them to do so.

And most of them don't make it out there once they are stuck there. So, this is a real problem, and it is a violation of all the rules that you have when it comes to dealing with refugees or displaced persons.

WHITFIELD: I mean, there is so many examples of cruelty. I mean, that's one, as you just mentioned, you know, a very cruel form of intimidation, and then, the satellite images of what appeared to be mass graves.

Mariupol official saying that's what they believe they are. Well, how do you assess what we're seeing? And how it got to be that way?

LEIGHTON: Yes. These images remind me a bit of what we saw in areas like (INAUDIBLE), you know, in during the Bosnian crisis back in the 90s. There were mass graves there, and, you know, when you looked at the satellite imagery, this, you know, the images that we saw at that time, I were very consistent with what we see here.

And it does appear to be consistent with the development and the digging of mass graves on a -- on a large scale. And, you know, while I'm not as familiar with what happened in Rwanda, my understanding is, is that similar pictures were also available at that time, you know, when the Rwandan genocide occurred.

So, this is the kind of thing that you know, has to be part of the evidentiary base that they will use for war crimes trials, and it does appear to me to be very consistent, especially when you look at the top of the screen there that, you know, in the middle, that looks very much like these are mass graves that are being dug to accommodate a large, large number of people -- large number of bodies.

WHITFIELD: And then could you help people understand how that would be conducted? If these are, you know, Russian soldiers who help dig or their machinery that helps dig, or how do they create these mass graves and dispense of these bodies? LEIGHTON: So, that depends, Fredricka it could be using their own soldiers, but more likely, they may be using local civilians that they've pressed into labor. So, either one is possible. And it's something that we'd have to look at, you know, to see, there would have to be testimony from people who actually dig this.

They would have to find the grave diggers or they may have just taken the grave diggers that normally work in this local cemetery. But they probably need a lot more people, and not more -- a lot more labor to do this, were to do this, especially at this scale.

[12:10:03]

LEIGHTON: So, I think that you will find that there is going to be a mix of people that dig this, that were ordered to do this, and they were probably ordered to do so maybe even at the point of a gun.

WHITFIELD: Wow.

LEIGHTON: So, this is -- it's very disturbing, and it's certainly part of the plan that they have to eliminate the Ukrainian population.

WHITFIELD: More layers of cruelty.

All right. So, let's also now talk about this steel factory complex in Mariupol. And we understand that civilians, and perhaps, even Ukrainian military, you know, are there. That is a safe place for now.

But talk to us about, you know, strategically, what is it that Russia has in mind?

LEIGHTON: So, the also stalled plant, that is the one that we're talking about is a very large facility, built actually originally in the 1930s, under Stalin's rule, a part of the mass industrialization effort that he undertook in the Soviet Union at the time.

I -- and underneath this are these cavernous areas that can hold up to 4,000 people. I -- so, I -- for the moment, we think there are about 2,000 people of the types that you mentioned, you know, the Ukrainian soldiers, civilians, women, children, all mixed in together there.

For the moment, they're safe, the Russians have decided that they don't want to assault these areas directly. I -- in -- from a tactical military standpoint, that is probably a good decision, because the cavernous areas in there are perfect for defenders.

So, from a military perspective, as long as they've got weapons, and as long as they can shoot them, they can make it really difficult for anybody who is trying to clear the rooms, as you know, as the description would be in the military, and it would be very hard for them to take these people prisoner, unless, unless, they use chemical agents or something like that to disperse them. And that, of course, is a big danger right now.

WHITFIELD: Oh, my gosh, it just gets more horrible by the minute and day. All right, Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

All right, still --

(CROSSTALK)

LEIGHTON: You bet.

WHITFIELD (voice-over): Still ahead, 15 years after British toddler Madeleine McCann vanished during a family vacation, prosecutors have officially identified a suspect. Details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:16:31]

WHITFIELD (on camera): All right, 15 years after British toddler Madeleine McCann disappeared during a family vacation, a suspect has been formally identified in the case.

Nina dos Santos has more from London.

NINA DOS SANTOS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Portuguese authorities on Friday said that they had identified a suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, one of the most high profile mysterious missing person cases to have captivated the world's attention, and also a case that hasn't really moved forward for quite some time now.

Well, they didn't specifically name the individual on question, but the Portuguese authorities said that they had been liaising with German authorities and that is where the case has been progressing for the last two years. After in 2020, German authorities said that they had an individual in custody in German jails, serving time for separate unrelated offences, who they believe knew what happens to Madeleine McCann all those years ago.

That suspect was identified at the time as Christian B., but authorities said they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a particular crime at the time.

DOS SANTOS (on camera): And he still hasn't being charged. The latest move, what it does from a Portuguese legal perspective, is to keep this case alive just before the statute of limitations was set to expire on May the 3rd. That would have been the 15th anniversary since Madeleine McCann disappeared on a family holiday back in 2007.

Having said that, though, sadly, German authorities already said two years ago that they were working on the assumption back then, that Madeleine McCann may no longer be alive. Nina dos Santos, CNN, in London.

WHITFIELD: And two Russian oligarchs alongside their wives and children found dead within 24 hours this week, is the Kremlin to blame? I'll ask one of Putin's greatest foes live next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:22:44]

WHITFIELD: It's unsettling and suspicious. Within a span of 24 hours, two former Russian executives and their families were found dead this week. One in Russia and one in Spain.

Investigators say it's unclear whether the two men were in contact before their deaths, but many of the details in the cases are eerily similar.

CNN's Nic Robertson has more.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): Coincidence or Kremlin revenge?

55-year-old Sergey Protosenya and his wife and daughter found dead in their home in Spain, Tuesday.

And Vladislav Avayev, a 51-year-old former V.P. at Gazprombank and his wife and daughter found dead in their Moscow apartment, Monday.

Russia state news agency says Moscow police are investigating the deaths of Avayev and his family as a murder-suicide, tantamount to saying, nothing suspicious here.

Spanish police are now guarding Protosenya's luxury house, north of Barcelona. An official source close to the investigation says the bodies of his wife and daughter, which showed signs of violence were found inside the home, and Protosenya's body was found outside in the garden.

The neighbors described them as wealthy, but often traveling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): He had nice cars. I thought they were Romanian, from what I understood. And besides, you could see they were people with money.

ROBERTSON: The investigative source says Spanish police seal their probe into the deaths, no leaks that might prejudge their case.

Two different investigations, two very different jurisdictions. Historically, Spain's judiciary significantly more transparent than Russia's.

Russia's investigators releasing this ultra-short four second video of the crime scene inside the Avayev's apartment. The family's employees reportedly alerted a relative, the parents and daughter weren't answering calls from within their locks apartment. Police found all three dead from gunshot wounds.

[12:25:03]

Suspicious deaths of Russians overseas and at home and nothing new. Former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned and killed in London 2006. A British coroner questioned the apparent suicide in his locked bathroom of oligarch and Kremlin critic Boris Berezovsky near London in 2013.

2018, the attempted murder by deadly Russian nerve agent Novichok, a former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

So, too in Russia, Putin critic Alexei Navalny, poisoned nearly killed with Novichok in 2020.

There is no evidence, Protosenya or Avayev were Putin critics. There is evidence, however, that despite Kremlin demands for loyalty among the elite, some previously silent Putin allies are coming out against him.

Today, as Putin's war polarizes Russians, for and against, suspicions of shady Kremlin killings will likely linger long after Moscow's investigators close Avayev's case.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Brussels.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: And let's talk more about all of this and beyond. Let's bring in, Bill Browder. He was an investor working in Russia, until he became a target of Vladimir Putin himself after uncovering fraud by Russian government officials.

And he's also written several books about his experiences, including a new book called Freezing Order: A True Story of Money Laundering, and Murder, and Surviving Vladimir Putin's Wrath.

Bill, good to see you again.

So, two eerily similar murders or deaths, but very different approaches to the investigations. So, what a -- what do you make of these killings?

BILL BROWDER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HERMITAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Well, I don't know anything specifically about the killings other than what's been publicly reported. But when you have wealthy Russian businessman dying, and their family members dying, the first thing you should think of is that foul play is involved in almost all circumstances.

It's a different -- it's a different scenario than people dying in other countries. There are so many different reasons why murders take place in Russia, there have been so many murders that have taken place as your -- as Nic Robertson just said, all these different stories.

And I've seen it for myself in the Magnitsky case, the murder of my lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. Many other people connected to the case also died. And so, I don't know these specific individuals, but the fact that they're involved in the gas business is a very dangerous business.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Yes.

BROWDER: The fact that there's a lot of violence involved, I think that one should rule out foul play, but not until you've gotten all the evidence. And you can pretty much be assured that anything going on in the investigation in Russia will be fabricated and untrue.

But the Spanish investigation, hopefully we'll have a bit more transparency and clarity.

WHITFIELD: So, now let's transition to this Russian invasion in Ukraine. And in a piece you wrote for Time, adapted, you know, from your book, you say, "It is now plain that Putin is evil. This is not breathless hyperbole. It is fact. He has no regard for human life, and only lusts over power and money. In his calculus, money is power, and vice versa.

So, do you believe that money is what's behind all of this? You know, how can -- you know, this costly war be a money making venture?

BROWDER: Well, I don't think the war itself is a money making venture. I think it's a highly money losing venture. But I think the reason why Putin got involved in this war is because of money. And let me explain that.

So, Vladimir Putin has been around for 22 years. He's not like a normal head of state. In normal head of state governance for the sake of governing, he governs for the sake of stealing money, he and the people around him. And they've stolen an unbelievable amount of money since they got started.

I would say that Vladimir Putin, and all of the people around him -- a 1,000 people around him for last 22 years have stolen a trillion dollars from the Russian state. That is a $1,000 billion.

And that money should have been spent on public services, on hospitals, and schools, and so on.

And so, after about 22 years of this, the Russian people who don't get that money are pretty mad. And those people -- in an instant, could rise up against Putin.

And they've done it in other countries. We've seen it in the Arab Spring. We saw it in Kazakhstan in January, and Putin understood this.

[12:30:03]

BROWDER: And so, I believe that the reason for this war, and that this is dictator playbook 101, is to basically start a war and distract the people. And I think that the reason he's doing this is to stay in power. So it comes from money, it comes from stealing money. It comes from him not wanting to be overthrown. And I don't -- it is obviously a hugely money losing operation. But I think it's all the root of this problem is corruption and money. WHITFIELD: I got you. So money and power, you know, are his motivations. Then, is it the case still, that you see that there are only two ways that this, I'm talking about the invasion, you know, can end Putin being removed by his own people, you know, removed from power, or Putin getting the green light by no one doing anything, he gets the green light to continue on with this invasion in Ukraine, and you've set his eyes on other places?

BROWDER: Well, that's the big scary problem. And it's not hypothetical that one of his big generals just announced yesterday that they want to do -- go after Moldova, other neighboring country. And for Putin, the whole idea is to stay in a state of war, because that's where he has all the people sort of cheering for him and rallying around him. That's when he needs to stay in power and so, all of this stuff will continue.

If he beats the Ukrainians, he'll be on to Moldova, but more shockingly, and scarily, he might be then lining up at the border of Estonia or Poland or Lithuania, which are NATO countries. And then we have a real dilemma, which is do we want to go to war with another nuclear power with a man who's effectively a mafia boss ready to do anything to stay alive and stay in power. And that's a very scary thought. And so the only real option for us is to do everything we possibly can to achieve the better option, which is getting Ukrainians support so they can win the war against Russia.

WHITFIELD: So next week, the U.N. Secretary General will meet with President Putin on Tuesday, and then President Zelenskyy on Thursday. I mean, who can trust anything that Putin will say, I mean, so what's the point of these meetings?

BROWDER: Well, I think the point is that they want you to try to solve the problem, but I can give you a prediction with 99 percent certainty that nothing is going to -- nothing good is going to come from that. I mean, that's what the U.N. is for, to show up and try to resolve these things. But Putin has no interest in resolving this thing. He's not going to say OK, let's do a ceasefire. Let's stop everything. I retreat. That's just never going to happen. And nor as Zelenskyy, going to say, OK, you can have half my country. And we'll -- let's call it because that's not going to happen.

WHITFIELD: So you're saying it's a futile exercise?

BROWDER: And so there is no resolution. Well, I mean, let's go through the exercise, but one shouldn't hold out any hope, one shouldn't be watching it and praying that something's going to happen from it, because it isn't. There's no solution. Putin needs this war. And Ukraine shouldn't be giving up any territory, nor will they. And so we're going to be in this situation for a long, long time, unfortunately. And the only way it's going to be resolved is if one side or the other wins, and we better hope it's the Ukrainian side.

WHITFIELD: Bill Browder, thank you so much. Good to see you again. Appreciate it.

[12:33:19] Coming up, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene testified for more than three hours in a hearing to determine if the Republican lawmaker is constitutionally disqualified from running for reelection, more ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene fighting for her political future as a group of voters and liberal activists are challenging her legal right to run for reelection citing her role in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. CNN's Amara Walker has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMARA WALKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An extraordinary day in court as Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene took the stand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I swear.

WALKER (voice-over): In a hearing to determine if the Republican lawmaker is constitutionally disqualified from running for reelection because of any role she may have played and the January 6th insurrection, Greene still pushing the big lie.

ANDREW CELLI, LAWYER FOR CHALLENGES: You believed that Joe Biden had lost the election to Mr. Trump, right?

GREENE: Well, yes, we saw tremendous amount of voter fraud.

WALKER (voice-over): But continuing to deny prior knowledge of what would happen on January 6th.

CELLI: Do you were aware that people were going to make noise outside the Capitol as a means to disrupt the proceedings inside the Capitol, is that fair?

GREENE: No. I have no idea what you're talking about.

CELLI: Prior to January 6th, 2021, had you heard that people were planning to enter the Capitol Building illegally in order to disrupt the electoral count process?

GREENE: No, absolutely not.

WALKER (voice-over): Greene also unable to recall her conversations with other lawmakers.

CELLI: You didn't talk to anybody in government about the fact that there were going to be large protests in Washington on January 6th.

GREENE: I don't remember.

CELLI: Do you spoke to Representative Biggs or his staff about that fact that, didn't you?

GREENE: I do not remember.

CELLI: How about Representative Gosar?

GREENE: Sorry, I don't remember.

WALKER (voice-over): Using the same defense when asked about some of her controversial social media posts.

[12:40:00]

CELLI: Did you like a post that said it's quicker that a bullet to the head would be a quicker way to remove Nancy Pelosi from the role of speaker?

GREENE: I have had many people manage my social media account over the years. I have no idea who liked that.

WALKER (voice-over): Greene frequently objected to the line of questioning.

GREENE: You sound like you have as many conspiracy theories as QAnon at this point.

WALKER (voice-over): But maintain that her objections on January 6th were political free speech, not advocating violence.

CELLI: You used the term 1776 to describe to -- in response to a question from Newsmax broadcaster, right?

GREENE: I was speaking about objecting.

CELLI: Well, he asked you, what is your plan? What do you prepare to have go down tomorrow on January 6th? And your response was, tomorrow is our 1776 moment, right?

GREENE: I was talking about the courage to object.

WALKER (voice-over): Greene's attorneys focusing on her own fears that day.

JAMES BOPP JR., LAWYER FOR REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: Were you a victim of the attack?

GREENE: Yes, I was. I was in the House chamber when it happened.

WALKER (voice-over): Even though, Greene still defended some of those charged in connection with the insurrection as Patriots.

GREENE: Some of them were veterans. Yes. Some of them differently are Patriots.

WALKER (voice-over): At the core of the case, a provision of the 14th Amendment barring American officials from future office if found aiding or engaging in an insurrection. RON FEIN, LEGAL DIRECTOR, FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE: This is not politics. This is fear. This is serious case.

WALKER (voice-over): The outcome in Georgia could set a precedent for similar challenges against other Republican officials for their roles in the insurrection.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to the Capitol.

WALKER (voice-over): Including against former President Donald Trump, if he runs again in 2024.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALKER: The judge is expected to make a decision sometime early next month on whether or not Marjorie Taylor Greene should be disqualified from seeking reelection. He will then make a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State who will make a final determination. Now keep in mind, this insurrection disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment is from the Civil War era. That means it has never been tested in modern history before. So this will be an uphill battle for the challengers.

Amara Walker, CNN, Atlanta.

WHITFIELD: All right, joining me right now to discuss this case is Page Pate. He is a constitutional law attorney. Page, good to see you. So do you agree that it's an uphill battle because it hasn't been challenged in many, many years?

PAGE PATE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY: I do. Fred, I actually think there's a pretty good argument that this administrative law judge is not going to be able to disqualify her from office. Now remember, we only had this hearing because a federal judge in Atlanta said that it could go forward.

Another federal judge in North Carolina prevented a very similar hearing for a Congress person there based on the constitutional argument that even though the Constitution says someone who's participated in an insurrection cannot hold office, there were laws that were passed later to remove that restriction. So it is a legitimate legal issue. And I'm certain it's going to go back before a judge regardless of the decision from Friday.

WHITFIELD: All right. And even though you see it it's an uphill battle. I mean, how potentially precedent setting of a case would this be because potentially there could be repercussions involving other members of Congress who are being questioned about their knowledge or participation leading up to on or even after January 6th, insurrection?

PATE: I think the possibility for a precedent here is not so much finding that she's disqualified from serving, but finding that this kind of procedure is something that can be used in the future. Think about it. If a group of voters wants to challenge the qualifications of someone who's going to run for office, what an incredible opportunity to get that person under oath, answering questions about their involvement in something like the January 6th insurrection. And if that is allowed to go forward, as it did on Friday in other states, we could certainly see these challenges brought up again, not just this year, but in 2024.

WHITFIELD: How potentially damaging do you see it that she didn't recall, I don't remember, she used that kind of phraseology a lot.

PATE: Yes, I don't think she's trying to convince anyone that she's being honest or forthright about what she did. Obviously, she has her supporters. There were many of them there in the court proceeding on Friday, cheering her on. One way to avoid a perjury charge is to basically say you don't remember and she was pressed on several specific things, meetings she would have remembered. You would have expected her to remember being in talking to President Trump about using martial law.

You would expect her to remember that if it happened. But saying I don't remember, I don't recall allows her to kind of skirt around those questions and avoid a potential perjury charge down the road.

[12:45:00]

WHITFIELD: So besides testimony, what would be needed to help prove this case?

PATE: Well, I think you have to have some sort of direct evidence. I mean we know that Congress has been investigating this for quite some time. They've been able to do more than just question witnesses. They've subpoenaed records, they've looked at e-mails, they've looked at text messages. This administrative law judge has none of that. All he can do is rely on what was presented in court on Friday to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State here in Georgia.

Now, one thing we know about our Secretary of State, he's a Republican office holder. He's fighting for his job this year. So even if this administrative judge says, look, I think there's a reason to consider her unqualified, I don't think the Secretary of State's going to make that decision, just given the fact that his job is literally on the line, and there's only that testimony to prove the case.

WHITFIELD: All right, Page Pate, good to see you. Thanks so much.

PATE: Good to see you. Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, when we come back, DeSantis versus Disney. Is the Florida Governor punishing Disney for speaking out about Florida's so called "Don't Say Gay" bill, and violating Disney's first amendment rights? We'll discuss that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:50:38]

WHITFIELD: Florida's feud with Disney entered a new phase on Friday, Governor Ron DeSantis signing a new law that will dismantle the self- governing status the Disney World Resort has enjoyed for the last 55 years. And it comes after Disney criticized a Florida law aimed at preventing schools from teaching young children about sexual orientation or gender identity dubbed by opponents as the "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Well, back was back with us again, Constitutional Law Attorney Page Pate, even though I say goodbye to you, I didn't really mean it. It was a very short goodbye. Hello again. All right, so --

PATE: I don't want to leave.

WHITFIELD: Right. Well, this is a really important topic, you know, because from the outside looking in, I mean, the state government of Florida is punishing Disney for taking a stance verbalizing itself against this new law. So would that ultimately be a violation of their First Amendment to speak as they want it?

PATE: I think so, Fred. I mean, we have to start with the proposition that accompany just like a person has the right to freedom of speech, the First Amendment protects their ability to make statements about things they believe in, things they're against. They absolutely have that protection.

The only question here is, was this particular action to strip away their authority in the middle Florida, Orlando area, take away their ability to govern themselves? Was that in retaliation for them speaking out or did speaking out about this "Don't Say Gay" bill?

WHITFIELD: Well, does it seem like it is retaliation?

PATE: Yes, absolutely. I mean, you look at the statements that the Governor has made, you look at some of the social media messages members of the state legislature have put out there, I think it is clear not just to punish Disney, but to send a message to other companies not to take the same sort of position.

So I don't think that's a good argument. But what we have seen already is some members of the legislature saying well, now, wait a minute, it wasn't just Disney, there were other tax districts involved. And maybe Disney should not have had this privilege to begin with. But that doesn't matter under the constitutional analysis. They had it. Now they don't. And it's because of what they said.

WHITFIELD: Yes, but it's interesting, because now it's being analyzed in lots of different ways. I mean, it may be a privilege, you know, one point of view, but then we just spoke with, you know, the tax commissioner, who says, ultimately, Disney may be saving, they may be saving $160 million, you know, in taxes that they would have paid with that kind of special privilege. So are they really being punished because now, Florida residents are going to have to pay that cost? So if Disney wants to push forward on this and challenge, the state legislature, challenge this law, what kind of recourse does it have just potentially strength down the law?

PATE: Well, Fred, they need to go to court, they would file a lawsuit, they would allege a violation of their constitutional rights by the state of Florida. And they would say they acted in retaliation by taking away this privilege we had. Whether we should have had it to begin with or not, it's not the issue for the constitutional analysis. We had it, they took it away. So that would go to a federal judge in Florida.

But you're right, they may not want to do that. I mean, it looks like they're going to be able to unload a bunch of debt on the taxpayers of Florida. So there may be political or business reasons not to even challenge the decision. We'll see.

WHITFIELD: Oh, boy. So unlike most of, you know, Florida's new laws that are set to take effect, you know, July 1st, this law against Disney's Reedy Creek Improvement District doesn't begin until 2023. So there is time here, what?

PATE: Well, Disney, first of all has to decide what they want to do. And I think so far they've not made a public statement about what their intentions are, whether they're going to sue to try to undo this action. They're going to think about it. They've got lawyers, they have very good lawyers. They're going to decide if this is something they want to do not just from a legal standpoint, because I do believe they have a legal right to do it. But do they want to do this as a business decision? And you're right. They have time to think about it. It's not an emergency. They don't have to act next week or even next month.

WHITFIELD: All right, Page Pate, I'll just say so long. See you later.

PATE: Hope to see you soon.

WHITFIELD: Might have you come back really, really soon. Thank you.

PATE: Looking forward to it.

[12:54:56]

WHITFIELD: All right, just a short time ago, Russian missiles struck two residential buildings and a military facility in a very critical port city in Ukraine at the same time we are seeing now proof of potential war crimes taking place. We're live in Ukraine straight ahead.