Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Liz Cheney Blasts Trump; Gas Price Forecast; Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Sworn In; Supreme Court Targets Government Efforts to Fight Climate Change; Biden Backs Dropping Filibuster to Codify Abortion Rights. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 30, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:59]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello, and thank you so much for being with us. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

President Biden's high-stakes trip abroad dogged by problems back home. Those big domestic challenges dominated his final moments in Madrid as he and other NATO leaders wrapped up a historic and consequential summit.

The president blamed high gas prices on Russia's war in Ukraine and he blasted the U.S. Supreme Court for -- quote -- "outrageous behavior."

As we give you live images outside the courthouse right now, you can see there are still demonstrators there protesting. But perhaps the biggest headline today, President Biden says he now supports bypassing the filibuster rule and its 60-vote threshold in the Senate to protect abortion rights.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade into law. And the way to do that is to make sure that Congress votes to do that.

And if the filibuster gets in the way -- it's like voting rights -- it should be we provide an exception for this -- require an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Let's begin with CNN's Phil Mattingly in Madrid.

And, Phil, the White House has been carefully sidestepping questions about the filibuster. Not anymore. What changed?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, look, the caution itself was notable, both from Vice President Kamala Harris and from Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary.

And it was also based in reality. Both of them pointed out that they don't have the votes to create a filibuster carve-out or change the Senate rules as it currently stands. That changed today, at least their overall position on things.

The president coming out forcefully, making clear he wants a carve- out. And the reason why, when you talk to officials, is really twofold, and they dovetail together. The first is there has been an absolute ramp-up of extreme pressure from Democrats who want this White House to do more, understanding there are severe limitations to what the executive branch can do.

There's no executive order that can reestablish a constitutional right. And this is one element that many activists, many Democrats outside the White House have been calling for. But the way this also tracks, it was a big push we have heard from President Biden since the day of the decision itself.

And that is the biggest way, the most critical way to have any effect of changing what the Supreme Court decided is through voting. It's through increasing majorities in the United States Senate and in the U.S. House. And the only way to do that is to ramp up enthusiasm amongst the Democratic voters, amongst the Democratic vote base.

And the president also wrapping up his rhetoric here in Madrid.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States on overruling not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy.

We've been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights, and it is a mistake, in my view, for the Supreme Court to do what it did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The president not just framing this in the fallout from a domestic capacity, but also the U.S. role in the world.

Now, it's worth noting the realities that the White House press secretary and the vice president were referencing a few days ago, those are still very real. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, their offices reiterated today they do not support a carve out for the filibuster, whether it's Roe vs. Wade, whether it's voting rights or anything else.

And that gets to this idea that this is all about Democratic enthusiasm. This is all about juicing up the base, getting them excited for those midterm elections at a moment where their poll numbers on the Democratic Party side are definitely lagging.

They need more senators if they want this change to actually happen. That's what the president was going forward today. That's largely behind his reason to support a carve-out that he knows he doesn't have the votes for at this moment -- Ana.

CABRERA: And now the president is on his way back to the U.S.

Phil Mattingly in Madrid, thank you for your reporting. Travel safe home as well.

Today, two more Supreme Court decisions, both of them on major policy issues, climate change and immigration.

CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider is outside the Supreme Court for us.

Jessica, let's start with the decision on climate change. The court curbed the EPA's ability to regulate carbon and emissions from power plants. What impact is this expected to have?

[13:05:03]

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, put simply, Ana, it really upends the Biden administration's plans to combat climate change, because this administration and the EPA, they have been moving forward with a rule to regulate carbon emissions from power plants and, more broadly, to push those power plants to switch over to renewable energy sources over coal.

The Supreme Court saying that the EPA just doesn't have that broad authority. And, in the opinion, the chief justice said that it might be sensible to cut coal with these regulations. The issue is just too big for any agency and it should be left to Congress.

It's something that the dissenters here called frightening when it comes to the impacts of climate change. But, more notably, here, this Supreme Court also sent a warning shot to future agencies when it comes to regulations. They said that if there's an issue that an agency tries to regulate that's just too big of an issue, it could ultimately be struck down.

So this is once again the conservatives on this court, Ana, reining in agency power, and it will no doubt lead to a lot of lawsuits when it comes to things that agencies are now trying to regulate beyond the EPA.

CABRERA: Let's turn to the second and final decision, this one on immigration.

The court sided with the president, allowing the Biden administration to end the Trump era remain-in-Mexico policy. How does that change what's happening at the border?

SCHNEIDER: Well, there likely won't be any immediate effect here.

But in the weeks and months ahead, the Biden administration will likely be able to end this remain-in-Mexico policy. It's affected about 2,300 migrants at the border so far. It's been in place since 2019. And what it did was, any migrants that came up from Central America, non-Mexican migrants, it allowed us authorities to send them to Mexico while they awaited their immigration proceedings. Critics called it inhumane for some of the squalid conditions that

they had to endure once they were sent back to Mexico. The lower courts here had said that not only did the Biden administration not end this policy the right way, but it said that the Biden administration did not have the broad authority to end this.

The Supreme Court reversing that, saying that, yes, President Biden can end this, but it needs to go back to the lower courts to look at a second memo that was issued by DHS to see if the Biden administration did it the right way, Ana. It's likely that the lower courts will side with the Biden administration now that the Supreme Court has ruled and President Biden could likely end this policy, a Trump era policy, in the coming weeks or months.

CABRERA: Well, just because these issues are never simple, you did such a great job really trying to boil it down for us and explaining the impact and how it's going to affect U.S. citizens.

Thank you very much.

Amid all this controversy over its decisions, the Supreme Court marked a historic moment just a short time ago. Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first female African-American justice in the Supreme Court's 233- year history.

And I want to bring in CNN's Ariane de Vogue now.

And, Ariane, Justice Brown Jackson, she's not going to change the ideological makeup of the court as far as the number of conservatives or liberals. But do you think she will have an impact?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right, this historic moment, the first black woman to get on the Supreme Court.

She is young. She's going to bring a new perspective. She's going to bring new energy. But you're right. She's not going to change the balance of the court. But that perspective might be really important right now. She is the daughter of a schoolteacher.

She comes with this glittering resume, Ivy League schools. She served on some of the top courts, very powerful courts. But she could be forgiven if she had some second thoughts about coming to this court right now, because it is such a fraught time at the Supreme Court.

The court has just overturned Roe v. Wade. It's expanded gun rights for the first time in a decade. And it'll be interesting to see where she takes her place. Will she be more like justice Sonia Sotomayor? Sotomayor right now perhaps the most liberal member. She writes her dissents like she's swinging for the rafters here, wanting to hope that someday her dissents will be majority opinions.

Elena Kagan, at times, more measured, sometimes looking for narrow areas of ways that she can agree with the conservatives. So it'll be interesting to see where Justice Jackson fits in. But, boy, she comes when the justices themselves are so just totally thrown off by the fact that a draft opinion was leaked.

There is so much tension within the court, and we have really seen it in some of the opinions in the last couple of weeks, really backbiting opinions. And, finally, think about what's coming up next term. She's going to have a quiet summer. But, next term, there's big voting rights cases, affirmative action, religious liberty.

She's going to have to take the seat, and she will probably be in dissent for the near future.

CABRERA: We will see how she shakes up the dynamics.

DE VOGUE: Yes.

CABRERA: Ariane de Vogue, thank you.

[13:10:00]

DE VOGUE: Thanks.

CABRERA: So, another headline from the president's press conference today, he says Americans can blame Russia's war on Ukraine for record high gas prices this month. We have heard that before, but he adds U.S. support for Ukraine and the resulting price spike will last -- quote -- "as long as it takes."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: But the bottom line is, ultimately, the reason why gas prices are up is because of Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: CNN business correspondent Rahel Solomon is with us now.

Rahel, we have seen gas prices start to actually tick down over the last few days. My fingers are crossed that that's the new trend. What can we expect? What's going on now?

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: I know. And it's interesting, because you hear those comments from Biden, and then you look at the cost of crude and it's lower, and you look at the cost of a gallon of gas, and that that's lower, $4.86 today. That's lower than yesterday, even lower still than a week ago, which perhaps is some good news for some

The reason why, not so good, recession fears, demand destruction. It is already proving too high for some people. And so people are starting to scale back on how much gas they buy. There's this expression that the only cure for high prices is high prices. Well, that's exactly what we're seeing.

I spoke to an industry consultant a little earlier today and said, what's your forecast? Andy Lipow telling me that he sees prices going to $4.70 over the next two weeks, but, again, for the same two reasons, demand destruction and recession. So, even $4.70, which is an improvement from what we're seeing today,

would be cause for celebration for some, but people are not going to be cheering in the streets for this, especially because it's still relatively high. It's not $5. But it's not cheap either.

CABRERA: Right. I mean, based on all the experts that I have talked to, it does sound, though, like this war in Ukraine does have an impact on gas prices.

SOLOMON: For sure.

CABRERA: Do you think it makes sense that, as long as that war continues, the prices will still stay in an area that's very outside the comfort zone?

SOLOMON: Yes, I mean, it's hard to say absolutely, because so many factors go into the price of crude and the price of gas.

I think, for sure, as long as the war continues, unless we see a lot more supply, which it's hard to see right now, or we see real demand destruction, which would require something unfortunate, like a significant recession, I don't think that we're going to see prices really start to cool.

And, of course, we want prices to cool, but we don't want to get there in that way.

CABRERA: The president said today inflation in the U.S. yes, it is high. But look at other places around the world The U.S. is not in as bad a situation as it could be. Is that true? And I guess is that supposed to make us feel better?

SOLOMON: It's hard to make you feel better when inflation is at 40- year highs.

I mean, yes, there are glimmers of hope in our economy. The labor market is really, really strong; 3.6 percent is practically a 50-year low; 3.5 percent for the unemployment rate is a low. We're also seeing really strong demand. And, by the way, consumers are still spending. Consumers still have quite a bit in their savings account for the most part, not everyone, for the most part.

And businesses, their balance sheets still a pretty strong. So there are some reasons for hope, but sentiment is overwhelmingly negative. We hear it from the business community. We hear it on Wall Street, and we hear it from consumers.

Today is the last day of the first half of the quarter. And it has been an ugly first half of the year.

CABRERA: Inflation is higher, though, in other countries. Is that -- that's true, right?

SOLOMON: In some cases, yes. But there are different factors, in the sense that, here in the U.S. and in the U.K., it's also demand-driven inflation, and as well as supply-driven inflation, right? So supply chain issues are affecting the whole world. But then here in the U.S., where we like to shop and demand is really strong, we're also dealing with demand-driven inflation. So it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. But, again, inflation here in the U.S. is 40-year highs. So it's hard to say that, oh, we're doing a lot better than some of our European counterparts.

CABRERA: Context is always important.

SOLOMON: Yes. Yes.

CABRERA: Thank you so much, Rahel Solomon.

Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney says the man who once held the highest office in the country is now a domestic threat. The vice chair of the January 6 Committee is not holding back, as the panel subpoenas former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone. Will he talk and how could his testimony impact this investigation?

Plus, it's a small island, but it is a big win for Ukraine. Russian troops have Left Snake island in the Black Sea. The latest on the state of play there, as President Biden vows to back Ukraine for as long as it takes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:18:37]

CABRERA: Republican Liz Cheney's up for reelection, but last night you wouldn't know it.

The vice chair of the January 6 Committee unleashed on the very man who has had a firm grip on her party for years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): We are confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before. And that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic.

And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who have made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: CNN has learned former President Donald Trump's White House counsel Pat Cipollone will probably agree to a transcribed interview with the January 6 Committee.

A lawyer familiar with Cipollone's thinking after the committee subpoenaed him says he could sit for an interview limited to specific topics to avoid executive privilege issues.

Let's discuss now with CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig and Alan Rozenshtein, who previously worked in the Justice Department's National Security Division. He's now an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

Gentlemen, always great to have both of you here.

And welcome, Alan, because I haven't actually spoken with you in person before.

But, Elie, let me start with you.

When we talk about what is on the table vs. off the table potentially in the committee interviewing Pat Cipollone, what would be covered as privileged?

[13:20:02]

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Ana.

So I think the most obvious example of privilege is Pat Cipollone's conversations one-on-one with Donald Trump. I think he might argue or be concerned that these are subject to executive privilege.

Now, the problem the committee has is, they don't really have a way to challenge that, because, as a practical matter, if they wanted to challenge that, they would have to go into courts. That takes months and months, potentially years. They just don't have that time. So they have no leverage.

So I think this falls under the principle of something is better than nothing. He still could have very valuable testimony to offer about other things he said and did in the White House on January 6, but it sounds like they're probably going to give up the Trump conversations, which to me is the most important part.

CABRERA: But he could say, yes, I did -- he could confirm what he told Cassidy Hutchinson, what she said he told him -- her specifically.

HONIG: Yes, I think that's right.

CABRERA: And that was key, because he, in her words, said something along the lines of, if you go down there to the Capitol, that would open us all up to basically any crime imaginable we could be charged with.

HONIG: Absolutely. I thought that was one of the most important parts of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. And if he confirms, yes, I said something like that to Cassidy Hutchinson and perhaps others, goes right to intent, right to what did they know in the White House while this was happening.

CABRERA: Alan, if you were on this committee, what questions would you ask Pat Cipollone?

ALAN ROZENSHTEIN, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL: I would certainly ask him what communications he had with the president. And I would see what Pat Cipollone felt he was able to answer. It's notable that he appears to be cooperating with the committee. And

that opens up some space for the committee to ask him some questions. I would certainly also ask him questions about what his own judgment was regarding the legality of the various things that were going on, on January 6, and who, besides the president, he told those things too, because I think it's quite right that goes straight to the question of intent.

CABRERA: Elie, the committee brought up witness tampering or the possibility of witness intimidation at the end of its last hearing.

And now we have some new reporting today that Cassidy Hutchinson told the January 6 Committee that she was contacted by somebody in Trump world attempting to influence her testimony. Now, we already knew that she changed lawyers right before this hearing on Tuesday. What do you make of this?

HONIG: Well, this, to me, first of all, is witness tampering. This is not arguable witness tampering. This is not maybe witness tampering.

You look at the content of those messages, including at least one of which we now know was aimed at Cassidy Hutchinson, it's textbook. And, first of all, the committee needs to send this to DOJ immediately, because that's a crime. And Donald Trump over the years and some of his supporters have dismissed this kind of thing as a -- quote -- "process crime."

I reject that categorization as, a former prosecutor. crimes that intimidate witnesses, that interfere with the process undermine the heart of any truth-finding function. And so this is very serious. And, by the way, all the more credit to Cassidy Hutchinson to stand up and do what she did.

It was -- we already knew it was remarkably brave. And now she -- knows that people were pressuring her not to do that. So she gets even more credit.

CABRERA: I'm glad you brought up DOJ. You said send it to DOJ.

HONIG: Yes.

CABRERA: I mean, it sounds like there is a little bit of a back-and- forth happening between the DOJ and the committee.

And Adam Kinzinger, a Republican on the committee, was asked last night on a late show about the DOJ and perceived lack of action. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): I am frustrated that, for instance, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino have refused to come in and talk to Congress. We have the power of subpoena similar to what a court has, and the Justice Department has failed to indict them for that.

And so all it does is send a message, you just have to resist the select committee, and you may be able to resist all penalties. That's been a frustration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: He says he's frustrated with DOJ. Meantime, we have been covering the DOJ is frustrated with the committee for not being more forthcoming and sharing testimony and documentation that they have already gathered.

And "The New York Times" reports the DOJ was surprised by what Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony revealed, for example. Alan, are you surprised that that would be surprising to the DOJ, that they aren't five steps ahead of the committee in their own investigation?

ROZENSHTEIN: I will say I am a little surprised.

And I think the question for me is, is DOJ's lack of knowledge with respect to some of the things that the committee knows, is that limited, for example, to Hutchinson's testimony, or are there other areas?

Ultimately, though, I do think the two organizations are doing two different things. One is a congressional investigation. One is a potential criminal investigation. And so I do think it makes sense for there to be some daylight.

But I was also surprised at DOJ's apparent surprise that what Cassidy Hutchinson said.

CABRERA: Elie, you said that Cipollone -- if the committee were to go to the courts to try to force the Cipollone to perhaps answer questions related to conversations he had with the former president, that it would take too long and courts.

But the DOJ, couldn't they just subpoena Cipollone and in their own investigation, and would he have to respond to them? Would they have more leverage?

HONIG: Absolutely.

DOJ has much stronger subpoena power than Congress. Courts are going to enforce a DOJ grand jury subpoena much more quickly and much more effectively than they would enforce a congressional subpoena.

And, to Alan's point, these are two different entities doing two different things. But, ordinarily, DOJ has every built-in investigative advantage. And that's why I think it says something, not something good, about the pace and focus of DOJ's investigation that they hadn't spoken with Cassidy Hutchinson.

[13:25:12]

There's no excuse for that. If they're going right at the heart of the matter, they should have gotten to Cassidy Hutchinson six months ago, eight months ago, a year ago. And the fact that they were watching it, like you and I were, saying, oh, my goodness, does not speak well of DOJ's focus and pace here. CABRERA: And maybe their direction that they're headed in their

investigation.

HONIG: They have made clear they're going to go ground up from the guys in face paint and furry hats. But if you do it that way, it takes forever.

CABRERA: To get to the top.

HONIG: Yes. You don't have to start at the bottom. You start as high up as the evidence can let you start.

CABRERA: OK, Elie Honig, thank you. And, Alan Rozenshtein, thank you. I hope you will come back.

As long as it takes. President Biden is vowing continued support for Ukraine to win this war with Russia. He even announced another $800 million in weapons aid. But is it enough?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)