Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

January 6 Committee Subpoenas Pat Cipollone; 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 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 30, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:38]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: I'm Victor Blackwell. Good to be with you.

An historic moment for the country today. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson officially joined the highest court in the land. It happened just hours after two final decisions marked the end of this tumultuous term.

CAMEROTA: Justice Jackson is the 116th member of the Supreme Court, but the first black woman to serve on the bench. She took two oaths during the private ceremony with a Bible held by her husband.

As her family watched, Justice Jackson swore to support and defend the Constitution and -- quote -- "administer justice."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: And now, on behalf of all the members of the court, I am pleased to welcome Justice Jackson to the court and to our common calling.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: CNN Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue is with us now.

Ariane, good to see you.

So, before the swearing-in, we saw two big decisions from the court. Let's start on the decision curbing the EPA's powers to fight climate change. What's the impact?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right.

This was a significant opinion, basically saying -- curbing the EPA's authority here when it comes to power plants. It was broken down along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts delivering this big blow to President Biden.

And it comes, of course, as scientists are raising alarms about global warming. What Chief John Roberts did is, he reversed a lower court that had given the EPA broad authority to regulate in this area, so to regulate the entire grid, instead of specific improvements at specific power plants.

But Roberts said, look, if the EPA wants to act like that, it has to have direct authority from Congress, and it did not. And lurking behind this case, this environmental case, is a much bigger ruling about the power of federal agencies, because, in general, conservatives think that agencies have become too. They're unaccountable to the public, whereas liberals think that they need their independence, they need to be able to, say, protect -- move to protect the environment or worker safety.

So this decision was about more than just this particular environmental issue. And Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the liberals here, she said -- she called it frightening for the environment.

CAMEROTA: And, Ariane, how about this other decision where the Supreme Court gave President Biden the green light to end that controversial remain-in-Mexico immigration policy that had been started under the Trump administration? What happens now?

DE VOGUE: Right, Alisyn.

So this was the last opinion of the term and it was a victory for the president here. And it was a 5-4 decision, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining with the liberals here in favor of Biden, because, basically, Biden was trying to get rid of this controversial Trump era policy that sent some migrants who came to the border back to Mexico to wait for their proceedings to play out.

And critics of that said, look, a lot of these people are asylum seekers. They have the right to come into the U.S., and plus the fact they're being sent back to sort of squalid conditions. But lower courts were blocking the president from ending the Trump era policy.

In fact, one district court here really issued a broad opinion that would have made the president have to keep that particular program always in effect. But, today, Roberts again writing, ruled in favor. He said that that was the wrong way to look at immigration law, and that Biden will be able to make moves now to get that particular policy off the books.

But that was the last opinion we have had. It has been a really, really tense term. We saw Roe v. Wade overturned. We saw for the first time in 10 years the court expanding gun rights. So, Justice Jackson now is going to be taking the bench. She will have a quiet summer, but she is coming at a fraught time.

And there are big issues that she's going to face again in the fall.

CAMEROTA: I wonder if this is what she imagined when she dreamed of one day joining the Supreme Court. DE VOGUE: Yes. Yes. Exactly.

CAMEROTA: Ariane de Vogue, thank you very much.

DE VOGUE: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: Well, President Biden blasted the Supreme Court for their decision overturning Roe v. Wade and he vowed to do everything in his power to pass abortion rights into law.

The president said that he's supporting now the Senate dropping the filibuster to codify abortion and privacy rights.

[14:05:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The most important thing to be clear about is we have to change -- 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)

CAMEROTA: His comments came at the close of the NATO summit.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins joins us now from Madrid.

So, Kaitlan, this is a significant statement from the president.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely.

It's the only the second time you have seen President Biden come out and support an exception to the filibuster. It's a big deal, not just because he's the president, but also he spent almost four decades in the Senate. And so he is someone who adheres pretty strictly to the rules of the Senate.

But he is saying he believes this is something -- and he backs it -- that does deserve an exception to that 60-vote threshold.

But, of course, the problem with what the president suggested on the world stage here in Madrid today is that he doesn't have the Democratic support for that carve-out in the filibuster, because Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, two Democrats who have stood in the way before of a carve-out to the filibuster, still say that they do maintain their objections to changing the Senate rules, even to create an exception for something like abortion rights, which the president was arguing is part of a bigger privacy issue.

Because he's voiced this concern that he thinks the Supreme Court is going to go after other rights, like for gay marriage and contraception. And so that really was the focus from the president today. But the reality of whether or not that actually is going to happen seems very far off, because they would have to get another two Democratic senators in the Senate who do support doing this for that to actually move into place.

And of course, as you both know, they are facing very challenging headwinds this November in the midterm elections.

BLACKWELL: President Biden also, Kaitlan, announced new support for Ukraine, new aid, reiterated U.S. support for as long as it takes, as he said.

Is that what Ukraine was hoping for?

COLLINS: Well, it's interesting, because one of the biggest questions for the world leaders who have been gathered here in Madrid is how much longer they think this conflict, this war in Ukraine could go on.

And they really declined to put an end date on it, but the president saying we don't know when the war is going to end. But he is saying U.S. support for Ukraine will not end. But he did not say that the United States is tailoring or changing the weaponry that it's sending into Ukraine because of what President Zelenskyy said the other day, which is that he would like to see this war end by the end of this year, which, as you know, is just about six months away.

So the president noted that they are about to announce another $800 million in military assistance, that's weaponry, going into Ukraine. He said it'll include a lot of what it's included before, but also offensive weapons. And the president was talking just about how long this could go on. And he said this about the U.S. support:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: We are going to stick with Ukraine and all of the alliance is going to stick with Ukraine as long as it takes.

When the war will end, I hope it ends sooner than later. But for it to end, they have to be in a position where -- the Ukrainians have all that they can reasonably expect, we can reasonably expect to get to them in order to provide for their physical security and their defenses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, Victor and Alisyn, the president did not say how this war will end, but he said it will -- or when this war will end, but he said it will not end with a Russian defeat of Ukraine.

BIDEN: All right, Kaitlan Collins, stay with us.

I want to bring in now CNN chief political correspondent, Dana Bash, and CNN senior political analyst Nia-Malika Henderson.

Dana, let me start with you and this support now for a filibuster carve-out for codifying Roe. The president -- it took about a year for him to get to this point on voting rights. What does this tell us? Give us some insight on the pressure this administration is feeling to do something more on abortion rights.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is intense.

I mean, just think about the difference three days makes, Victor and Alisyn. Three days ago, I guess two-and-a-half days ago, I was on the White House complex interviewing the vice president asking her a series of questions about this very topic about whether or not the administration would support doing away with the filibuster for this issue.

And her answer was, the votes aren't there, so I'm not going to go there.

And there was a progressive backlash not just to that, but just overall the frustration that the administration should have been better prepared for a fight, if not legally, if not procedurally, then at least rhetorically.

And now you see the president of the United States saying, as you mentioned, that he wants to do this carve-out for a filibuster. And it's not as if he does this lightly. He -- it was a big deal when he said it for voting rights. And it is a big deal that he's saying it on this issue for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that he is a senator at heart and he is an institutionalist when it comes to the United States Senate.

[14:10:22]

We should keep in mind -- Kaitlan mentioned this, but it bears repeating. This is about the bully pulpit. This is not likely to change the reality in the Senate, which is that the vice president was right. They don't have the votes. There are two Democratic senators who don't -- at least -- who don't want to change the filibuster rules.

CAMEROTA: Nia-Malika, is there some thinking on Capitol Hill that, if Republicans were to win the Senate, that Mitch McConnell would then manage to have a filibuster a carve-out for a national abortion ban?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Oh, absolutely.

I mean, I have heard that from Republicans, essentially say, listen, if Mitch McConnell is in control, if there is a different scenario in the White House, that Republicans absolutely wouldn't stop at this, at this -- the way it is now, the sort of state-to-state abortion rights, that they would, in fact, move to end the filibuster and make a national ban on abortion.

That is where many in the party want to be. That's not what they're saying now, but I imagine that some Republicans are thinking, listen, this is what our base has wanted. And they have gotten this far, after 30 years of battle in the justice system and taking over the Supreme Court, essentially. They have gotten this far. So, listen, I think Democrats were happy to see Biden go there. But

there's certainly discontent with the kind of flat-footed way that this administration has reacted to this decision. And, also, I think there is discontent more broadly among Democrats that Democrats in leadership didn't take the fight on abortion over the years in safeguarding this right in the way that you had Republicans do that.

And so now there is a sense that this will be a motivating issue for Democratic voters, particularly Democratic base voters, suburban women, voters that tend to be sort of swing voters in midterms. That is the hope, but it isn't in the DNA of the Democratic Party to kind of rally around abortion rights in the way it is in the DNA of the Republican Party to really push back and try to end abortion rights.

BLACKWELL: Kaitlan, what about executive action? We know that the president's powers are limited here.

But he told Jimmy Kimmel, I think it was three weeks ago, that there are executive order options they could employ. They're looking into that. At least they were at that time. Has that talk deflated at the White House?

COLLINS: Well, the president said he would make an announcement after meeting with governors tomorrow. He didn't say when he would make an announcement or what that announcement will look like, because there are questions about whether or not there are other things you could see the president do or call for in this situation.

One thing that Dana asked the vice president about when she interviewed her was putting abortion clinics on federal property. That is not something that we have seen the White House come out and suggest yet. It wasn't something that Vice President Harris said was at the top of the list when it comes to priorities here.

And so I think that's where some of the frustration has come from when you look at the president's base and Democratic voters, is that they knew this ruling was likely coming, because, obviously, that leaked opinion came out. And so they had an idea two months-ish or so before this actually came out that it was on its way.

And so there has been some frustration in that sense of what the president is willing to do when it comes to maybe structural changes at the Supreme Court. That's also not something he's come out in favor of, despite seeing Democrats say that they should expand the court, they should have term limits, there should be changes made to this situation, given what's happened.

You have seen him be more critical of the Supreme Court, but you haven't seen him unveil any new proposals, per se, when -- today when he was asked specifically if he had anything on those executive orders yet.

CAMEROTA: Nia-Malika, I was somewhat joking in our last segment about how, could Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ever have imagined that this would be the watershed moment that she would be seated on the Supreme Court, given all the tumult? How do you assess today?

HENDERSON: Listen, it's an historic moment, the first black woman on the Supreme Court, something that Biden obviously campaigned on and people voted for him with this in mind.

So, sure, I mean, I think Democrats are very proud of this moment, particularly African-Americans. But, listen, she is going into a situation where there are other justices on the court who will be there for years and years and years, just like her, and they will likely be in the majority.

[14:15:00]

We saw these 63- rulings come down on these big-ticket items around abortion, around gun rights, around environmental protections. And we will see more big sort of culture war issues as well going forward from this court, around affirmative action, around elections and voting rights as well.

So the big question isn't what the ideological makeup of the court will be, because I think we know that. For years to come, conservatives are going to be in the majority. Her identity as a justice is still an open question. Will she be more like Kagan, sort of a compromiser, or will she be more like Sotomayor, who is the sort of progressive firebrand and kind of writer on that court?

And so we will see, but it is a historic moment, and that should certainly be noted, but not quite the kind of history that Ketanji Brown Jackson thought she'd be stepping into probably.

BASH: And, Alisyn, not for nothing, if I may, the three liberals...

HENDERSON: Are women, right?

BASH: Are women.

HENDERSON: Yes.

BASH: A black woman, a Latina, and a Jewish woman.

HENDERSON: And a Jewish woman, right.

BASH: Different Supreme Court.

(CROSSTALK)

HENDERSON: And they all walk into a bar. There's some bar joke in there.

(LAUGHTER)

BLACKWELL: I was going to say it, but I didn't want to say it.

Thank you, Nia-Malika.

CAMEROTA: You were thinking.

BLACKWELL: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

BASH: Dana, Nia-Malika, Kaitlan, thank you all.

BLACKWELL: All right, the January 6 Committee's star witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, told the panel that she was contacted by former colleagues in an attempt to influence her testimony.

We have got new reporting.

CAMEROTA: And Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney says her party has a choice to make, loyalty to Donald Trump or to the Constitution. We have more of what she said.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:21:08]

CAMEROTA: The January 6 Committee says committee now issuing a subpoena to Pat Cipollone. That's the former top lawyer in the Trump White House.

They consider him a central figure in this investigation, especially after Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Cipollone issued a stark warning if Trump went to the Capitol during the riots.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: "We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Cipollone met with the panel, but informally, and that was in April. But he's been reluctant to do more.

A source tells CNN's Dana Bash, that he may agree to at least a limited interview.

CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz joins us now with more.

So, is there a sense that Cipollone will comply with this subpoena?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, it does seem right now that it is likely that he could be sitting down and talking on the record with the committee about what he knew.

He is a person, Cipollone, the committee has wanted him for months. He's a crucial person very close to Donald Trump. There aren't many people higher than him in the White House. And this Cassidy Hutchinson testimony on Tuesday, where she is eyes and ears on January 6 around Donald Trump, she really is putting the focus on him and really teeing up this possibility that he has things he could corroborate of hers, that he could flush out moments about what he was telling Donald Trump and others.

You played that clip of her saying that she remembered him saying that there would be -- they would be charged with every crime imaginable if Trump went up to Capitol Hill. She also revealed in another conversation that he said to Mark Meadows, the chief of staff. There will be blood on your hands if the riot was not called off.

And the astonishing thing here is not just what he said, but also that he's being responsive here. He is not a person that was expected to be testifying up until now. We are now hearing from this reporting that he could sit down for a transcribed interview.

There may be some consolations that the committee would make related to executive privilege. But we have seen so far that others, lawyers have come in and have really spoken quite a bit about what they know, if they're willing to show up.

CAMEROTA: Also, Kaitlan, CNN has some new reporting the Hutchinson was contacted by someone in Trump's orbit trying to influence her testimony. What do we know about that?

POLANTZ: That's right.

So my colleagues have been able to confirm that Cassidy Hutchinson was a witness who told the committee about a phone call or phone calls of someone trying to impact her testimony. So, previously, we only heard little snippets about this, and the witnesses were not named.

So the vice chairwoman, Liz Cheney, said at the last hearing where Hutchinson testified that the committee had been asking witnesses about this idea of possible witness tampering, maybe influence or people trying to impact witness testimony.

And she described two different scenarios, both calls that different witnesses were getting, and the message that they were receiving from unnamed people was, do the right thing. Stay in the good graces of Trump world. Trump does read the transcripts.

That was one thing that Cheney quoted one saying. And so this is coming on the heels of us learning more about the atmospherics around Cassidy Hutchinson, what environment she's coming in to testify in a way that is explosive.

Here's what Alyssa Farah Griffin, another former Trump official, was saying about her this morning and the pressure and motivations of the people around her that she's facing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Trump world was assigning lawyers to a lot of these -- these staffers who themselves don't have big...

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Wait. Assigning lawyer? FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, I should say covering the costs of lawyers for people who don't have big legal defense funds to themselves...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: Wow. So they were paying Cassidy Hutchinson's lawyer?

FARAH GRIFFIN: Is my understanding. You would have to confirm that. But she had someone, Passantino, who -- Stefan Passantino, who had been in the White House Counsel's Office, is still aligned with Trump world.

[14:25:00]

She did her interview. She complied with the committee, but she shared with me: "There is more I want to share that was not asked in those settings. How do we do this?"

And in that, she got a new attorney of her own. Congresswoman Cheney had a sense of what questions needed to be asked that weren't previously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: Now, as far as this goes, we don't know if we're going to see Hutchinson again. She has sat in closed-door depositions that have been taped, and the committee does promise that we will be learning more about these scenarios -- back to you.

CAMEROTA: Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for all of that.

Joining us now is Michael Moore. He's a former U.S. attorney. And back with us is Dana Bash.

Dana, let's start with your reporting about Pat Cipollone. Help me understand this, and this might be unanswerable. But if he was a voice of reason during January 6, as it sounds like, as Cassidy Hutchinson testified to, why is he reluctant now to come back and speak about what he knows, what he was trying to say to the chief of staff, Mark Meadows?

BASH: It's a very, very good question. And you could see throughout the hearings that we have witnessed so far, particularly two hearings ago, I believe it was, Liz Cheney's public frustration with the fact that he would not come forward.

There clearly was a bit of a dance that was done to formally send him a subpoena to compel him to testify. We don't know the details yet. As you mentioned, the expectation is that, once they finalize a deal, it would be a behind-closed-doors discussion that would be transcribed. TBD on whether there will be audio and video. I think they're still working that out.

But the question of why is, he was the White House counsel. And the feeling among people in and around Pat Cipollone is that -- it's a precedent question, is if a White House counsel, even for a president that he clearly disagreed with on a number of his decisions or almost decisions, comes forward voluntarily and comes and talks to Congress, then it would be -- it would be a slippery slope.

Unclear if that is what's really going on in Pat Cipollone's head, but because he had that specific role, specific job of White House counsel, that is -- kind of informs his reluctance. And I should say, White House counsel, as we all know, is different from personal attorney. Personal attorney has a different kind of privilege.

He has executive -- he will claim some executive privilege topics, and that's part of what they're trying to work out to try to narrow their discussion.

BLACKWELL: Michael, explain. So we understand why he's reluctant to sit either on video or transcribed interview, but why this is so cumbersome to get him maybe to talk about these topics and others.

I know the calendar has something to do with that. And then add to it what now after these negotiations the interview most likely will look like.

MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Sure. Well, I'm glad to be with you both. Thanks for having me on.

He's a lawyer. And lawyers are not used to having to go and give testimony in court against their client or against the organization they represent, if you think about a corporate lawyer, as opposed to just to an individual lawyer. So this is an uncomfortable position for him to be in.

I understand that. I understand that he is considered a fine lawyer. And I'm sure he's having some angst about that as a principle and for the precedent that it would set as you go forward.

His testimony really is critical in the respect that it gives some indications of knowledge and intent. And if there were going to be any criminal charges, they would have to prove that the former president or the people around him, if they chose to charge other people, had some intent to do a particular criminal act.

And so his warning, his admonitions, his concerns, the fact that he was telling people that blood would be on your hands, those are things that will go to give some indication of motive and intent, and that's going to report.

There will be things that are off-limits. There will clearly be things that are -- will be covered by executive privilege. And so the negotiation is important. I think the frustration is probably that it has taken this long for the committee to get on to this place and to this point.

And I think you probably could have seen this coming without a table of contents. You know this is -- that we knew we were going to get to this point where there had been discussions with White House counsel and the chief of staff and ultimately with the former president. CAMEROTA: Dana, it was really interesting to hear Alyssa Farah

Griffin talk about what she knows about how it came to pass that Cassidy Hutchinson was testifying there, and that the Trump team had been supplying lawyers, I guess paying for them, for staffers who had been in the White House at that time.

Do we know any more? Is that customary? Is that unusual?

[14:30:00]