Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sources Say, Trump World Tried to Influence Cassidy Hutchinson's Testimony; July 4 Weekend May Be Busiest for Airports Since Pandemic Began; Biden to Meet with Democratic Governors on Protecting Abortion Rights. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired July 01, 2022 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Friday morning to you. I'm Jim Scuitto in London traveling back from the NATO summit in Madrid. Poppy Harlow is off today.

New this morning, CNN has learned that someone inside former President Trump's circle tried to influence the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, the former White House aide who appeared before the January 6th committee on Tuesday. You will remember, Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney said the panel had evidence that some in Trump's inner circle were trying to intimidate witnesses.

We are also learning that the select committee met with former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato on two occasions, in January and March, that according to a source familiar with his testimony. On Tuesday, Cassidy Hutchinson testified that it was Ornato who told her that an irate Trump, as she described, tried to grab the steering wheel and lunged at a Secret Service member on January 6th when he was told he couldn't go to the Capitol himself.

Let's begin this hour with CNN Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz. Katelyn, this pressure, this apparent evidence of witness tampering one of the headlines from the testimony on Tuesday, what more are we learning?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Jim, this is raising the stakes on a possibility that there has been witness intimidation or potentially tampering behind the scenes.

So, Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney had announced at the hearing this week, they were asking their reasons regularly if anyone was trying to influence testimony. And Cheney then laid out that two witnesses said yes, they received calls from someone they knew trying to impact their testimony.

So, one of these people on the receiving end was Cassidy Hutchinson. We are now able to report this is confirming a Punchbowl News story yesterday. And, of course, Cassidy Hutchinson isn't just any witness. She's now the star witness who revealed shocking details of complacency inside the west wing on January 6th despite the likelihood of violence today. And she even spoke about Donald Trump condoning his rioters, carrying weapons and rioting on Capitol Hill. So, her coming forward really has upped the legal risk for Trump related to January 6th.

So, more about those calls, let's talk about them. The committee has not said who the calls came from with one going to Hutchinson. But the examples for both messages were unnamed called told witnesses they should do the right thing, that people like Trump knew they would be loyal.

And here is one of the quotes Cheney read. The witness said the caller talked about being a team player. They know I'm on the right team. I'm doing the right thing. I'm protecting who I need to protect and I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world.

Also, the person told the witness, Trump does read transcripts of these hearings. This is obviously a very serious accusation and we're trying learning to learn more about what Hutchinson's interactions were before she agreed to reveal what she knew. But Congresswomen Cheney at the end of that last hearing did promise that the committee would revisit this. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

So, what is the law behind all this, political implications as well? Elliot Williams, CNN Legal Analyst, former federal prosecutor, also Amber Phillips, Politics Reporter for The Washington Post, she writes the Five Minute Fix newsletter for The Post.

Elliot, if I can begin you as a lawyer, some of these things we hear here, they certainly don't sound right. To say the president is watching closely, he expects she will be loyal. But what is the legal standard to determine that there was illegal witness tampering?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. The law is very clear on this, Jim. It's anyone who attempts to, and the words are, corruptly persuade another person to prevent, influence or delay their testimony, this is pretty clear on its face that you could at least investigate it.

There doesn't need to be -- many people think there's got to be threat of violence or something like that, and, no. Merely it's just the intent to get in the way of someone's testimony. And words like, I just want to make sure you're on the team or I just want to make sure you're with us, are the kind of things that could be investigated as witness tampering.

SCIUTTO: Amber Phillips, my colleagues at CNN have heard from a number of Republicans who acknowledge that her testimony on Tuesday was very damaging for Trump and increases the possibility, in their view, that he might face criminal liability. But that's not first time, let's be frank, that we've heard that. And I wonder based on your reporting and the people you talk to, is this moment different, more perilous for Trump legally than previous ones we have seen? AMBER PHILLIPS, POLITICS REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: It does feel that way. That's in part because there's this formal investigation targeted directly at him. That's been going on for the past year. Jim. And the members of the committee, like Cheney, have said that they want to finish this likely with referrals to the Justice Department for potential crimes.

[10:05:05]

And, of course, it's important to step up or step back and recognize that Congress can't charge the president with a crime. This is entirely up to the Justice Department, which is so far been more or less skittish about the precedent it might set with investigating a former president.

But legal experts I've talked to and my colleagues have talked to say that they think this moment does feel different, that public opinion is changing in a way that could make it easier for Attorney General Merrick Garland to make the former president a target in what it's looking at.

SCIUTTO: Elliot Williams, already, there are parallel investigation, because you have the January 6th committee's investigation, but we know the DOJ is looking into something, right? I mean, the confiscated the phones of John Eastman, who had been advising the former president on attempts to overturn election, also Jeffrey Clark, who had been the president's ally in the Justice Department. Do you see those as connected? The developments we've seen so far from the January 6 committee and these latest developments in the DOJ investigation, do you see a potential connection there on what the focus of the investigation from the DOJ might be?

WILLIAMS: Look, it's really hard to say, Jim, because Congress and the Justice Department are such vastly different entities that serve different purposes in the world. Congress is public, political entity that puts public proceedings on. The Justice Department does most of its work, quite frankly, in secret. And so it's hard to say whether these things are connected at all.

Now, look, they are all happening at the same time and sort of bubbling up to the surface at the same time. So, it's hard the say that the Justice Department doesn't read the same newspaper as we do or watch the same television we do. But at the end of the day, they are probably talking to some of the similar people and they just take longer. That's just a sad fact. And we'll see what comes out.

SCIUTTO: Amber Phillips, the process from the January 6th committee is a fundamentally political one. It is a congressional investigation and we have big political date coming up in just four months' time. That is midterm elections when, listen, we don't know the outcome but the trend lines do not look good for Democrats, a very real chance they lose their majority in the House. Is that, in effect, the deadline here, right, for the January 6th committee to tie up the loose ends and show what they got?

PHILLIPS: Yes, exactly, Jim. I think the committee was hoping to actually finish up their hearings before July and all of us go on vacation, Congress as well. But they have said that new evidence, more investigations makes it so that they -- because it's an ongoing investigation, right? This committee, even as they present these hearings to us, made it so they want to continue through July.

And then after that, what they are going to do is issue report on what they found and most importantly, I think, prescribe solutions to try to prevent something like this from happening again. They said that report is going to be up by the fall before the midterm elections. Because, as you point out, Jim, Democrats know full well they could lose control of Congress and it's very likely that Republicans in January could (INAUDIBLE) this committee or disband it entirely.

SCIUTTO: True. Now, the Justice Department, of course, Elliot Williams, does not have that same timeline. The January 6th committee could make in the next several months a criminal referral to the Justice Department, as you know, but it's up to the DOJ then to decide if they find evidence and decide to indict. What is the timeline -- what might the timeline, I should say, look like for a Justice Department investigation of potential involvement, criminal involvement by the former president?

WILLIAMS: Look, Jim, based on the fact that we have already seen 800 people charged, this is a sprawling investigation, far bigger, frankly, than any I've ever worked on. This is historically large in the history of the Justice Department. So, you're talking months or years. That's just how long these things take.

And I know the public has an appetite today and even looking at the congressional hearings for things to happen right now. And that's just not how long investigations take.

Now, look, again, like I said, the Justice Department follows the same news that we do and I'm sure they are conscious of the public hunger for action but they just don't operate on the same timeline as Congress.

SCIUTTO: No question, they don't, for a reason. Amber Phillips, Elliot Williams, good to have both of you on this morning.

Well, millions are already traveling for what experts say will be the busiest travel weekend of this year so far. AAA predicts over three- and-a-half million people will travel by plane to get to their destinations, but you may have noticed this, delays and cancelations are plaguing the industry because the airlines say bad weather, but, boy, we're hearing a lot about staffing issues as well.

CNN Aviation Correspondent Pete Muntean has more on what travelers can expect.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT (voice over): At its round the clock command center in Virginia, the Federal Aviation Administration is preparing for what could be the biggest air travel weekend in years. The goal here, reroute flights around bad weather, overcrowded air space, even space launches in hopes of avoiding flight cancelations that are plaguing airlines.

[10:10:04]

The latest federal data shows airlines have canceled 3.5 percent of all flights so far this year, a 42 percent increase over 2019 before the pandemic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They rebook us for flight for tomorrow and now we're just trying to figure out if we want to go out for a hotel or just stay here at the airport.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was really panicking.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Patience with snacks.

MUNTEAN: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is warning airlines that they must perform. Last weekend alone, airlines canceled 2,200 flights nationwide. The weekend before, there were 3,200 cancelations.

Secretary Buttigieg, what can be done do end these massive flight cancelations that keep happening.

PETE BUTTIGIEG, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Well, I was especially concerned after what we saw with the Memorial Day travel weekend. Look, we are counting on airlines to deliver for passengers and to be able to service the tickets that they sell.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have a good representation of the airlines industry here, right here at the command center on the floor with us.

MUNTEAN: Here, FAA workers manage the flow of flights alongside representatives from airlines and industry groups. Airlines say they are only partly to blame for cancelations, and have called on the FAA to staff up on air traffic controllers. The agency insists it is shifting controllers to delay in cancelation hotspots.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We do not work in a vacuum. So, we make collaboratively make decisions and strategies together to help mitigate those impacts that are in the system.

MUNTEAN: Airline after airline has announced it is preemptively canceling summer flights. Delta Airlines is letting all customers change their flights free of charge, saying operational challenges are expected this holiday weekend. This week, Delta pilots picketed at major hubs saying they are overworked.

So, who is to blame when it comes to these massive cancelations?

BUTTIGIEG: Well, let's be very clear. The majority of delays and the majority of cancelations have not been caused by air traffic control staffing issues. The bottom line here is that the airlines that are selling these tickets need to have the crews and the staff to back up those sales.

MUNTEAN: After passengers set a new pandemic-era record, the TSA thinks this weekend will be big. The question for travelers is will it be smooth.

Is staffing an issue for TSA as well?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, staffing is still a challenge for everybody. But for us, it's not an issue that's going to impact wait times for travelers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MUNTEAN (on camera): This is the biggest test yet for airlines as they recover from the pandemic. The TSA screened 2.44 million people at airports across the country just yesterday, just shy of a pandemic- era record, Jim. They are expecting today to be the busiest day here at Reagan National Airport. They will screen 35,000 people here alone.

The cancelations and delays are already climbing today, nearly 1,300 flights delayed nationwide, according to FlightAware, more than 200 flights canceled. We saw more than 400 flights canceled nationwide just yesterday. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Pete Muntean, thanks so much.

Coming up next, some states are trying to block abortion bans from taking effect in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Details on the legal limbo in the state of Florida right now.

Plus, a CNN exclusive, Brittney Griner's wife speaks out as the WNBA star's trial begins in Russia. Why she says the U.S. government has to do more to bring Griner home.

And a new discovery reigniting pleas for justice for the family of Emmet Till.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: In just a few hours, President Biden will host a virtual meeting with ten Democratic governors to talk about how they can protect abortion rights at a state level after the Supreme Court over turned Roe v. Wade. The fight is already playing out in courts. A Kentucky judge just blocked two laws that stopped abortion services there. In Florida, a 15-week abortion ban remains in legal limbo. The new state law was supposed to go in effect today but a state judge ruled it was unconstitutional.

CNN's Polo Sandoval is following all of this. So, Polo, why is this expected to be a temporary win for abortion rights advocates in Florida?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, Jim, yesterday's ruling basically now sets the stage for what is likely going to be a very complicated legal fight back and forth in state of Florida with women, tens of thousands of them, potentially caught in the middle. I'll tell you why in just a second. But, first, a quick reset for our viewers. It was yesterday that the judge in Florida basically declared that law that was signed by Governor DeSantis back in April reducing the legal abortion term from 24 weeks to 15 was unconstitutional. However, that was verbal and nonbinding according to the judge, meaning that ath law that DeSantis signed on that day back in April is kicking in starting today.

However, when the judge actually makes it official and submits that order in writing, then we could see a reversal, a stay, if you will, going back to the 24-week term.

But here is where it gets complicated. Governor DeSantis and his legal team already announced their full intention to appeal that decision, and that, according to the ACLU, that is defending abortion providers in the state of Florida, would basically take us right back to where we are today, basically staying the stay, if you will.

And that's where it's certainly going to get complicated because you have women, again, about roughly, 72,000 women sought abortions in the state of Florida, according to the CDC in 2019. Those women are the ones that are caught in the middle. They are the ones that are left wondering, is that legal abortion term, is it 24 weeks, is it 15 perhaps?

[10:20:01]

As of now, that is 15. But, again, that could potentially change if what we expect to happen happens next week. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Of course, the Texas even shorter than that, a short timeline, six weeks. The clock ticking on a temporary restraining order there, how does that affect things?

SANDOVAL: That temporary restraining order, Jim, is only in place until July the 12th. And so some abortion clinics were able to resume those procedures, at least for now. And that has really put -- especially since Attorney General Paxton submitted a memo to prosecutors across the state, it really has put district attorneys in a very difficult position.

I spoke to one from South Texas that basically said that he has not yet moved forward with prosecuting any of these cases obviously because of the TRO that's in place. But after that expires, then his office will have to make some very difficult decisions, right? He is going to be balancing sort of what he legally has to do and also what he is morally obligated to do as well.

And, ultimately, though, Jim, it will be up to his discretion to decide whether or not cases get prosecuted. But that is what we expect once this TRO expires in only a couple of weeks in Texas.

SCIUTTO: So many effects around the country, so much uncertainty. Polo Sandoval, thanks so much.

So, joining me now to discuss, Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan, also the co-host of Strict Scrutiny podcast. She also follow an amicus brief in support of the Jackson Women's Health Organization in that Dobbs case that ultimately failed in the Supreme Court. Good to have you on today.

Goodness, I mean, it's just a few days since this decision and we are seeing the effects bear out across the country. And we have seen judges in a handful of states strike down abortion bans on the basis of violations of state constitutions. And I wonder if you see that as a path forward here for preserving abortion rights in some states.

LEAH LITMAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: It will be a path in some state but not others. But other state courts are actually reversing their decisions that found the right to abortion protected by the state constitution. So, the Iowa Supreme Court had previously recognized that their state constitution protected the ability to decide to have an abortion, but before, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Dobbs, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed that ruling.

SCIUTTO: Interesting. Okay. So, you're seeing a court, well, sort of a change at the state court level, like we have certainly seen at the national level.

President Biden meeting today with ten Democratic governors to discuss the fallout of the decision to overturn roe, and I'm sure he will getting hard questions about what are you going to do now. The president made some news, saying that he would support a carve-out from the filibuster to guarantee privacy rights with abortion rights underneath that, but he doesn't have the Democratic votes to do that.

So, I wonder what are the administration's real options here?

LITMAN: I think the administration has several options at its disposal, even if there isn't currently a majority of the Democratic senators who would be willing to break a filibuster to protect the right to an abortion. They might start with something around which more people could obtain consensus, put on the Senate floor, a bill to codify a right to access contraception.

Already, some states in the wake of the Dobbs decision are arguing that they can criminalize certain forms of emergency contraception that they view as a (INAUDIBLE). And so Congress should take action to protect contraception now in order to ward off that fight.

SCIUTTO: And it was, of course, the concurred opinion from Thomas, where he seemed to take aim at contraception, the interracial marriage decisions, also decisions negating anti-sodomy laws with the same argument, in effect, that they overturned Roe, saying that there is no right to privacy there.

There's another possibility that legal experts have noted, and that is that even if some states, as the Supreme Court has, in effect, directed here saying, hey, states, it's up to you. But even if some states codify abortion rights that other states that ban abortion could then criminalize traveling from their state to another states that has abortion rights, how would laws like that play out? LITMAN: So, some states are already experimenting with these laws. The Thomas Moore Law Center together with the National Conference for Life released proposed model legislation that would criminalize state residents leaving the state in order to obtain abortions from other states.

So, we don't yet know whether courts would uphold the statutes. Justice Kavanaugh, in his separate writing in Dobbs, indicated he had doubts about whether those laws were constitutional. But the reality is that states can write those laws in many different ways. And we don't know if there are five votes on the Supreme Court to invalidate state laws that would restrict individual's ability to travel to other states in order to obtain abortion care.

SCIUTTO: Well, it's remarkable prospect to imagine pregnant mothers arrested at the border if those laws were to pass and to stand up.

Before we go, I referenced before Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion where he raised questions about a whole host of other decisions that were based on an implied right of privacy in the Constitution.

[10:25:05]

And you have advocates for gay marriage, for instance, for other rights that fall under that umbrella nervous now. Should they be nervous that that could be the next target of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court?

LITMAN: They should absolutely be nervous. The reasons the Supreme Court gave for overruling Roe apply to those other rights as well, mainly they are not mentioned in the text of the Constitution nor do they date back to the 18th century or 19th century.

On top of that, in addition to Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, the author of the opinion in Dobbs overruling Roe, joined an opinion with Justice Thomas basically encouraging the Supreme Court to revisit Obergefell versus Hodges, decision recognizing a right to marriage equality.

On top of that, you already have state politicians calling for the Supreme Court to overrule Obergell versus Hodges as well as decisions like Lawrence versus Texas that safeguard same-sex couple's ability to engage in sexual relationships.

SCIUTTO: And you had the Texas attorney general mention that particular law, saying that that was, in effect, an open target potentially down the road.

Leah Litman, thanks so much for breaking it down for all of us.

Still ahead this hour, strengthening an expanding NATO as Russia gains ground in Ukraine. I sat down with the foreign minister of Finland about his country's plans to join the alliance, what it means and the real threat Putin poses not just to Ukraine but Europe in the future.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]