Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Will Mar-a-Lago Affidavit Be Revealed?; Interview With New Orleans, Louisiana, Mayor LaToya Cantrell; Nuclear Plant Showdown in Ukraine. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired August 19, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: The soccer star Megan Rapinoe reportedly asking President Biden directly about the release of Brittney Griner from Russian custody. Politico reporting Rapinoe raised her concerns with the president when he called her to let her know she should -- would be receiving the Medal of Freedom.

Griner, of course, recently sentenced to nine years in a Russian prison for smuggling.

Thanks for your time on INSIDE POLITICS. Hope you have a decent, fun weekend.

Alex Marquardt picks up our coverage right now.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Alex Marquardt in Washington, D.C. Ana Cabrera is off today. Thank you so much for joining us.

A standoff at Europe's largest nuclear power plant has global leaders bracing for what's being called a possible new Chernobyl in Ukraine. The Kremlin and Kyiv accuse each other of escalating the situation. Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that Ukraine was conducting repeated military strikes around the nuclear plants.

But this is first on CNN, new satellite images showing no sign of what Putin called systemic shelling at the plant. But frightening new video from inside shows Russian military vehicles in a turbine hall just a few hundred feet from the nuclear reactor. CNN did confirm the authenticity of the video, but not the date that it was taken.

We do have a pair of CNN senior international correspondents tracking this story.

Let's start with David McKenzie in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.

David, obviously, a very worrying situation. The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, he has just visited Kyiv. He warned that this could be another Chernobyl. And now we have both sides, the Russians and Ukrainians, blaming each other for these attacks. There's very little visibility into what's actually going on there.

Please lay out what we do know. DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we

do know, Alex, is, it's a very, very worrying situation.

This is Europe's largest nuclear power plant. And if you just look at where it is, the close-in map of that industrial zone and the nuclear power plant, it is right on the front line between Russia and Ukraine.

On one side of the river, it's Russians have been occupying that nuclear power plant. On the other side of the Dnipro River, it is Ukraine. And there has been shelling across that river to and from in the last few days and weeks. It is very hard to ascertain who is responsible for the shelling that's allegedly happening at that site or near it.

And there's two things to worry about. One is, of course, a direct strike on the nuclear reactors. But that is less worrying to experts then possibly an issue with the power supply. And that leads to what's called a full station blackout, which could lead indirectly to a meltdown and a significant leak -- Alex.

MARQUARDT: Yes. As you note, Zaporizhzhia is heavily contested both in Ukrainian and Russian control right now.

David, beyond the allegations by the Ukrainians that this is the Russians who are responsible for the damage and the danger, what are Ukrainian officials saying about the situation?

MCKENZIE: Well, the Ukrainians are saying one predominant thing.

Firstly, they are blaming the Russians on these strikes. We can't verify that. Each side is really blaming each other for something that's impossible to know for sure. But what we can say for sure is that Russia invaded Ukraine, and they took over the site and put that region in a fundamental way in danger.

But now we are in the situation that the IAEA, the Atomic Energy Agency, says is a dire situation. They need inspectors in there to make sure it's safe. I think the major sticking point here is that the Ukrainian side, the United Nations and others want that area to be demilitarized, for military assets of the Russians to leave there.

But there may be just little incentive for Russian forces to do that, because they will be basically vacating their front line and giving up positions. So that I think is the major sticking point, despite maybe what Russia is saying.

MARQUARDT: Yes, really just incredible to hear President Putin blaming the Ukrainians for this, when, at the end of the day, he certainly didn't need to invade this country and cause all this.

David McKenzie in Kyiv, thank you very much.

Now, we have just learned that Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to give the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. That assurance came during a phone call today with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron. CNN's Fred Pleitgen is live in the Russian capital, Moscow.

Fred, what is the Kremlin saying about this? And tell us more about the possibility of this international team going into Ukraine to take a look.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it certainly seems as though all sides want that mission to happen by the International Atomic Energy Agency -- this morning, Alex, that came from Vladimir Putin apparently in that call with Emmanuel Macron, where he warned that there could be a catastrophic event at that nuclear power plant.

He, of course, blames the Ukrainians for allegedly shelling the place. Of course, we just showed those satellite images that didn't seem to show very much in the way of damage in what Vladimir Putin calls that systematic shelling that's allegedly been going on.

[13:05:09]

The Ukrainians, for their part, of course, blaming the Russians for it. It was interesting, because as far as the readout of that call is concerned, the Russian side did say that Vladimir Putin did agree that that IAEA mission -- an IAEA mission to the power plant should take place.

But it's now actually a source from the French side that also said that Vladimir Putin apparently agreed that the IAEA team of inspectors would not have to go through Russian-occupied territory to get to that plant.

We see it a little bit on some of the maps that we're showing. The plant is right by the big Dnipro River, so possibly would be able to get there by boat. Again, the logistics in that area, of course, are very difficult because that power plant is situated on that river and, of course, is also situated on the front lines as well.

So it seems as though, from the Russian side, it's looking quite good for that IAEA mission. However, from what David was saying, the U.N. saying they want that area to be demilitarized. The Russians have unequivocally said that is absolutely not going to happen. We have heard that from the Russian Foreign Ministry, also from the Russian military as well.

And they did say that they believe that the area would become vulnerable and more vulnerable than it already is if they pulled their military back. Of course, the Ukrainians are accusing the Russians of putting heavy weaponry in there and shelling Ukrainian-held towns nearby, Alex.

MARQUARDT: Yes, they certainly don't want to demilitarize. This is a regions, Zaporizhzhia, that observers believe they do want to annex and make Russian territory.

Fred Pleitgen in Moscow, we're lucky to have you there. Thank you very much for that reporting. Now, right now, the pressure is on the Justice Department to decide

how much more it thinks the American public should know about that FBI search at Mar-a-Lago last week. Now a judge is paving the way for a potentially redacted release of the all-important affidavit that we have been talking about which could reveal so much more information about this investigation.

Now government officials have six days to black out any details that they feel could compromise that investigation, which likely means that if more is revealed it would be light on any real, substantive information.

What we do know from the hearing this week is that there is now a sharper focus on the former president as a possible subject of the criminal investigation. And that's because the cover sheet of the warrant application has been unsealed.

And it shows three potential crimes -- quote -- "willful retention of national defense information, concealment or removal of government records and obstruction of federal investigation."

Let's discuss this with criminal defense and constitutional law attorney Page Pate, and Phil Mudd, who was an FBI senior intelligence adviser and a CIA counterterrorism official.

Guys, thanks, both, for joining me today. We have a lot to discuss.

Page, I want to get to this new language that we learned about on Thursday, willful retention of national defense information. That was just revealed. So how does that place Trump more at the center of this DOJ investigation?

PAGE PATE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Alex, I think what we have seen now is the government basically, even in this very narrow, simple form, lay out the elements of a potential charge under the Espionage Act.

And it affects Trump because, at least from what we know now, Trump would have been the one that made the decision to retain the documents there at Mar-a-Lago. So he knows they were there. He's already made statements to suggest that. And now the government believes it has evidence at least to suggest probable cause that he willfully kept those documents there even after being asked to return them.

So the government is making out a case, perhaps, that would put Trump as a target of that investigation, not just a subject.

MARQUARDT: Right. It has been unclear until now who might face some of these criminal charges.

And this certainly makes Trump far more of a possible target.

Phil, I want to go to you on this question of the affidavit. The judge seems to be trying to strike some kind of middle ground, giving the public a little bit more, but, of course, allowing DOJ to prevent that super sensitive information from coming out.

So what do you think is going to happen next week, when DOJ comes back with their suggestions? Will the public -- and we should note it was the media companies that made this request. Are we going to learn anything more of substance, or do you think everything's just going to be blacked out?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Not much.

You have referred to it, as others have, Alex, as middle ground. I don't see it quite that way. I think the government publicly is complaining, but, privately, I would say they have the upper hand here.

And let me step through for a moment how this redaction process works. There's a couple of elements. First, the Department of Justice is going to look through the document and make the same simple calculation of what in there might reveal a witness, what might reveal an informant, what might reveal something thing that still remains to be resolved in the investigation. That stuff's got to come out.

[13:10:03]

There's still going to be stuff left. Let's say that's 20 percent. Let's say that's 30 percent. Think of this as the edge of a puzzle that you're making at a summer beach house. Because you have got 30 percent of the edge doesn't mean you have got the center.

The challenge they have on the flip side is to ensure they don't take enough out so that the judge gets ticked off. I'm going to say, based on what I saw the judge write, they can do that. That is, they can take out the lion's share of the information they have, leave in, let's say, 30 percent, make the judge happy and probably frustrate a lot of media companies, Alex.

MARQUARDT: Well, Page, to that point, do you think if DOJ does take out the lion's share, the judge would be like, no, no, you should put that back in, or do you think he would go along with what the DOJ is suggesting is redacted?

PATE: Yes, Alex, in this case, I'm not so sure we know that.

I mean, I agree 100 percent with Phil that that is normally the way it happens. But I think this magistrate judge has suggested to the DOJ, look, you want to black it out, you better tell me why we're blacking it out. And he may make them go and justify each and every redaction that they're trying to make.

Now, there's no question the identities of the agents, the identities of potential witnesses, that's going to be blacked out, and any judge would accept that. But this judge may require more than simply, look, we don't want to jeopardize the investigation.

MARQUARDT: Another one of the things that we learned on Thursday in the court proceedings is that we saw the prosecutors were worried that, before the search happened, that -- quote -- "evidence might be destroyed."

So, Phil, this sounds like they thought the Trump team would catch wind of what was about to happen and potentially destroy these highly classified documents.

MUDD: Well, I was waiting for this question. I think that's a great observation.

Look, there's a difference between what I don't think we will see, which is, as we're just talking about, for example, the identity of people involved, the identity of witnesses, the state of the ongoing investigation.

What I'd really like to see -- and I don't think revealing it would talk a lot about the investigation or threaten the investigation -- would be the lead-up. Couple of elements in the lead-up, how often did you go back to the Trump people, including the lawyer who signed the document that said there are no -- there are no classified documents left at Mar-a-Lago, how often did you go back to them?

Who did you go back to? What documents did they give you assuring you that they cleared out Mar-a-Lago? I think the blockage by Mar-a-Lago and the Trump team is going to be interesting. And then that second piece you mentioned, even if you were frustrated -- this is to the Department of Justice -- why did you think that there was some urgency here? What led you to believe the documents might be destroyed?

Those pieces, Alex, I think we might see a snippet of. And I think that would be really interesting.

MARQUARDT: Page, I see you nodding. You agree? What were your concerns there when you saw that about the potential destruction of evidence?

PATE: Yes.

No, I agree with Phil. I mean, that's the heart of the probable cause, right? It's not the names of witnesses. It's not other specific factual details. It's why what we did, what Trump's team did in response to that, that forms the basis for the probable cause that authorized the issuance of the warrant.

So I think that is clearly what people want to know. And I think that's what this judge is going to focus on, and potentially let us see some of that information. This is just rarely done. So it's not like there's a lot of law to support DOJ's request to not release any of this. It's just rarely are these issues brought to court.

They are now, so we will see what happens.

MARQUARDT: We will see what happens. That is the end of this week. But we have another big week ahead next week.

Page Pate, Phil Mudd, thank you so much for your time, gentlemen.

PATE: Thanks. MARQUARDT: Now a battle over abortion threatening a plan to protect a vulnerable city from natural disaster, Louisiana now delaying millions in funds for a flood control project after New Orleans ruled it won't enforce the state's abortion ban. We will have the mayor live coming up.

Plus tobacco, alcohol and fatty food, we know they're unhealthy, but a new study is revealing how avoiding them could help prevent many cancer deaths.

And why you should probably update your Apple devices and do it right now. That's coming up.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:18:39]

MARQUARDT: It's a perfect storm.

Experts predicting a busy Atlantic hurricane season, as politics is now putting key flood funding in limbo for the city of New Orleans. Government scientists are forecasting as many as 10 hurricanes, about half of them expected to be major, and up to 20 named storms that could cause severe flooding.

Of course, New Orleans still bearing the scars of Hurricane Katrina. That was 17 years ago, the city naturally trying to prepare for what may be coming. But funding for a new power station to help deal with flooding is now being held up. Louisiana's attorney general has led efforts to delay that funding after the city passed a resolution to not enforce the state's new abortion ban.

It allows only health-related exceptions and no exemptions for rape or incest.

New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell joins us now.

Mayor Cantrell, thank you so much for joining me today. This is a really important subject.

This is the second straight month that funding has been delayed for this project, which, as we're saying, would improve the ability to pump floodwater from flooded areas and make sure that people have access to safe drinking water.

I want to show our viewers what the attorney general, Jeff Landry, said at a meeting yesterday. He said -- quote -- "I asked that you and my fellow Bond Commission members join me in ensuring that the parishes and municipalities of this state comply with all laws of our state, especially those protecting the lives of the unborn."

[13:20:05]

So, Mayor, the question to you is, do you believe that the attorney general is now putting lives at risk for political reasons?

LATOYA CANTRELL (D), MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA: I think it's very clear, based on the actions and the comments that you just read on the record, how politics are being played, how women's reproductive health care rights have been attacked, but how the city of New Orleans stands very firm in protecting women, women in our city, and in the state of Louisiana, for that matter.

But withholding any resources and redirecting any resources relative to infrastructure in the city of New Orleans has an immediate impact on our economy, and not just our local economy, but the economy of the state as well.

The city of New Orleans drives the economy of the state. We need to ensure that we're leveraging every dollar, every resource against federal investments that we're seeing happening in our city. The time is now. We cannot afford to put politics over the rights of people, and particularly safeguarding people from hurricanes and other disasters, because we are on the front lines of climate change.

MARQUARDT: Mayor, are abortions currently being carried out in New Orleans?

CANTRELL: Well, we currently have stay orders that are in place. And so there are protections. That is a form of protection today.

But, again, we know -- and who knows what tomorrow may bring, but based on the decisions that have been made by the state, it's pretty clear.

MARQUARDT: So, are you going to be reconsidering your position? Do you think the city will reconsider its position as a result of what you believe is this political ploy by the attorney general?

CANTRELL: I don't see any way that I can reconsider standing up for women, women's health, and their reproductive care, especially being a woman myself, and knowing the disparities that exist in my city and the disparities that exist throughout the state of Louisiana.

So, no, I cannot and will not change, because the women of this city and of the state of Louisiana are its backbone. So I cannot waver on the backbone of the state and of the city, our women.

MARQUARDT: Attorney General Landry accuses New Orleans of thumbing its nose at the state's laws. So how do you think this standoff is going to end?

CANTRELL: Well, we're going to remain very focused on the infrastructure needs of our community throughout this city, as well as remain very focused on women's health and reproductive care, as I have always demonstrated, serving the city of New Orleans as a mayor and even as a councilwoman.

But, as mayor, I will continue to be laser-focused, again, on leveraging every resource to improve the infrastructure in this city. I know we have partners, of course, at the federal level, but we're wanting to leverage our state dollar as well.

But we will remain focused. And I do believe, I'm confident that the Louisiana Bond Commission and its commissioners really do understand the impacts of not investing in the infrastructure in New Orleans, the impacts that it will have over the overall state.

We're the gateway to the state. We're the gateway to -- really to the world, meaning the city of New Orleans, when you think about the state of Louisiana.

MARQUARDT: From our understanding about this specific project, this power plant, if the funding doesn't get approved -- well, rather, it can't be approved before next year, from what we understand.

And so the impact would come later on, in a later phase of the project. So, on a practical level, if this money doesn't get approved now, when is that effect going to be felt?

CANTRELL: Well, the path that we're on -- and there are many moving parts of where we have gotten the green light and resources that have been put on the table that -- even by the city of New Orleans, millions of dollars that have been activated.

So this is a phased approach and a planned project to have a complete power station built for our sewage and water board utility to ensure that we have adequate power to run our pumps. So, we're building a system for the 21st century and beyond. And so it takes time to get there.

And so, as we plan for these dollars to meet the need coming in the year of 2023, so we need the resources, as we're planning. This is what we need to do. We know that the trifecta is real, meaning inflation, supply chain issues, and, of course, overall capacity.

[13:25:15]

So we're wanting to keep the project moving in the right direction. There's work being done right now, but, again, a phased approach. You want to make sure that the dollars are there when you need them. And the Bond Commission moving this forward right now will keep the project and its timeline on track. We want to stay on track.

And so we will remain focused on additional resources, even coming from the IIJA, the Infrastructure Investment Act passed by the federal government.

MARQUARDT: Right.

CANTRELL: We will be able to leverage that. But, again, we just have to remain focused on this .

But I'm confident that the Louisiana Bond Commission will do the right thing.

MARQUARDT: All right, Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans, wishing you all the best in this hurricane season. There's always so much concern for your amazing city at this time of year.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

CANTRELL: Thank you. Thank you.

MARQUARDT: Now, she let loose. Now her political opponents are laying in.

The Finnish prime minister is defending her right to party and even taking a drug test to calm her critics.

We will have that story coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)