Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Voting Underway in Ukraine; Russians Flee Putin's Mobilization; Richard Haass is Interviewed about Russia; Paul Rosenzweig and David Priess are Interviewed about the Trump Case; Biden to Attend DNC Event. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired September 23, 2022 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:36]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good Friday morning, everyone. We're glad you're with us. I'm Poppy Harlow.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

Right now, a staged referendum is underway in four areas of Ukraine occupied by invading Russian forces. People there being forced to vote on whether the regions should become part of Russia. The entire process under the control of the Russian government and occupying forces. The U.S., Europe, NATO, the world, many countries, slam the move as sham elections.

This comes as Vladimir Putin faces an uprising from his own people over his planned mobilization. And the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is saying he wants Russians to revolt against their government.

HARLOW: That's right. Putin's draft order sparking huge angry protests across the country, leading to more than 1,300 arrests. And now some Russians are leaving the country entirely, one way or another, as men try to escape this war. We are seeing long lines of traffic buildup at border crossings in several neighboring countries.

As for those who are deciding to try to fight, they are saying good- bye to loved ones as they leave behind their families to board buses for military service.

So, let's begin in Ukraine. Our international security editor, Nick Paton Walsh joins us from Kramatorsk.

Nick, what can you tell us from the ground?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Yes, certainly these -- I can't even call them votes, to be honest, handing out of ballots appears to be underway. Images showing that in multiple areas.

It's important to point out that this is happening under wartime conditions, under the gun, certainly, and that these ballot boxes are being taken to people's homes. Essentially an occupying force going to your front door and saying, do you want to vote yes to join part of Russia or not? Pretty clear what the outcome would be. As they used to say in the Soviet time, it doesn't really matter who votes, it's who counts the votes.

Well, we may not even see that many people even voting here. There's only one day over the next four days where in-person voting at ballot stations seem to be even happening.

But this follows a long pattern, frankly, of how Russia functions in what it used to call managed democracy, much less even of a pretense, frankly, here. Effectively (ph) the concern here is what happens when the results have been announced. Western officials saying the toll has actually already been decided. Does Russia use this move, and the Kremlin have indicated today that they will quite likely fast recognize these areas as part of Russia, do they use that extra status to allow some sort of extra part of their arsenal to be brought into play? Does it enable them to do other things? Can they use Russian conscripts, for example, on territory which they now consider to be part of Russia, or do they reach further into the darker parts of their military arsenal. Key questions but certainly in its occupied parts of Ukraine we are hearing Ukrainian officials saying, don't vote, report bids to try and make you vote. And even in one rare town in Kherson region, Snifarifka (ph), a protest against that referendum. Startling bravery.

SCIUTTO: Nick, you described the calculus here and the concern, as U.S. officials expressed, that Russia will now treat these areas as Russian territory, and, therefore, might escalate in some way. I'm curious, does this affect Ukrainian war plans? The Ukrainian military agenda from the commanders, the officials you speak to?

WALSH: As far as we can see on the ground, absolutely not. Not at all. In fact, around here, they are moving forward in certain areas. You saw very highly morale yesterday. There's one exception, the town of Bachmut (ph), which we are seeing Russia getting some traction moving into that key city with potentially tens of thousands of civilians still inside there.

But on the whole, Russia's losing on the front line. And that brings into question, Jim, exactly the impact of this, quote, partial mobilization that Putin has ordered. Probably the most risky and strident move of his 22 years, effectively running the Russian government. And, you know, there are many signs of protest across the country. It's so hard to try and define how consistent dissent is, how widespread it is, because of the role of state propaganda, blasting into homes through TV screens, because of how pervasive the security services are in crushing dissent.

But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seizing upon this dissent to basically say to Russians, run, desert, or let yourselves be taken prisoner.

[09:05:00]

Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINE (through translator): Russia's decision on mobilization is a frank admission that their regular army, which has been preparing for decades to take over a foreign country, did not withstand and crumbled.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALSH: So essentially we are into a few weeks ahead here where Russia has to put these tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, they claim, of forced conscripts, some it seems not having that much military experience, on to a front line and supply, train, and equip them in a way that it hasn't really effectively done for its regular army over the past six months. That's a startling challenge ahead of them. One which they probably will not succeed and as they faulted in most steps over the war here too. Leading to this next question, does Putin suddenly feel now that the nuclear weapons or other parts of his arsenal that he stayed well away from over the past six months might come into play. We'll have to get that answer scarily soon.

Jim.

HARLOW: Nick Paton Walsh, thank you. So important to have you on the ground there exactly where this is happening.

Thanks very much for all that reporting.

Well, on the heels of Vladimir Putin's mobilization of 300,000 reservists, Russians are looking to escape and those who are looking to escape are flooding to border crossings in countries like Georgia and Kazakhstan.

SCIUTTO: Yes. You might say voting with their feet, as far as their view is of the war.

HARLOW: Right.

SCIUTTO: Expanding war in Ukraine.

CNN correspondent Salma Abdelaziz, she is following the latest.

Salma, I wonder how broad, how extensive is this exodus we're seeing from military-aged men from Russia?

SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You can really see that there seems to be a sense of panic setting in across Russia. You heard there from our colleague, Nick Paton Walsh, about this two-pronged approach. This two-pronged response to the losses on the ground from President Putin this week. Of course, this so-called referendum, an attempt to illegally annex Ukrainian sovereign territory, and then the second part of this, which is happening very much inside Russia's borders, and that is this partial mobilization. The first mobilization that country has seen since World War II.

And 300,000 reservists will be called in stages, according to Russian officials, and there was a swift reaction to this. Thirty-eight cities across the country witnessed protests. Hundreds of people were arrested. Many of them women. Women who do not want to see their brothers, their sons, their fathers go off and die in a war that they feel they have nothing to do with. That they feel is not right.

Of course, the crackdown on that has been brutal. As I mentioned, many detentions and an attempt to silence and suppress dissent. But we're already seeing these mobilizations take place. And I think what's interesting about this is where the mobilizations are first taking place. Not in Moscow. Not right in the heart of the country. They're taking place in these more remote parts of Russia, in the caucuses, in the east, in other areas where maybe there are less eyes.

But we're still seeing these videos, people, families being torn apart, men put on buses, bused, of course, to Ukraine. And, again, the other reaction to this, besides the protest, is, of course, this rush to the borders, Finland, Kazakhstan reporting a 20 percent increase, flights increasing. Again, a sense of panic, really, on the ground there.

SCIUTTO: Yes, fewer eyes, also the ability to cross at land crossings for some.

Salma Abdelaziz, thanks so much.

Joining us now to discuss, Ambassador Richard Haass, the president of the Counsel of Foreign Relations, former senior official in the State Department.

Ambassador, good to have you on again.

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Good morning.

SCIUTTO: First, if we could talk about your reaction to these expected sham referendums in Russian-occupied territory, which frankly are territories of Ukraine that are only partially occupied by Russian forces, contested to a large part. The concern is Russia will now claim these territories as Russian territory. Is it your concern Russia will then use that as justification for escalation? In other words, treat Ukrainian attacks on that territory as an attack on Russia itself?

HAASS: Well, again, it's not as though the Russians need new justifications for carrying out this totally unprovoked war of choice on their part. These are, as you say, sham political events. To me it's more a sign of weakness. If you're doing well militarily it's one thing, but this is - this is a response that they're doing poorly, militarily. Ukraine will ignore these referendum quite properly. And Russia will, you know, have to figure out what to do.

But again, it might mean they put more military resources into holding these places, but sooner or later they're going to lose these areas. This is not Russia itself. And I don't particularly buy these threats that Putin is going to, what, threaten to use or actually use nuclear weapons over this part of Ukraine? I just don't find that credible.

HARLOW: So, Ambassador, there's a really new - really interesting new reporting from our colleagues Katie Bo Lillis, Oren Liebermann and Kylie Atwood that for months the Biden administration, the State Department has been warning Putin and his regime not to use nuclear weapons.

[09:10:01]

They've largely relied on intelligence channels to communicate that.

But despite all those warnings, we still heard Putin just this week essentially say I'm not bluffing when it comes to potentially using any form of nuclear weapon.

And my question to you is, you've talked about this need, and you just tweeted about it a few days ago, for an even more clear sort of warning to Putin from NATO and from the U.S. on what they would do should he use nuclear weapons.

What form do you think that should take now knowing that they've been communicating in a different way for months?

HAASS: Yes, history suggests that Mr. Putin responds better to credible, specific threats rather than to general talk of serious consequences.

Look, up to now our entire approach to this war has been to give Ukraine the means to help itself. We've not gone in directly. What I would recommend, and we should tell the Russians now, is that if they are to use nuclear weapons, however, American and western NATO air power would be made available to Ukraine and essentially the entire Russian military presence in Ukraine would be decimated.

And again, we're not after attacking Russia. We could make that clear, as well. We can reassure. But we should also make sure that they understand, we cannot allow nuclear weapons to be used. That norm cannot be broken in a way that is cost free. We don't want Russia, we don't want China, we don't want North Korea, Iran, or anyone else to think that nuclear weapons are a viable instrument of foreign policy. So, there's got to be a very specific, credible threat that we're willing and able to follow through on.

SCIUTTO: Where does this go from here, Ambassador Haass? Because the concern is part of the concern, right, what's fueling concerns about nuclear weapons is that Putin's backed into a corner. He can't lose. He knows that he loses probably or a good chance of losing power if he loses this war given all that he's invested in it. So, what happens? I mean, I think folks have given up on a diplomatic off-ramp. So what's the reality next? Does he just dig in for a long war? Does he sue for peace? What do you expect?

HAASS: Well, I think you're right, I don't see any diplomatic option for the time being. There's virtually no overlap whatsoever between Ukrainian demands and Russian political realities. And I think you're right, if Putin loses the war, he most likely loses power. That is his calculation.

My guess is, we'd better prepare ourselves for a long war. He's hoping this winter that energy and economic problems break the backs of European support for Ukraine. I don't think we'll see that. But my guess is, we're going to see a long-term war of lower military intensity. Neither side can sustain a high-tempo military war given the human and material costs of that. And I think for Putin, he's OK. He doesn't have to win, he just has to avoid losing. And Ukraine is not going to compromise. They're going to continue pressing.

So, I think we'd better get used to the idea that this is an open- ended war. It's gone on for eight years, if you think about it. The idea that it could go on for several more years, I think, is quite realistic.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: Several more years.

Ambassador Richard Haass, thank you.

HAASS: Thanks for having me.

HARLOW: All right, still to come, where is the proof? The special master tells former President Trump's legal team to back up his unfounded claims of, quote, planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago. Well, they want that backed up under oath. So, we'll talk about that, next.

And just 50 days ahead of the midterm elections and President Biden is focusing today on areas Democrats view as wins. Front and center, abortion rights.

SCIUTTO: Also, disturbing video. A man charged after assaulting a flight attendant mid-flight. Goodness. Tough to watch this. How other passengers responded. What's ahead for the attacker, that's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:51]

SCIUTTO: The special master in the case of the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago once again is ordering former President Donald Trump and his lawyers to prove claims they have made out of court, that the FBI planted evidence during the search. One of several consequential decisions by that special master in recent days. You will hear Trump and his legal team repeatedly making such claims online and on television, but notably not in a courtroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALINA HABBA, TRUMP LAWYER: And, quite honestly, I'm concerned that they may have planted something. You know, at this point, who knows? I don't trust the government. And that's a very frightening thing as an American.

CHRISTINA BOBB, TRUMP ATTORNEY: I don't think that there was actually anything there that's worthwhile. We'll see what they come up with. You know, if they did, it will be interesting, especially since they precluded me from actually watching what they did. But, at this point, I don't necessarily think that they would even go to the extent of trying to plant information. I think they just make stuff up and, you know, come up with whatever they want.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: The problem that you have is, they go into rooms, they won't let anybody near -- they wouldn't even let them in the same building. Did they drop anything into those piles? Or, did they do it later? There's no chain of custody here with them.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Wouldn't that be on videotape, potentially?

TRUMP: Uh, no, I don't think so. I mean, they're in a room.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: The special master, Judge Raymond Dearie, you see right there, this is a man, by the way, that the Trump team wanted, recommended for the special master role. Well, he's giving the Trump lawyers until the end of next week to submit a sworn declaration under oath about whether they believe, actually believe what they allege there on television.

Let's bring in Paul Rosenzweig, former Homeland Security deputy assistant secretary for policy, also was senior council during the Whitewater investigation, and former CIA intelligence officer David Priess, he's the chief operating officer of Lawfare, a blog dedicated to national security.

Thank you both very much.

Paul, I think you put it succinctly and so well when you said, law is reality.

PAUL ROSENZWEIG, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY: Well, it certainly is. This is, you know, Judge Dearie said that you can't have your cake and eat it too. I would put it more bluntly, it's put up or shut up time.

[09:20:01]

He's demanding that they file any objections to the property list that the FBI said (ph). And that includes, I might add, not just whether or not they planted evidence, but also the FBI list says that the documents are classified. So, by the end of next week, the Trump team has to put up or shut up on whether or not Trump declassified them in his mind, if they're going to object to that labeling (ph) as well.

SCIUTTO: So, David Priess, I'm curious what the timeline is here. So this judge -- the appeals court knocked down their attempt to stop the DOJ investigation throughout this. We're now seeing them knock down the argument that evidence may have been planted, knock down the claim that the former president declassified this material. So how quickly does this now progress? And I know that some of this is reading tea leaves here, but are weeks, months, longer away from a decision on whether to charge?

DAVID PRIESS, FORMER CIA INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: It really depends on what the Department of Justice chooses to do at this time. There are two paths right now. One of them is to continue with the special master process. That involves a whole lot of interns copying a whole lot of documents this weekend because the government owes 11,000 copies to the Trump legal team by Monday. And that process can take many weeks, perhaps months for the special master to review all of these documents and get back to Judge Canon with his recommendations. That's path one.

Path two is that the government can actually file an appeal for the entire special master decision that Judge Canon made. Now, normally, that appeal would also take many weeks or months. And I'm not sure which one would expedite the process more, to go along with the special master process on these unclassified documents, or to go ahead and put the appeal in and ask for expedited review.

HARLOW: What I think is really interesting, too, Paul, is the fact that the special master, Judge Dearie, also has opened the door to hearing from witnesses. He said he's open to hearing from witnesses with knowledge of relevant facts to be called to testify. Is that normal in terms of what a special master normally does?

ROSENZWEIG: Well, it certainly isn't normal for a special master. Usually, he's evaluating documents only. But in this case, you know, the president has attempted to throw so much wheat and chaff into the air to confuse the issue that I suspect what he's going to want to do is actually call some people, like some of Trump's attorneys, to make them, again, put up or shut up. Either make their outrageous statements under oath before him, or withdrawal the claims altogether. I think it's an interesting ploy on his part.

PRIESS: And let's be clear here, Poppy and Jim, that Judge Dearie is no novice. He served on the foreign intelligence surveillance court for years.

HARLOW: Yes.

PRIESS: He knows, having worked with the FBI on thousands of briefings and presentations before the court, he knows that the claim of planting evidence that is often thrown out there in bad movies and apparently sometimes in the media today, is never or very, very rarely backed up by fact. So, he sees this for what it is, just a ploy in the public sphere and he's probably not going to be distracted by it. He just wants to make sure if the Trump lawyers have something to say about it, that they make it clear in court.

SCIUTTO: Paul, part of the Trump strategy with any legal case, we've seen it in so many cases, is to delay it, to draw out the process as long as possible. I've seen some discussion as to whether they can carry the appeals court decision all the way to the Supreme Court. Can they? If they do, does that happen quickly?

ROSENZWEIG: Well, they certainly can file an appeal of the stay. And that will move pretty quickly on the court's emergency docket. On the other hand, given the strength of the court of appeals opinion, a unanimous decision within a single day of the end of briefing, including two Trump-appointed judges, my guess is that the Supreme Court would also make relatively short shrift of this, and that the delay there would be minimal. Plus, of course, since the stay has been lifted, he'd have to actually get five votes to reinstitute the stay in the Supreme Court. And I just don't see that happening.

SCIUTTO: Paul Rosenzweig, David Priess, always good to have you on. If I had to bet money, I'm sure we'll have you back on this topic. Thank you.

And coming up next, CNN is the key battleground state of New Hampshire. With less than 50 days now until the midterms, what major issues are driving voters to the polls.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:29:17]

HARLOW: All right, well, ramping up ahead of the midterms, President Biden is speaking at a DNC event today in Washington, campaigning on contrast, highlighting for voters stark differences he sees between Republicans and Democrats as he stumps and fundraises for midterm candidates.

SCIUTTO: Front and center in that fight, abortion rights. Some Democrats believe that will drive turnout in their favor in November.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now from the White House.

That is the Democrats' hope. I wonder what the evidence is.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, we've already seen in several states, including that Kansas referendum, for example, that Democrats have watched as this issue of abortion rights, in the wake of the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, has become so politically salient for Democrats with so much enthusiasm in the Democratic base, and increasing enthusiasm among women voters in particular.

[09:30:08]

Now, with six and a half weeks until election.