Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Western Official Says, Russia Has Run Out of Iranian Attack Drones; Supreme Court to Hear Case on Independent State Legislature Theory; Senators Draft Bipartisan Framework to Legalize DACA Recipients. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 06, 2022 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: This morning in Ukraine, a western official tells CNN Russia has run out, in the official's words, of Iranian attack drones but is anticipating a resupply. Russia has been using a variety of Iranian-manufactured drones, which have formed, of course, part of these waves of attacks we've been seeing against Ukraine's infrastructure.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And civilian targets. It comes as Russian strikes reported overnight in Ukraine's southern Zaporizhzhia and central Dnipropetrovsk regions damaging critical infrastructure and residential buildings.

Joining us now to discuss, retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, he's former commanding general of the U.S. Army Europe 7th Army. Great to have you on, Lieutenant General, to walk us through the latest developments here, lots of questions for you.

First, I wonder, if you could give us a sense of where you think this war is right now. Ukrainians made enormous progress in the south, recaptured Kherson, this after making enormous, unexpected progress in the north a number of weeks ago around Kharkiv. Russia has that struck, in effect, back by hitting more and more civilian targets. Are Russians retreating in this war?

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I don't believe that is the case, Jim. I think what is happening right now in the Donbas region, the eastern, what we're talking about is a little bit of an artillery slugfest. There has been an exchange of towns, Ukraine has gained a couple of more territory within that Donbas reason in some very, very tough fighting and some artillery duels but it is tough to conduct a breakthrough. Ukraine doesn't yet have that capability to break through the trench lines but they're quickly gaining it.

If you go to the southeast, what we're talking about over the last couple of months is we've seen some great advances by Ukraine on the western side of the Dnipro River. But now they have that river as a natural barrier. Every military commander has to consider roads, rivers, bridges, terrain features, and now Ukraine has to conduct attacks across that river, which is in some cases mile or two miles wide, to get on the eastern side to continue to disrupt Russian forces.

They're doing that by conducting artillery raids, precision weaponry targeting on the eastern side against the Russians. But think what we're going to see, because of less daylight, more cold weather, the fighting won't stop but it will slow down significantly. But, truthfully, Jim, on both sides, it is still a tough fight and Ukraine continues to gain ground.

HILL: In terms of where the war could be shifting, Ukraine is not commenting on these alleged drone strikes, which I believe were up to three now, inside on Russia airbases, inside Russian territory. Russian officials are commenting, but, again, not Ukrainian officials. What does that signify to you? Could that be also a new phase of this war?

HERTLING: It could very well, be. Erica, and that is a great question. I'm going to expand the understanding of that strike from both in my (INAUDIBLE) military analyst. From the Ukraine side, first of all, it was a great strike, but everyone is focusing on the hitting of the targets that those different three airfields. But I would suggest is there is a whole lot more to it from a Ukrainian general standpoint. They have to first get the required intelligence. Then they have to do a very complex set of targeting drills. Then they have to synchronize the travel of the weapon systems and the electronic gear after they assess the Russian air defense capabilities of defending those targets. And I would also suggest that they have included special operations forces to determine where those best targets were as a surprise to the Russians.

If you look at the Russian side, from a Russian general perspective, first of all, their number one trait is hubris. They think that they have a defensive capability inside of Russia far away from the frontlines. They've just found out on a couple of occasions they don't. That first happened with the Moskva, the ship that Ukraine sank, then it happened in an attack Crimea. Now, Ukraine is fighting hundreds of miles inside of Russian territory and there was no air defense against whatever struck those airfields.

One of the things though that is fascinating to me is air defense for the Russians are either S-400 or S-300 missile systems. Russia is using those against civilian targets in Ukraine. That means they've taken them away from defending airfields within Russia. So, I'm sure there's a lot very embarrassed and very egocentric Russian generals right now this morning saying, how did we allow that to happen, and they're being questioned by their civilian population as well.

[10:35:00]

SCIUTTO: A remarkable of Russian air defense, as hundreds of miles inside of its territory, yet one more thing we've learned from Russian military capabilities. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, thanks so much.

HERTLING: Thanks, guys. I appreciate it.

HILL: The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on a North Carolina redistricting case that could change the landscape of election law and voting rights. How? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a major case that experts say could have consequential ramifications on U.S. democracy as we know it. So, the case comes from North Carolina, it has to do with redistricting, where Republicans in the state legislature want the Supreme Court to adopt a theory known as the independent state legislature theory, which asserts that state legislators are all powerful when it comes to elections and how they act and could curtail the ability of state courts to review whether new voting laws even comply with the state's Constitution.

Joining me now to discuss is Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice. And you've had a great explainer on this, which I think is so important for folks.

One of the things that you've said, and I'm quoting you here, is the notion that state legislators have sole power over election rules is, quote, extreme, historically imaginary and one of the most radical power grabs ever. The reality though is this would not ultimately be just about elections. So, if the court upholds this theory, this would throw checks and balances out the window. Is there any way to get that back if that happens?

MICHAEL WALDMAN, PRESIDENT, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE: Well, the most important thing I think is that the Supreme Court rule, as it has always ruled on this, which is that state legislatures are under the coverage of the Constitutions of the states they're in, which means that courts provide checks and balances, governors sign or veto bills and the voters, too, pass ballot measures. That is the way it has been done all throughout the country's history.

This is this really whacky and, I would say, misguided idea that the Constitution actually meant to give all the power to state legislatures with no checks and balances. And as we all know, politicians will abuse power like that to gerrymander or to pass voting laws to help them. And there is a reason why this has never been the case up until now.

HILL: So, up until now, because we should point out in 2015, the Supreme Court rejected this theory. So, when you say up until now, we're here seven years late, is this case here because the makeup of the court has shifted so dramatically or is there something more to this particular case that warrants it being looked at?

WALDMAN: Well, we know that the court has now a very conservative supermajority and you only need four votes to hear a case. So, that doesn't mean there is a majority who embrace this idea. But there is nothing in the way the country is running. Donald Trump raised this when he was trying to overthrow the election.

But the case in North Carolina is a great example of why this would be a bad idea. It is a very politically divided state, Democratic governor, Republican legislature. The legislature drew a gerrymandered map for the congressional seats with about 11 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And the state Supreme Court under the state Constitution said you can't do that. The legislature said, yes we can, the Constitution of our state doesn't count. We get to do whatever we want.

It sounds like a made-up story but that is actually the facts of this case. Every historian, the founder of the Federalist Society, the lawyer who argued Bush versus Gore for President Bush, all have weighed in here saying that this would really be a bad idea for democracy. It is not about one political party or another, it is about making sure that our system works.

HILL: What will you be listening for in these arguments?

WALDMAN: Well, for starters, whether the vast volume of evidence about what James Madison intended and what has happened ever since persuades some of the justices who say that they're originalists, who say they only want to follow what went on way back then. The evidence there, we would say, I would say, is pretty strong and pretty solid. I think it is also the case that some of these justices will probably try to find some way -- middle ground and, really, what they need to do is reject this notion.

You know, J. Michael Luttig, the esteemed conservative former federal judge, said that he thinks this is the most important case on democracy that the Supreme Court has ever heard. That would be especially true if it comes out in a really bad way. It would overturn hundreds of laws, constitutional provisions and lead to chaos all over the country.

HILL: in October, before I let you go, you wrote public awareness is key here. This can be a little convoluted. It's a little confusing. Does it feel like there is an increase at all? Do you have any sense that more people are starting to sit up and pay attention and say, hey, wait a minute, this could be really bad?

WALDMAN: You're right, that it can be a little archaic, but the bottom line here is pretty simple. We think and we think the Constitution thinks that checks and balances to control, to make sure that no part of our government can grab power and abuse that power, those checks and balances are really important.

[10:45:03]

That is what is at stake here and whether voters get to have their say on the people they elect. In the end, it is -- there is not a lot of history here, there is not a lot of theory, it is pretty simple.

HILL: Michael Waldman, I appreciate your time today. Thank you.

WALDMAN: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Just ahead, a surprising bipartisan effort to legalize DACA recipients. Two senators, a Republican and a Democrat, present a framework that seeks as well to bolster border security and provide that pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. We'll have an update coming up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

SCIUTTO: All right. Listen to this. Two senators, a Democrat and Republican, are taking a chance on a bipartisan bill hoping at least to move forward on immigration reform. Sources tell CNN that Republican Thom Tillis and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema have come up with a framework to do a few things, one, improve border security, provide a path way to citizenship for DACA recipients, also extend the policy, which allows for the expulsion of migrants encountered at the southern border.

HILL: Tillis and Sinema have been working on this for months. There is no text though. It is also unclear whether there are enough votes to advance it.

Joining us now with more, CNN's Priscilla Alvarez. So, just how far along are they in this process, Priscilla?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN REPORTER: Well, Senate aides have stressed to me and our colleague, Daniella Michaela (ph), that this is a draft framework. And as of yesterday afternoon, the White House and Senate leadership were not involved in discussion. All of which tells us that this is still a long ways away.

But the framework has come together to some extent and it includes a few key points. That is at least $25 billion in funding. That includes, for example, a pay raise for border patrol agents, resources for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, it would also include resources to speed up asylum processing and that key add that it would extend Title 42. That is that public health authority that allows for the expulsion of migrants at the U.S./Mexico border. And in exchange for all of that, it would provide a panel way to citizenship for around 2 million DREAMERs. Those are undocumented migrants who came into the United States as children.

Now, this is legislation we have been talking about for over 20 years to provide some sort of recourse for that population of undocumented immigrants. This framework is now starting to come together, although, again, Senate leadership have not been involved in the discussion. Senator Dick Durbin, who has been a long time advocate of DACA, did say that he was applauding the efforts of these senators, so we'll see where this goes from here. Of course, with a lame-duck session, Democrats have been hoping they can make some headway on immigration.

HILL: Priscilla Alvarez, when you'll keep us posted. Thank you.

Acclaimed Actress Kirstie Alley has died at the age of 71. Just ahead, a look at her legacy and her work.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

HILL: A sad news to report this morning, Actress Kirstie Alley has died at the age of 71 after a brief battle with cancer.

SCIUTTO: I hate to see such familiar stars go. She, of course, star of both the big and the small screens, two time Emmy-winner, known originally for her role as Rebecca Howe on the T.V. sitcom Cheers, really, the T.V. sitcom legend Cheers. She was also at the films, a whole bunch of film, including Look Who is Talking.

CNN's Chloe Melas has more on this. And, Chloe, I mean, so familiar through so many decades of television and movies. How is Hollywood reacting?

CHLOE MELAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER: First of all, good morning. And I was shocked because nobody knew other than people in her close circle that she was battling an illness. We still don't know what exactly the illness was but there has been an outpouring on social media because she is one of the most famous faces in Hollywood. She was iconic in so many roles.

And I want to talk about John Travolta. As you know, they starred in the franchise, Look Who is Talking, and Kirstie had said in multiple interviews that John was one of the greatest loves of her life and that there were times that she actually said that I wanted to pursue a romantic relationship with him and I think that he felt the same way about me. But we were both married. She was married. He was married to Kelly Preston.

Here is what John said on social media. He said, Kirstie was one of the most special relationships I've ever had. I love you, Kirstie. I know we will see each other again.

Look, you know, they cared for each other. And I have to say that it has also been a really tough year for John Travolta. Look, obviously, Kelly Preston didn't die this past year but he lost his wife, he's also lost his son and then Olivia Newton John who passed away. So, several of the closest women in his life, he's suffered a lot of loss.

But I would say that Kirstie and John, they've had such a special relationship and it really, really was beautiful to see over the course of their on-screen relationship and their friendship.

Also Jamie Lee Curtis, who was very close can Kirstie, she took to social media to grieve her, to say that she was a great comic foil in @tvscreenqueens and a beautiful mama bear in her very real life. And we know that Kirstie had two children, a daughter and a son, and they've been the ones who announced the news of their mother's passing on social media yesterday.

SCIUTTO: So sad for her, so sad for her family and friends, her children. Chloe Melas, thanks so much.

And before we leave you today, special musical moment, Neil Diamond surprised theater-goers with a performance of a big hit you might know, during the opening night of the new musical based on his life and career.

[11:00:00] SCIUTTO: Yes. I think the people knew the words, Erica.

HILL: I think they knew one or two.