Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Warnock Defeats Walker; Map of Georgia Senate Race; Schumer to Speak about Win; Molly Ball is Interviewed about the Democrats Win in Georgia; Supreme Court Case on Future Elections; Criminal Referrals from January 6th Committee. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired December 07, 2022 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:27]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Wednesday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Erica Hill.

A busy Wednesday morning.

Overnight in Georgia, a major win for Democrats. Senator Raphael Warnock heading back to Washington after defeating his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker, handing Democrats a 51-seat majority in the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): I am Georgia.

Let's celebrate for a little while on this mountain. Let's dance because we deserve it. But tomorrow we go back down into the valley to do the work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer set to speak next hour. Republicans, meantime, CNN has learned are re-evaluating their path forward.

SCIUTTO: Not the first time.

And a tough week for former President Donald Trump. A New York jury has found his family business guilty of multiple crimes, including criminal tax fraud, while the January 6th committee is mulling possible criminal referrals to the Justice Department. All of this as the DOJ subpoenas more officials involved in attempts to overturn election results as part of its investigation.

We do, however, begin this morning with the Senate runoff in Georgia. CNN correspondent Amara Walker is in Atlanta.

Amara, this is quite a win for Warnock. Break it down for us. AMARA WALKER, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim, this was such a

competitive, hard-fought race with nearly $400 million that was poured into this competition. And, as you said, Senator Raphael Warnock prevailed in this, winning a full six-year term. And his win really underscores several things. First off, that Georgia truly is a swing state. This is something that Georgia Democrats have been watching very closely and they will clearly use this win as a blueprint as they look towards 2024.

It also highlights the Democrats' really tenacious ground game. Obviously that was set up by Stacey Abrams. But, as you may know, Georgia, after the 2020 presidential election, passed that controversial new voting law that shortened the time period between the general election in November and this runoff from nine to four weeks and then it also reduced the number of early voting days.

During that early voting period, we saw the GOP pushing to ban that Saturday voting after Thanksgiving. That clearly backfired as we saw a surge in early voting. And this is what Raphael Warnock was hoping for, that surge would give him that cushion for election day. And that's exactly what happened.

The last thing that it really highlighted was the turnout right here in Georgia. Interest in this election was immense, even though it was a runoff. And 3.5 million people turned out.

And earlier this morning, the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger talked about and touted the turnout, but also reflected on the loss for his party.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: Obviously, and I think really as Republicans, we want to do some soul searching. We need to win back the suburbs. That used to be our bread and butter. That's where we used to be really, really strong.

Bit by bit, in the last several years, we haven't focused in on it. And it's a lot of it about their ground game. There's a lot of really good consultants that know what to do and I think they need to get a seat at the table moving forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALKER: And last night we saw the Republican challenger, Herschel Walker, concede. Clearly Brian Kemp, the popular Republican governor in Georgia, his campaigning, his support, his fundraising just wasn't enough to convince those split-ticket voters from November.

Jim and Erica.

HILL: Amara Walker, in Atlanta this morning, thank you.

John Berman standing by at the magic wall. So, we were talking about specific counties yesterday. We just heard

Brad Raffensperger there really focus in, hone in on the suburbs. What did we see in the suburbs, John?

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, he can count. He watched these numbers come in overnight because it was glaring, Erica. He's really talking about the area around Atlanta, not just urban Atlanta, but these counties surrounding Atlanta. And, boy, have they changed over time.

Let me just take you to Gwinnett County. This is northeastern Atlanta. It has some urban areas, but largely suburban as well. Let's just do the math here. You can see Raphael Warnock overnight, he won that by 25 - let's do d plus 25. And we're going to write that down. And I'm going to walk you through. Just two years ago in the runoff, that was a d plus 21, d plus 21 two years ago.

[09:05:06]

Actually, in the presidential election, Joe Biden, it was d plus 18.

Now 2016, let's go back. Hillary Clinton won, but it was d plus six. And then go back to 2012 and Mitt Romney, the Republican won by almost 9 points. You heard what Brad Raffensperger says, little by little, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2021, 2022, little by little, Republicans have been losing ground in the suburbs and Democrats have been gaining ground to the point where a Democrat is winning by 25 points a county that a Republican won by nine just 10 years ago.

This isn't ancient history. And you can look out and it's not just in northeastern. You can look in southeastern Atlanta as well. Henry County. You can see Raphael Warnock won this by 33. Just a blowout. Plus 33 in that county. And, again, go back to Mitt Romney, that was a county that Mitt Romney won by over 4 points. Huge demographic changes there. As the population grows in these areas, it is becoming more Democratic. And if Republicans want to have a chance, they have to do better there. They don't necessarily have to win, they have to do better.

Take Cobb County. Hershel Walker lost by 19 points. But Brian Kemp, the governor, who won re-election, Republican, he only lost by about 4 points there. So that's how Republicans can survive in a state like Georgia that is turning ever more purple.

SCIUTTO: John Berman, those are big changes over not a long period of time, as you say. Thanks so much.

BERMAN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Well, in the next hour, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, he's going to be celebrating, set to speak on Capitol Hill after Democrats secured another Senate seat and giving them a 51-49 majority. This comes as Republicans say they're reassessing their losses this midterm cycle. CNN has learned that top GOP lawmakers are now looking to make an aggressive push to prop up what they say are more electable candidates ahead of 2024.

HILL: It's a novel concept, go for more electable candidates.

CNN's Lauren Fox up on Capitol Hill for us with the very latest.

So, the GOP underperformance this election cycle, is there a sense that there's a real plan? Do we know what more electable means?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, you cannot have the kind of losses that Republicans experienced, especially last night, without really thinking about how the party wants to move forward. And one of the ways they are thinking about that is trying to ensure that in a primary election that they are propping up the most electable candidates so that person can turn around and win a general election.

The fear from a lot of lawmakers we've been talking to is that you are basically having people win primaries that can't turn around and get the kind of support they need to win in the suburbs, like John Berman was talking about, and actually win those general elections.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee did not get involved in primaries this cycle, and that is a question mark going forward. Should they? Would they get involved to insure that at the end of the day, when the general election happens, they are able to actually win up the score here in some of these races that they just weren't able to perform in this time around?

Now, also in the next hour we are going to hear from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is going to be celebrating the fact that Democrats feel like they really did a good job recruiting these candidates and, obviously, supporting incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock. It's a big change for Schumer. Even though it's only one more vote, it's a huge deal in terms of the committees because it really could help Democrats expedite how quickly they can move nominations through. It can make it easier for them to subpoena and do investigations that they want to pursue. It also means that Chuck Schumer just has a little bit more leeway when it comes to some of these votes that he wants to move forward.

Over the last two years, the story on The Hill has been, where's Joe Manchin going to be, where's Kyrsten Sinema going to be? He now can afford to lose one vote. He doesn't need entire unity of his party. Of course, the big catchall here is the fact that then the bill has to go over to the House of Representatives, which is now going to be controlled by Republicans.

Jim and Erica.

SCIUTTO: Indeed.

Lauren Fox, thanks so much.

All right, so joining us now to speak about this, Molly Ball, national political correspondent for "Time" magazine.

So, Molly, Republicans reassessing. Not the first time we heard this story. There was the famous postmortem after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012. In fact, the party went further right. It didn't go to the center. And after the loss in 2020, the party went more Trump, or at least stuck with Trump after many quietly said no.

And when I listened to some early thoughts there, Raffensperger says, we need better consultants. The other members of the party saying they need more electable candidates. No one has mentioned issues to this point. And I imagine, in those suburbs, issues like, for instance, the Dobbs decision are driving force there. I mean should we take this effort to reassess seriously and credibly?

MOLLY BALL, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "TIME": Well, I think it depends what it consists of. And you raise a very good point.

[09:10:02]

But at this point, you know, this is much more a sort of internal licking of wounds among Republicans more than a formal process.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BALL: Now, there is a formal process akin to the 2012 autopsy that you mention that is going on at the RNC. And it will be interesting if they choose to focus more on tactics, more on policy or on both.

But, you know, the conversations Republicans are having these days, whether, you know, in Washington, on Capitol Hill, or out there, you know, in the states, they are -- they're talking about all of these things and they're talking a lot about Trump because, you know, the RNSC didn't get involved in those primaries, but Donald Trump certainly did.

And in Georgia, there wasn't even much of a competitive primary at all because everybody knew that Trump wanted Herschel Walker, and that was just going to make it impossible for anybody else to get traction. So, Trump is going to remain the proverbial elephant in the room. And Republicans can have all the conversations they want about what else they should be doing but they can't control him.

HILL: He's both the elephant in the room, Molly, and I would say both last night and this morning is very clearly becoming the scapegoat. There's a lot of finger pointing. Yet another Trump candidate that didn't work out. But that's also a little bit of revisionist history because while there may have been issues clearly when it came to picking those candidates, the fact is, most Republicans got on board. So it's not just Trump.

BALL: Well, it is Trump, but it's the party base that loves Trump, right? And that has always been his power over the Republican Party. And the many Trump skeptical Republicans, the Republican establishment, feel that he has honestly since 2015 been sort of holding the party hostage. If you recall, when he first ran for president, he always held this threat over the Republican Party's heads that he could take his people and leave. And he still could do that. And Republicans know that. They know that there is a portion of the party base that is intensely loyal to Donald Trump, they love him. And to your point, that's why when Trump says, this is who I want to be the candidate, that candidate almost automatically wins the primary.

So we have heard a lot of finger pointing and scapegoating by Republican officials. The question is, has that percolated down to rank and file Republican voters, or are they still as in love with Trump as ever?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BALL: And I think we are starting to see some evidence that there may be some erosion there as well.

SCIUTTO: Well, to Erica's point, one of those Trump skeptical Republicans, Kemp, he put his machine behind Walker, right? I mean he sort of came around on them and not enough to push him over the line.

I do want to say, you know, we nationalize these races, and there are certainly national implications of these, but Raphael Warnock, I mean, he's now won four elections in two years, two general elections, two runoffs, some tight ones, and in some tough circumstances. Is Warnock himself a rising star in the Democratic Party?

BALL: I think you have to say that he is. And I think, you know, the candidate quality idea cuts both ways, right? When Democrats succeeded in recruiting Raphael Warnock, himself a political newcomer, himself sort of -- you could draw a parallel to Herschel Walker in the sense that he is an extremely well-known local celebrity with very solid roots in the community and a lot of credibility with Georgia voters. He was successfully recruited by the Democrats for this very tough race two years ago and chose to take it on, probably in part because there was not a Trump-like figure out there, as we've seen, just waiting so many otherwise qualified Republicans who might have otherwise run for Senate.

So, this was a recruiting win for the Democrats and now we are seeing that pay dividends. You know, not - I -- I don't think you can say he's done it single handedly, but Raphael Warnock really gets the credit for turning Georgia into a purple state.

SCIUTTO: Wow.

BALL: He is the Democrat who's able to win elections in the state of Georgia.

HILL: Molly Ball, great to have you here this morning. Thank you.

BALL: Thank you.

HILL: Still to come, the significant case set to be argued before the Supreme Court next hour. How it could dramatically upend elections.

SCIUTTO: Plus, the January 6th House committee previews that it is now weighing criminal referrals for former President Donald Trump, as well as his closest allies. Why that move could carry significant weight. That's coming up.

And in North Carolina, more than 35,000 people, they're still waiting for the lights to come back on. Increasingly community members resorting to emergency shelters. What happened here? Are investigators making process? We're going to be live in Moore County later this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:29]

SCIUTTO: At the top of the hour, yet one more consequential case before the Supreme Court. It will take on the future of federal elections and the involvement of state legislatures. The justices will hear oral arguments in the case Moore versus Harper. This will test whether a state's legislature has the power to make, in effect, whatever rules it deems appropriate to insure a, quote, free and fair election without judicial oversight, even by state courts.

HILL: That assertion uses a theory that's known as the Independent State Legislature Theory. Supporters of former Donald Trump - former President Donald Trump actually relied on that during their effort to overturn the 2020 election. We know how that turned out.

CNN's senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic joining us now.

Joan, this is very clearly a case that's getting a lot of attention. It can be a little confusing, I think, for the non-lawyers among us. But the reason it's getting so much attention is because there's concern about what it could mean for electoral politics and checks and balances moving forward.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's absolutely right, Erica. And, good morning, to Jim too.

This is a case that could transform election practices nationwide and upset our democratic system of checks and balances just because of how much authority it would give to state legislatures without any check by their state courts interpreting their state constitutions. This idea, in its modern iteration, was essentially raised by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the Bush v. Gore election case of 2000. He only got two votes - two other votes for the theory and it essentially faded.

[09:20:03]

No one thought it was going to go anywhere. But, as you mentioned, it was picked up in 2020, not just by lawyers for Donald Trump, but four Supreme Court justices have since shown an interest in this theory, which is what has brought us to this moment. And it's the kind of approach that could change things for redistricting maps, which is exactly what's in dispute here from the North Carolina case. The North Carolina state legislature, run by Republicans, had drawn what a state court deemed was an unconstitutional, extreme partisan gerrymander, you know, based on its own state constitutions protections for the voters. And the state legislature said you don't - you don't get a chance to interfere here. You can't reverse it.

And they brought their appeal to the Supreme Court, which in, you know, surprising some, the Supreme Court had an appetite for this case. And that's why what's going to happen right at the top of the hour, as Jim said, is an expected 90 minutes -- scheduled 90 minutes of oral arguments that expect to go more than two hours. And if the justices buy this theory, it would affect redistricting maps and all manner of election practices, including in a presidential race rules for the selection of electors.

SCIUTTO: Joan, let me ask you this because you study the history of the courts. Historically, this has not been the law of the land for more than two centuries, right, because you hear conservatives saying, well, it wouldn't be that big a deal of a change. But, historically, it would, right?

BISKUPIC: Absolutely, Jim. And I - I just want to check you on that word conservatives. The justices - the conservative justices of the court are going in this direction. A lot of conservative lawyers out there are going in this direction. But, actually, more broadly, conservative legal scholars are split, Republicans are split and the weight of support is on the other side, is to leave things as they are with state constitutions, state court judges having a check on state legislators.

SCIUTTO: Yes, it might -

BISKUPIC: So, it's a lopsided argument, but it might be bought by this court.

SCIUTTO: Yes, Judge Luttig among the folks from the conservative side who are criticizing this.

BISKUPIC: Exactly right.

SCIUTTO: Joan Biskupic, thanks so much.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, it is already -- it's been a brutal week for former President Trump on several legal fronts. The Justice Department's special counsel, Jack Smith, has now subpoenaed local officials in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona asking for their communications with Trump, his campaign, and a number of aides and allies. Another case, Trump Organization attorneys, they are pledging to appeal. This after a Manhattan jury convicted two Trump Organization companies, not people, companies on multiple counts of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records. Trump and his family not charged in the case.

HILL: And, finally, sources also telling CNN the January 6th committee is weighing criminal referrals, which could include the former president, some of his closest allies. They're reportedly looking at main organizers and leaders of the attack.

CNN's Kara Scannell joining us now.

So, Kara, what more do we know about some of these potential referrals by the select committee? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. So, Erica, we are understanding -- our sources tell us that the committee is weighing making some of these referrals, which could include the former president, as well as some of his allies, to the Justice Department. Now, these referrals are more symbolic than anything that is actually going to cause anything to happen. The Justice Department already has its own ongoing criminal investigation. You know, as we know, they're looking at a very broad investigation, which has looked at a lot of these Oath Keepers, and then also directly at the former president and his allies as evidenced by these new subpoenas that were sent by the special counsel, put in place, Jack Kelly, to those three states, Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan. You know, they're moving forward on that front, moving swiftly, even with the appointment of a special counsel. He said he wasn't going to let this investigation lag. And I think we're seeing that with this.

So, the congressional, you know, referrals will be theirs conclusions based on the evidence they have come up with but is separate and apart from what DOJ is doing.

SCIUTTO: Kara Scannell, thanks so much.

Joining us now to discuss all this, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams.

Elliot, always good to have you on. Listen, a lot to go through.

I do want to go through, because it requires kind of the deepest digging, and that is a subject we were talking about with Joan Biskupic, which is about the independent legislator's clause. And the impact of this decision - I mean we've seen a court here that's certainly willing to overturn precedent, right? I mean you look at that in the Dodds decision. You know, the court itself and, you know, thousands of other court decisions that were behind that being the law of the land overturned. Here we have another case where this has not been the law of the land as governing elections and the power of the state legislature for centuries, right, or generations.

I mean, if the court turns this over, how much of a historical break would this be and what is your view of the impact on elections going forward?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It would be a profound historical break, Jim, on account of the power that would be given to state legislators here. So just think of the various scenarios that could play out. Imagine that a state passes a voter suppression law or voter I.D. law or even out of the political context just carves up voting districts in a certain way and a governor vetoes it, or if a state supreme court were to vetoes it.

[09:25:10]

The Supreme Court ruling today, in the way that Joan was talking about, would actually strip governors and state supreme courts of the ability to be a check on state legislators. And that can't be what the framers of the country intended to have any sort of state legislative body have that kind of unchecked power. And so it would be an enormous shift in how the country concentrates power in a way that hasn't been done before.

So, we'll really see an oral argument today where the justices have signaled, and four of them have signaled that they're willing to at least hear the case, but it's just hard to know how they're going to come down on this.

HILL: So, everyone's going to be listening very closely and I think listening closely probably to Amy Coney Barrett.

But what's interesting to me is "The Wall Street Journal" editorial board this morning is making its case known on this, where it stands, calling the, quote, panicked reaction to this case unconvincing and warning here, and I'm quoting, if the justices give license to state courts to overrule legislators, 2024 could be a legal free for all.

What's fascinating to me in this opinion from the editorial board is that it seems like they're trying to take the concern that we've heard -- and as Joan just pointed out also from a number of Republicans and conservative lawyers, the concern that they have about a free for all and they're flipping it on its head, and saying, if they don't find in favor of this legal theory, it's going to be mass chaos.

What do you make of that?

WILLIAMS: What's really interesting - I'm sorry. Yes, what's really interesting, Erica, is how sort of the breakdown of who's coming out against - against this in some way. A lot of conservative scholars -- and quite conservative ones - and let me - you know, Jim had mentioned earlier Judge Michael Luttig, who's a conservative hero for his entire career, begging in effect the Supreme Court of not go down the road of opening up the can of worms of the independent state legislature doctrine. And so this idea that this is a normal right/left divide kin how people regard jurisprudence is just not the case. It's across the board, many very, very bright people are looking at the idea of upending the independent state legislature doctrine and seeing what a disaster it would be if the court went down this road.

SCIUTTO: And, listen, we know the potential of this, right, because Donald Trump's lawyer, in attempting to overturn the election, cited this specifically, John Eastman, as a path, right, to overturning the actual state election results with a friendly Republican controlled state legislature. It didn't work out. That now "The Wall Street Journal" board also argues that to this argument that, OK, a state legislature could do whatever it wants to benefit the candidate from its party, including, I don't' know, laws that might disadvantage the other party, et cetera.

The board says that federal courts would be enough of a check against that. You know, even if you're disempowering state courts, the federal courts, you could bring a case there. Is that a sufficient check?

WILLIAMS: It's just not a compelling argument. That's - you know, the point is that they're -- Congress could step in and legislate around state legislature. The country could amend the constitution and take powers away from state legislatures. And, Look, that's nonsense given how impossibly hard it is to amend the Constitution or federal courts could step in and intervene if a state go out of hand. The way to go about this is to leave the power in the -- to the states and have governors and state courts with the ability that they were given and have exercised for 230 (ph) years in the United States. So this would be a quite profound shift if we went down this road.

HILL: Elliot, before we let you go, in terms of what we're hearing about these criminal referrals, you know, CNN is reporting is that this -- these are main organizers and leaders of the attacks who are being considered. In your mind, based on what we know publicly, who falls into that category?

WILLIAMS: You know, it's always a little risky to start speculating as to who - who's getting investigated and so on. But, look, if you watched the hearings over the course of the last summer and have heard some of the statements that are made, certainly the former president, John Eastman, whom you identified a little bit earlier, Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, Rudy Giuliani, the president's lawyer at the time, all in some way are at least on the radar of the January 6th committee for things like possibly false statements to law enforcement or obstruction. It's hard to know, but those seem to be the names that kept coming up in the hearings based on their conduct. So, we'll see.

SCIUTTO: Elliot Williams, a lot to digest. Thanks so much.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Still ahead, some of the 35,000 North Carolinians waiting still for power since Saturday, might get some services back today. What still has to be done to fix those substations that were attacked over the weekend and what we know about the ongoing investigation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:00]