Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Biden Meets with Leaders of NATO's Eastern Flank; Putin to Chinese Diplomat, Our Nations are Reaching New Milestones; Today, Justices Hear Second Pivotal Case on Big Tech Liability. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired February 22, 2023 - 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: Top of the hour this Wednesday. I'm Jim Sciutto.

KRISTIN FISHER, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Kristin Fisher.

Next hour, President Biden heading home after this critical trip to Europe, including a historic visit to Ukraine. This morning, the president held a roundtable with the NATO secretary-general and leaders of those NATO countries that are closest to Russia's borders. And the U.S. and its allies really facing this daunting challenge now of how to keep the momentum on Ukraine's side one year after Russia's invasion.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Today as we approach the one-year anniversary of Russia's further invasion, it's even more important that we continue to stand together. And I think this is proof of this, how strongly we feel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, on the other side, Russian President Vladimir Putin met this morning with a top Chinese diplomat. Putin says Moscow and Beijing are, quote, reaching new milestones, as we learn now that a meeting may be in the works between Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping with U.S. officials warning that China is considering arming Russia in its war against Ukraine.

CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly, he is in Warsaw traveling with the president. I wonder, Phil, what the president's message was as he was meeting the eastern-flanked NATO allies this morning.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: You know, Jim, it's interesting you speak about the Russian president, top Chinese officials and what may happen in that alliance. The reality of that alliance, which has grown closer despite China's own willingness to go all in behind Russia, has certainly underscored the importance of the alliance as the president has been focused on throughout the course of the last several days.

And perhaps none more so at least to close out this trip and then this meeting with leaders of the Bucharest nine, the nine kind of frontline NATO countries that border Russia and have made very clear just how unsettled, concerned they are about the aggression they've seen over the course of the last year but also this group which basically created because of Russia's aggression toward Ukraine that led to the annexation of Crimea back in 2014.

And the president's message to NATO allies was explicit. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: We will defend literally every inch of NATO, every inch of NATO. And this is an important moment. I look forward to the in the next steps we can take together and to keep our alliance strong and to further deter aggression. What is literally at stake is not just Ukraine. It's freedom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: And, guys, that last point has been one the president has really tried to hammer home over the course of the last three days, while certainly Ukraine and its war with Russia has been the central focal point over the course of the last 12 months. The president views this through a much broader construct, one that should drive western democracies to not just rally together over the course of the last year but also going forward in what, as you guys alluded to, is expected to be a very difficult series of months ahead and one that will to require a lot of effort, money and assistance from the alliances the president has kept together up to this point.

FISHER: Yes, absolutely. Phil Mattingly live in Warsaw, Poland, for us, Phil, thank you so much.

So, meanwhile this morning, Russian President Vladimir Putin is saying that Russia-China relations are reaching, quote, new milestones during a meeting with Chinese Diplomat Wang Yi in the Kremlin. And this comes as The Wall Street Journal reports that Chinese President Xi Jinping could meet with Putin in Moscow soon.

CNN Senior International Correspondent Fred Pleitgen, he's in Moscow with more this morning. Fred, what does this say about China's potential role supporting Russia in Ukraine?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it certainly shows how important China is to Russia, just to have Vladimir Putin meet with China's top diplomat here in Moscow, and once again underscore how important those relations are, and, by the way, also say that Xi Jinping will be coming here to Moscow in the not too distant future to meet with Vladimir Putin.

[10:05:14] We know that those two leaders obviously have had very, very close relations over the years that have only grown tighter, really as the U.S. has been putting more pressure on Russia, of course, also because of Russia's campaign there in Ukraine.

But I think this once again underscores just how important especially for the Russians the relations with China are and, of course, at the same time you have a lot of issues right now between China and the United States. Obviously, not only because of that balloon that was shot down but also because the U.S., as we've been reporting, has seen some indications that China potentially is thinking about arming the Russians, about giving Russia military support and lethal aid for the war in Ukraine.

Once again today at that meeting between Putin and Wang Yi, Wang Yi took a swipe at the Biden administration, said that the relations between Russia and China obviously are very close. He also said they are not directed against any third parties but they will also not be subject, as he put it, to interference from third parties, obviously very much talking or seemingly talking about the U.S. in that.

I thought one of the things that was quite interesting, I was reading the readout of the meeting that came from the Chinese foreign ministry, and they said that China remains committed to finding a political solution for the war in Ukraine. And Vladimir Putin right after meeting Wang Yi actually went to a gigantic rally here in Moscow, obviously trying to rally support for Russia what they called their special military operation in Ukraine. So, that certainly was something that seemed very interesting.

But, you know, it really is hard to overstate just how important China has become for Russia, obviously, with all of those sanctions levied against Russia from the U.S. and its allies. You can see it everywhere as far as where Russia's raw commodities are going, oil and gas but also other things, like, for instance, wood and timber. But you also see it quite frankly on the streets of Moscow as well with the amount of Chinese cars drastically going up and generally Chinese products also in stores as well, guys.

SCIUTTO: Fred Pleitgen in Moscow, thanks so much.

Joining us now to speak about all of this is Andrea Kendall-Taylor, she's former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council. Good to have you on this morning.

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR RUSSIA: Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: So, I wonder, if China does end up providing lethal assistance to Russia, as U.S. officials are warning, Wolf Blitzer asked the deputy national security adviser, John Finer, on Monday what the U.S. would do in response. He said the U.S. has options, and he did not specify what those options are. What do you believe those options are in actuality and what is necessary to respond if China makes its move? KENDALL-TAYLOR: I think we're looking at economic tools and secondary sanctions in particular. I think we should recognize it would be a significant change in Chinese policy. I think that they've long looked at the United States in our involvement in foreign conflicts as one of the primary reasons for our decline, as they see it. So, it would be a very significant step that Beijing would take.

The United States has warned Beijing very clearly, and that's one of the reasons that Tony Blinken met with his counterpart there at the Munich Security Conference, was to communicate directly the cost that China would face for doing so. So, I think we'd be looking at things like secondary sanctions and other economic costs.

But I think the thing that needs to be communicated to China, is it needs to come from also our European allies and partners. So, China continues to try to portray itself as a neutral party, that they're not backing Russia in its war with Ukraine, and that's in large part because they view that there haven't been any costs for their neutrality. And they're primarily interested in keeping Europe on the fence. And so if the Europeans could communicate, too, that there would be economic and diplomatic costs for that step, I think that would be even more impactful than some of these warnings from the United States.

FISHER: Andrea, I'm really struck by the split screen that we watched this morning of President Putin meeting with that top Chinese diplomat while President Biden sits down with members of the Bucharest Nine, those countries at the frontlines of NATO, both happening within just a few hours of one another. Which meeting do you think has potentially more significance on the future, the outcome of the war in Ukraine?

KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, maybe just to say something about the context in which these meetings are taking place in. I mean, obviously, we're approaching the one-year mark of the war. And as we reach that milestone, I think the reality the heavy reality is setting in that we are facing a protracted conflict in Ukraine.

[10:10:05]

Senior policymakers here in Washington, D.C., are grappling with that reality. European capitals are grappling with that, and so is Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

And so I think we have to understand this week as efforts by both sides to signal their resolve and their staying power. Those are important messages for domestic audiences. President Biden is making the case about the stakes President Putin is setting expectations to his people that, like it or not, this is the new normal.

But also the second audience is really each other. And the two leaders are trying to convince each other that they are in this for the long haul. President Putin believes that time is on his side. And so this week was about President Biden trying to convince him otherwise. Because until Putin believes that time is on Ukraine's side, he has no incentive to end the fighting. SCIUTTO: Okay. Beyond Ukraine for a moment, because we now know that Russia was hoping to launch an ICBM -- make a test of an ICBM during his speech, it didn't work out as he liked. This comes as he formally announced Russia suspending its compliance with the START Treaty. We already saw the intermediate nuclear forces treaty go away a couple of weeks ago. Are we seeing the end of an era here of nuclear treaties and nuclear arms control? There are no treaties, we should note, as China builds its arsenal with China.

KENDALL-TAYLOR: Yes. I'm afraid that's what it's looking like and Putin's decision, his announcement to suspend Russia's participation in the new START Treaty, which is a treaty that limits the number of both the United States and Russia's strategic nuclear weapons. That announcement was significant because I think it bodes poorly for the future of arms control. That new START agreement is in effect until 2026 and at that time, both the United States and Russia would need to find a replacement treaty.

But the fact that Putin has now suspended Russia's participation, I think, suggests that we are coming to the end of this era and that is not in the interest of the United States nor in Russia's.

SCIUTTO: Or the world's, you can argue. Goodness, frightening prospect.

FISHER: Yes, so much more of a significant move and not just a symbolic one as well. Andrea Kendall-Taylor, thank you so much.

Still to come, another high-stakes tech case goes before the Supreme Court today, and it could significantly reshape online speech and content moderation.

SCIUTTO: Plus, former President Trump is going to East Palestine, Ohio, in the wake of a train derailment there, seeking to score some political points, this as the town's mayor is slamming President Biden for going to Ukraine instead of visiting his city.

And new restrictions at the U.S.-Mexico border, how the Biden administration is cracking down on asylum seekers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

FISHER: Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the second case this week that could dramatically change the internet and social media. In both cases, plaintiffs say that social media companies should be held liable for terrorist attacks because the platform's algorithms helped extremists spread their message.

SCIUTTO: It's a big case about larger liability issues in what appears on YouTube, search engines, et cetera.

CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider, she has been following the arguments. I wonder what you're hearing there, and a lot of this is about reading tea leaves from what the justices say and how the tech companies are arguing this, but what are the headlines?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the headlines are yesterday, Jim, the Supreme Court really seemed hesitant to step in here and really rock the boat in the way that internet companies operate.

When it comes to the tech companies' side they continue to warn that any major changes to the laws that currently police the internet would really cascade -- would have a cascade of effects, disarray and chaos online and how things are sorted and delivered to content users, as well as a threat of the wave of lawsuits.

So, today, the court is actually confronting another case. This is a decision about whether social media companies can be held liable for allowing terrorist content on their site. That's all under a federal anti-terrorism law. But as we saw in yesterday's arguments, these justices are really very skeptical about making major changes to the status quo.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Lawsuits will be nonstop.

SCHNEIDER (voice over): The Supreme Court taking on a case that could reshape the internet, hearing arguments from a family who has lost a daughter and who now wants big tech to pay.

BEATRIZ GONZALEZ, SUING GOOGLE: We continue in this fight because we're seeking justice.

SCHNEIDER: The Gonzalez family's long legal fight started when their 23-year-old daughter, Nohemi, was killed in Paris in 2015. Nohemi Gonzalez was at a bistro when ISIS terrorists unleashed gunfire, part of a coordinated citywide attack of bombings and shootings that killed 129 people. She was the only American.

GONZALEZ: It was a terrible, horrible moment of my life that I cannot describe the pain.

SCHNEIDER: The Gonzalez family now wants YouTube and parent company Google to be held liable for Nohemi's death. Their lawyer arguing to the Supreme Court Tuesday that because YouTube not only allowed ISIS videos on its site but also recommended those videos to certain viewers, the social media site should be held responsible for aiding and abetting terrorism.

ERIC SCHNAPPER, GONZALEZ FAMILY ATTORNEY: When they go beyond delivering to what you've asked for, to start sending things you haven't asked for, our contention is they are no longer acting as an interactive computer service.

[10:20:02]

SCHNEIDER: But Google says they are protected by the broad contours of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Congress passed the law in 1996 to shield internet platforms from being sued for harmful content posted by third parties on their sites. Google's lawyer argued that shield also applies to any recommendations the site might make.

LISA BLATT, ATTORNEY FOR GOOGLE: Exposing websites to liability for implicitly recommending third party context defies the text and threatens today's internet.

SCHNEIDER: This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered the scope of section 230. The justices acknowledge if the Gonzalez family succeeds, that would open up the tech companies to a flood of lawsuits and would require social media sites to heavily police the content posted. And the justices also asked whether it's Congress and not the courts who should clarify how much tech companies are protected.

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Every other industry has to internalize the cost of this conduct. Why is it that the tech industry gets a pass? A little bit unclear. On the other hand, I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. Isn't that something for Congress to do, not the court?

SCHNEIDER: The Gonzalez family has lost the case at the lower courts, but they continue to search for justice after the death of their daughter at the hands of terrorists.

GONZALEZ: Nothing is going to give me back my daughter, but at least that something good is going to be accomplished.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHNEIDER (on camera): So, the justices really did seem reluctant to undo any of the protections of section 230, but they confront that different issue in today's case that is now under way. Arguments started just a few minutes ago.

The question today is whether a terrorist victim's family can sue social media for even allowing terrorist content on their site.

Now, guys, a lower court said yes, that they can sue because of a federal anti-terrorism law, but a lot of court watchers are saying that the Supreme Court could possibly say, no, you cannot sue for just the fact that these sites allowed content, in doing so, guys that would actually eliminate both of these cases without the Supreme Court having to decide any major issues. So, that's what court watchers are banking on especially given the reluctance that they saw from these justices yesterday about really wading in big time here.

FISHER: Yes. And not just reluctant but really confusion coming from the justices. Jessica Schneider, thank you so much.

Joining us now is CNN Legal Analyst and former Federal Prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers. Jennifer, I'd like to start right there, because I'd just love to get your take on the confusion that so many of these justices expressed. I mean, you have Justice Alito saying, I'm afraid I'm completely confused by whatever argument you're making. Justice Jackson saying, I guess I'm thoroughly confused. Justice Thomas saying, I'm still confused. What does it say to you when you have that many justices just confused about the very essence of the case?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I guess maybe it's a good thing that they're admitting what they don't know. I mean, I think one of the justices hit it on the kid, these are not the nine people you would want, trying to delve into what these algorithms do and how that changes our lives and what the court should do about it.

Listen, of course, they have clerks and they can learn it. They're very smart people. But I think they're saying a couple of things. One is we don't really understand what's happening on the tech side, but also this really isn't our job. I mean, Jessica said it, they're saying this is Congress' job. You have an old law that now is not taking account of how these platforms actually work in the way the users interact with them and it's Congress' job to fix that. I just think they're confused by it, but more than that, they just want no part of it. They want Congress to fix this problem.

SCIUTTO: But they took the case, right? I mean, they don't have to take the case. So, what was the point? Was the point then to punt to Congress and say this is Congress' job?

RODGERS: It was really interesting. It takes four justices to vote to take a case, but, of course, five justices to form a majority and rule on the case. So, it's unclear. Sometimes they take it and they don't yet have kind of flushed out what the issues are going to be or where they want to go. Sometimes it takes getting the party's briefs to really crystallize the issues and figure out where they want to head.

So, it doesn't -- they don't always have a clear view in mind when they take a case of where it's going to end up, and I think these issues have just kind of grown in importance and ballooned in such a way that they're maybe now thinking they're going to punt on it whereas before, perhaps, when they took it, four justices thought that they could give a clear ruling.

FISHER: And so do you think they are going to punt on it? I mean, based on yesterday's oral arguments and the ones that are getting under way right now, what do you think they're going to do?

RODGERS: Yes. It's hard to read the tea leaves, of course, but if I had to bet, I probably would bet on them ruling on the basis of the Anti-Terrorism Act and not touching 230 for now.

[10:25:02]

I mean, we have a couple of cases coming up in March that are going to force them to confront these First Amendment issues head-on about what the platforms have to do and can do in terms of content moderation. They may be waiting for those in order to make those tough decisions and just urge Congress to fix 230 themselves and not go into that in these cases before them today.

SCIUTTO: Jennifer Rodgers, thanks so much. Coming up, the Biden administration is rolling out new asylum restrictions. What does that mean for those long lines at the border? We're going to have details on the tens of thousands of people who could be impacted. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]