Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Growing Cracks In GOP Support For Ukraine Aid; Poll: Public Support For Ukraine Aid Slipping; Haley Criticizes Biden For Not Visiting Ohio After Train Wreck; Biden Admin Announces Plan To Cut Mortgage Costs By $800 Per Year; Defense Dept. Releases Photo Of U.S. Air Force Pilot Looking At Suspected Chinese Spy Balloon; Supreme Court Hears Suit Over Twitter's Liability In Terror Attack. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired February 22, 2023 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: How does he navigate this period and how much influence will that vocal minority have?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, again, as Lauren said, this is small, but very vocal, and they're getting a great deal of attention. But most of the Republicans that I speak with continue to -- want to continue to support Ukraine. I look at this as Zelenskyy has said, this is not charity. This is an investment in global security and democracy.

And the more we can continue to support Ukraine, it not only helps Ukraine, but neighboring countries. If Putin were to succeed in Ukraine, he will move to other countries, and that is damaging to America. But what Republicans, I'm talking with, the more rational Republicans, they have some concerns in terms of just not knowing where the money is going, and how it's being spent.

And they're simply asking for more accountability. And they also say that it's not up without question, that if Zelenskyy wants to continue to receive money from the United States, he should be more than willing to just be more vocal and more upfront about exactly how the money is being spent.

And if those questions are answered, then many Republicans won't have any issue with it. But just a little more transparency, and how the money is being allocated.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: So Alice, sticking with you, that's how you feel that's how maybe even the majority of the Republican Party feels right now. But you've got people like Ron DeSantis, saying publicly that he doesn't believe that Russia or Putin is a threat to NATO at all. And it does beg the question, what is the Republicans specific policy regarding Ukraine?

STEWART: Clearly, the policy and the feeling by Republicans is that we do need to support Ukraine. And look, in terms of how Putin plays into this and now, potentially China, Republicans say we shouldn't be making policy decisions based on whether or not we're going to poke the bear of Putin in China, and need to be making the decisions with regard to Ukraine, based on Ukraine alone and making sure that we continue the support, provided that there is an accounting for that money. And then that money will continue.

BLACKWELL: Mondaire, more Americans support the U.S. continuing to give weapons to Ukraine than not, but that number is slipping from a few months ago at 60 percent, down to 48 percent now. This is a president who will very likely be running for reelection soon. If this trend continues, does that hinder his argument to Americans, especially when in 2020, he ran against funding these forever wars?

MONDAIRE JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, thus far, this isn't a Forever War. And it's more clearly than other wars that we've gotten into, frankly, over the past several decades, an issue of national security. Not only is Ukraine, an ally of ours, but we know that Vladimir Putin's ambitions do not end at Ukraine, and it don't begin there either really.

He is someone who would love to restore what used to be the Soviet Union. And he's not going to stop there. And we have to be very vigilant about this. I worry when I hear so many people on the Republican side, and unfortunately, it's not just a vocal minority in the House of Representatives. It's the standard bearer of the Republican Party.

Donald Trump has repeatedly called U.S. support for the free people of Ukraine into question. And so we got to get on the same page when it comes to this stuff. And I think to the extent we see any support among the American people slipping, it's because there's not that kind of unity of message that typically we have seen, at least in the context of foreign policy, across the ideological spectrum, both Democrats and Republicans.

I think this President can run, in fact, on -- for re-election on his success, thus far, and keeping Russia from the take -- completely overtaking Ukraine, which is what many people thought would happen early on in the war.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. So Mondaire, as much as we would all love for this war to end as soon as possible, no serious person I know that's following it closely believes that it will end anytime this year. At least we could be here next year and still covering it sadly. There had been a progressive group of Democrats last summer who had written a letter to then Speaker Pelosi suggesting that Ukrainians should come to the negotiating table.

They, of course, rescinded that letter. But are there any pockets of your own party now that you think may be sounding the same alarm that that some Republicans are -- that we just talked to Alice about?

JONES: No, I appreciate that you bring up this particular letter, because it's one I happen to be intimately familiar with. I regret that people in the media misinterpreted the purpose of that letter, which was simply to say, hey, guys, let's not forget diplomacy, let's not forget that we ought to be reminding both Ukraine and Russia every chance we get that we're willing to help them get to the table and negotiate in good faith.

And of course, from my perspective, and I think the perspective of anyone who assumes who supports U.S. intervention in this effort and particular, supporting the people in Ukraine, that doesn't necessarily mean giving any portion of the sovereign country of Ukraine to the Russians, but it is to say that the American people have an interest, I think,

in not funding this in perpetuity, if we can come to some kind of negotiated agreement before the end.

[15:35:21]

So I wouldn't put people who sign on to that letter in the same category as folks who want to stop supporting Ukraine.

BLACKWELL: Alice, there have been some Republicans who have joined Democrats in commending the President for his visit to Ukraine, also for his speech in Warsaw, but I want you to listen now to former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley at a campaign stop.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Can we first acknowledge the fact that, yes, Biden's over in Poland? But shouldn't he be with those people in Ohio? You always -- you have to always during any time of crisis, go to your people immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: You agree with that, that he should have been in Ohio first or instead of the trip to Europe?

STEWART: Look, I think it was extremely important for the President to be in Poland. I was recently in Warsaw. And these people are really sacrificing a lot to help the people of Ukraine, but humanitarian efforts as well as financial help. So showing Poland support was extremely critical.

As far as the President going to the train derailment, I think it's important, whether it's him or now we understand that Secretary Buttigieg is on the way there. I feel like there was a missed opportunity to go to the site earlier on and show up federal help. It's great that we're getting federal financial help to that region.

But oftentimes, the optics of seeing someone whether it is President Biden, whether it's the Vice President or Secretary Buttigieg being on the ground, meeting face to face with those people and reinforcing the financial support with the human kindness, that would have gone a long way. But I don't take away him being in Poland. I think that was important, but making sure that we have a high-level federal official on the ground there I think will go a long way.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Reminder that the President didn't just choose to go to Poland just this week. I mean --

BLACKWELL: Yes. GOLODRYGA: -- this week is the --

STEWART: Right.

GOLODRYGA: -- anniversary marking Russia's invasion as well. That is important to note.

Mondaire Jones and Alice Stewart, thank you.

Well, the White House just announced plans to cut mortgage costs. We'll tell you how, and for whom, that's up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:42:10]

GOLODRYGA: Some financial relief is on the way for Americans looking to lower their housing costs.

BLACKWELL: The Biden administration just announced a plan to save homeowners and homebuyers about $800 a year on their mortgage. CNN Business Correspondent Rahel Solomon has details. All right, who was eligible and how's it going to happen?

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: OK, so guys, you know, affordability in this country is a real challenge when it comes to housing. So the White House says that this program should hopefully help with the affordability crisis, saying that it is cutting insurance premiums for homes that are insured by FHA, the Federal Housing Administration.

So that'll work out to about 30 basis points or $800 in savings annually for most new borrowers. Depending on the cost of your home. It could be a bit more than that, it could be a bit less than that. FHA, guys, tends to benefit first time homebuyers. Let's say you don't have 20 percent to put down and right now home prices are very expensive, so perhaps you don't.

And perhaps you have a lower credit score, well, you can get an FHA insured home. The catch, however, is that you have to pay this mortgage insurance premium so the White House is hoping by reducing these payments. Hopefully, it makes homes a bit more affordable.

I should say the plan does have support from major industry leaders like the National Association of Realtors, also the Mortgage Bankers Association, saying that they support the plan. Although some wonder could this backfire? One conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute saying in a statement to me earlier that these cuts announced today will actually expose taxpayers and not help prospective homebuyers.

This credit easing will cause the surplus of buyers to use their newly minted buying power to bid up the price of houses. This is simple economics. That said, the White House says this program launches March 20th.

GOLODRYGA: All right, Rahel Solomon, thank you, as always.

BLACKWELL: All right, this just in, the Defense Department has released this photo of the suspected Chinese spy balloon from earlier this month.

GOLODRYGA: CNN's Natasha Bertrand joins us now. So Natasha, tell us more about this picture.

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, guys. So we had actually reported first earlier this month that this photo had basically become kind of legendary in the Pentagon after it was first taken by this YouTube plane pilot, who had kind of flown past this balloon and taken a selfie with it.

And as you can see, in the photo, you can actually see the shadow of the plane in the balloon itself. So it's a very cool photo. And what we're seeing also, of course, is probably the clearest image to date that we have seen of this massive Chinese spy balloon. The bottom part of that balloon there that you're seeing is the size roughly of about three school buses.

And of course, the balloon itself is much, much larger. And it took a while for the Pentagon to clear this image for release, but we're finally seeing it today. And of course, this was a very slow-moving balloon. So it required kind of a plane that moves a little bit more slowly than your average fighter jet and also one that can fly a lot higher than your average fighter jet.

The YouTube plane can actually fly even beyond 70,000 feet and this balloon as we know was flying at about 60,000 feet when it was discovered by the U.S. floating into of course U.S. airspace around January 28.

[15:45:11]

So a pretty remarkable photo here again, the clearest kind of image we've gotten to date of this massive Chinese Bible and that the U.S. has says has said is part of a mega fleet of these kinds of balloons that have been spotted over 40 countries across five different continents, guys.

BLACKWELL: All right, Natasha Bertrand, bringing it to us. Thank you so much.

Right after the Google hearing at the Supreme Court today, it's Twitter's turn. The tails of the arguments in a case that could decide if big tech can be sued over acts of terrorism. Details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:50:10]

BLACKWELL: The Supreme Court just wrapped up oral arguments on a case involving Twitter. Here's the story. The family of a man killed in an ISIS attack in Istanbul is suing the social media company claiming they aided and abetted the attack by hosting the terrorist organization on their platform.

GOLODRYGA: Now Twitter had previously argued it was immune from the suit. But today, the Justice has struggled to understand the company's position. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: From your brief, I thought you needed a direct connection between the assistance given and the actual act. So I came away from your brief thinking that what you were arguing was that they had to provide something specifically for this bombing. They have to provide either the platform for the people to get together, or for the actual people doing the bombing to get together or a text message or something that tied them to the crime. Are you moving away from that?

SETH WAXMAN, ATTORNEY FOR TWITTER: You had to have provided substantial assistance to an act of international terrorism that happened to be the one that injured the plaintiff, otherwise, there's no connection between your assistance and the cause of action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: CNN Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic joins us now with more. So Joan, Twitter says although ISIS use its platform, it doesn't mean that the site offered substantial assistance. So where do you see this case going now?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, thanks, Bianna. Yes, that clip you played really gets at the heart of the definitional questions and dilemmas here. And, you know, the precise content and conduct that would be covered by this case, at issue is whether, you know, Twitter or Facebook, Google could be liable under antitrust law, for materials that are ISIS propaganda, training, films, recruitment films that lead up to various attacks in Paris, and Istanbul, for example.

And the -- you heard there, the lawyer for Twitter, Seth Waxman, trying to bring some clarity to the limits of liability. And in a separate exchange with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it came out that he said, you know, look, company's doing regular business at arm's length from, you know, the the people who are actually posting this material and operating -- and the company's operating legitimately, would not be liable, even if they know that, you know, bad people are doing bad things down the road.

The key here said Seth Waxman is when posts material actually are part of planning and attack that Twitter or the other social media platforms would know about, a much deeper connection. Now the other thing that the families say is that, you know, the algorithms that rank and make recommendations that that is enough for liability. And that's why they've brought this case.

It's interesting, you know, you step back and you -- the justices did not seem persuaded by the families, I have to say here. That they were troubled by some of this material, but they did not want to go so far as what the families were arguing. And I think, you know, compared to what we were talking about yesterday, and today about some of these issues, the justices are really struggling to take a pre-algorithm world and apply it to what we have now.

You know, some of the hypothetical questions today were about, you know, somebody assisting a bank robber or murderer. But right now, it's how does a platform itself assist a wrongdoer? And I think that were -- the justices actually want to shed some light here. I don't think they're going to do anything as revolutionary as some of the social media companies had feared.

But I think what we could start to see are incremental steps toward more regulation of sorts of the content and what the social media companies have to do. But incrementally, I should say, nothing revolutionary at this point.

BLACKWELL: All right. Quickly, we're expecting this to get a ruling when on this?

BISKUPIC: Victor, this has June, written all over it.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

BISKUPIC: You know, these are complicated questions. June is when we get our most difficult cases, the ones they really struggle with. So stay tuned. We could get something earlier but as I said, given what we saw over the past two days, nearly six hours of arguments, this feels like June, Victor. Yes.

BLACKWELL: All right, Joan Biskupic, thanks so much.

BISKUPIC: Sure.

GOLODRYGA: OK, so on a lighter note, but maybe not so stylish, one a pair of big red boots.

BLACKWELL: Absolutely.

GOLODRYGA: Well, get in line. The oversized cartoonish footwear is lighting up the internet with influencers of all ages flaunting them on TikTok.

[15:55:04]

Now the boots went on sale last week for $350 reportedly sold out in just minutes. So I'm not cool enough to know what these boots or you have to show them to me.

BLACKWELL: $350 for rubber boots, for sweaty feet and a cartoon profile. I don't really like to yuck another person's yon (ph).

GOLODRYGA: No.

BLACKWELL: But --

GOLODRYGA: There's nothing yummy about this. BLACKWELL: So according to New York Times, a New York based collective called Mischief, which is a history of trolling consumer culture is behind this new fad. The group also designed candy inspired Gobstopper stopper sneakers and Birkenstocks made from an actual Birkin bag.

GOLODRYGA: There's so much better use of money, right?

BLACKWELL: I mean, yes. $350 for a rubber shoe. Now, I also wore Hammer pants and slap bracelets. So maybe --

GOLODRYGA: For $350?

BLACKWELL: No, I didn't pay that much for it. But, I mean, this is an Instagram shoe, right? You want to be seen in these big red shoes.

GOLODRYGA: I don't know, like a smurf or something. It's just no, I don't see it. I don't see anyone being able to pull this thing off. But, you know, this is our one time where we can not be objective and give our free mind on will about this.

All right.

BLACKWELL: "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)