Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Ukraine Marks One Year Since Russia's Unprovoked Invasion; Soon: Prosecutors Resume Cross-Examination Of Alex Murdaugh. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired February 24, 2023 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Hello everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: I'm Victor Blackwell.

We are waiting for accused double murder defendant Alex Murdaugh to return to the stand in South Carolina. We, of course, will take you there live as soon as that happens. The ex-attorney has been undergoing a blistering cross-examination by the prosecution. They're trying to poke holes in his claim that he did not kill his wife Maggie, his youngest son Paul.

GOLODRYGA: On the stand, Murdaugh admitted that he lied to police about where he was in the moments leading up to the killings. And he also confessed to being addicted to opioids and stealing from his clients. We'll have much more in a few moments. But first, it's hard to believe it has been one year to the day since Russian troops and tanks rolled across the border in Ukraine still remains in place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE: (Speaking in a foreign language)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: if we all do our homework, we -- victory will be inevitable. I am certain there will be victory. I don't think I want it this year. We have everything for it. We have the motivation, certainty, the friends, you, the diplomacy, we are helped by our friends for our shared values so that this war doesn't spread so this aggression doesn't spread.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: In addition to vowing Ukraine will see victory, President Zelenskyy met with wounded soldiers at a Kyiv hospital to thank them. A year ago, Russian rockets lit up the skies near Kharkiv as residents sheltered from the missiles in subway stations. BLACKWELL: Ukrainian cities have burned, we've seen the flames, including in Mariupol where a maternity hospital and a theater were bombed. In Bucha, Russian troops tortured and killed civilians before Ukraine liberated the Kyiv suburb. And the front lines have shifted we've seen over the past 12 months. Thousands of Ukrainians killed, millions now displaced in their own country scattered around the world, and still, Russia occupies barely 11 percent of Ukrainian territory.

But to win Ukraine needs global support. President Biden met today virtually with the G7 leaders to shore that up, and he announced another $2 billion in security aid and $10 billion in humanitarian aid for Ukraine, along with new sanctions on Russia.

CNN's Alex Marquardt joins us now from Dnipro in Eastern Ukraine. So, Alex, what's the latest on the situation there? And what more are we hearing from President Zelenskyy today?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna and Victor, you know, waking up on this anniversary -- of this first year of the invasion, there was a lot of sadness, a lot of reflection, and some trepidation about what could come today. This country bracing for potential attacks by Russia on this anniversary provocations, as Ukrainian officials put it. There hasn't been anything major so far it is going on. 9:00 p.m. here in Ukraine, of course, things could change at any moment. There could be a strike that comes out of the blue as we have seen so many times before.

But we did hear a number of times from President Zelenskyy today. He did say that 2023 is the year of victory, as you just played in that soundbite there. He did say that victory is inevitable. He kind of softened the timeline later on but did say that Ukraine has all the tools that it needs in terms of diplomatic tools and an international support.

He did quite interestingly talk about a new peace plan that has been put forward by China. China, of course, being very close to Russia. We have heard warnings from the United States in the past few days that China might soon decide to start providing lethal aid to the Russians it -- for this fight in Ukraine.

Of course, President Zelenskyy does not want to see that happen, has been pressuring the Chinese to not let that happen. Here's a little bit more about what he had to say about this Chinese peace plan. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENSKYY: (Speaking in a foreign language)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I believe that it would be correct to think that such if there are thoughts that are consistent with respect for international law, territorial integrity, and certain security issues, I believe that we need to use it in the good sense of the words and work with China on this. Why not?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So, he's not rejecting it out of hand. He says he wants to work with China on it. And he's zeroing in on that term of territorial integrity because, in Ukrainians' minds, that means getting Russia off of its territory. Now, the U.S. has been a little bit more critical about this Chinese 12-Point Plan. Secretary Blinken says China's trying to have it both ways.

[14:5:01]

Both he and the national security adviser in a CNN Town Hall last night pointing to the first point in the plan which is respecting country's sovereignty. And the top U.S. officials saying that China -- that Russia could end this war tomorrow if they simply accepted or respected Ukrainian sovereignty.

The U.S. also making some news today announcing a new $2 billion military aid package, basically a $2 billion budget with which Ukraine combined new weapons that would include more artillery shells, drones, HIMARS, ammunition, that kind of thing. So, heading into the second year of this war, we can continue to expect to see those kinds of major military aid packages for Ukraine but as Zelenskyy has said time and time again, it's not just the size of these packages, but the speed with which that aid is delivered.

Some good news for Ukraine. Today, they are getting those Leopard 2 tanks -- those German Leopard 2 tanks from Poland. Those would expect -- it would be expected to be used in a looming Ukrainian counter- offensive. Bianna and Victor.

BLACKWELL: Alex Marquardt for us there in Dnipro, thank you so much.

Leon Panetta has served as Defense Secretary, CIA director, White House Chief of Staff across several administrations. Mr. Secretary, good to have you back. So, there have been tens of billions of dollars of U.S. military aid delivered and pledged to the Ukrainians. I want you to listen to defense secretary Lloyd Austin here about how he expects this will end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LLOYD AUSTIN, S DEFENSE SECRETARY: Most likely, it will end with some sort of negotiation. And what the Ukrainians are interested in is getting there -- getting the Russians out of their sovereign territory. And I think that's probably going to be they're going in point but you know, I'll let the Ukrainians speak for themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: So, here's the I guess, uncomfortable question. It's not the first time it's been asked. If this ends with negotiations, is there a conversation at some point with President Zelenskyy if it hasn't happened already to say that you're going to have to give something and it's time to start deciding what that is as we start year two? What's your view on that? LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER OBAMA: Look, I think the most important thing right now is not to -- not to really talk a lot about what possible negotiation might result in. I think -- I think the key right now is for the Ukrainians to put as much pressure as necessary on Russia, pushing them back out of the Donbass, pushing them back out of those areas because that's the best way for Putin to make two decisions -- one of two decisions.

Number one, that he's facing defeat, and he needs to withdraw, or number two, that he wants to engage in negotiations. But right now, the key is to apply as much force as necessary on Putin in order to bring about that result. Ultimately, I think, the more force that is applied, the better the terms of any negotiation will be.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, it appears that a contrived armistice at this point would only help Putin regroup -- reconstitute his forces there. Secretary, how much of a game-changer would it be if China does in fact decide to provide lethal aid to the Ukrainians? And game changer, I mean, both on the battlefield and in terms of how the United States continues to play a role in this war.

PANETTA: I think -- I think China will have crossed a very dangerous line if it makes that decision. And it's for that reason that I really think that President Xi is going to think twice about whether he wants to get into the middle of this war. It can only impact adversely on China. The United States and our allies have made clear that China would pay a price if they did that, probably a price with serious sanctions that could damage their economy.

So, I think Xi is going to think twice about whether or not he wants to do that. I think the fact that they have now made a proposal that Ukraine is looking at and others are looking at, tells me that they want a negotiated peace there. They don't want to suddenly become another party to a war.

BLACKWELL: How much influence do you think the red line that the U.S. says Chinese involvement would be plays into the Chinese considerations of getting involved in this war?

PANETTA: You know I think it plays a big role. You got to make very clear to China that if they decide to do that, they're going to pay a price and that the United States and the world in our allies are going to apply very tough economic sanctions against China. China's economy is already hurting. Xi doesn't want to damage it even further. I think they need to know that if they make that kind of decision, they are going to pay one hell of a price.

[14:10:09]

GOLODRYGA: Mr. Secretary, it appears that every time Ukraine asks for certain more advanced weaponry, the U.S. and the West say no. And a few months later, that ultimately turns into a yes. Now, President Zelenskyy says the quickest way to end this war is to give them the weapons they want now. Given that, do you think that the U.S. should start providing longer-range missiles and at some point, F-16s because you know, this administration, their current stance is no on those requests?

PANETTA: You know, I'm getting the sense that there's a willingness on the part of the United States to be -- to give consideration to the weapons that Ukraine needs in order to defend itself. And that, in many ways, everything's on the table. There are going to be concerns, obviously, with some weapons. We understand that.

But I think it's important that the message be that the United States and our allies are going to give serious consideration to all of the key weapons that Ukraine needs in order to defend itself. That ought to be the primary message now. Plus, delivering those weapons that we've already committed to, delivering them as quickly as possible so that they can use them to maintain the initiative against Russia.

BLACKWELL: What is the evidence that you see of the U.S. giving consideration seriously to F-16s?

PANETTA: I think that when Secretary Blinken was asked that question, he made the point that look, it takes training, you've got to be able to train pilots. F-16 is not that easy to just jump in and fly. You've got to be able to be well trained.

You've also got to maintain these planes. You've got to develop maintenance. That's critical to being able to have an effective Air Force. So, he recognizes the challenges, and I think if those challenges can be addressed, it's going to take time. But ultimately, I think we'll get there.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, training is an important factor considering that Ukrainians are used to flying old Soviet MiGs. Secretary Leon Panetta, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

Well, it is day two of Alex Murdaugh on the stand. One of the biggest bombshells so far, the accused murderer admitted to stealing more than $3 million in one year alone. We're live back in South Carolina after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:27]

GOLODRYGA: Well, any moment now, former South Carolina Attorney turned murder defendant Alex Murdaugh will return to the stand. In often contentious exchanges under cross-examination, Murdaugh was questioned about his every movement leading up to the deaths of his wife and youngest son.

BLACKWELL: He also revealed new details about his extensive drug abuse and history of stealing money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CREIGHTON WATERS, LEAD PROSECUTOR: You wouldn't -- you wouldn't agree with me that in 2019, alone, you stole about $3.7 million?

ALEX MURDAUGH, MURDER DEFENDANT: No. I think that's correct. WATERS: All right. And you -- would you agree with me, though, that that figure in 2019 was generally higher than any other year that you've been stealing since 2011?

MURDAUGH: In any year? Sure. I'd agree with that. I thought you were talking about overall, the whole -- you know, the whole cycle.

WATERS: Sure.

MURDAUGH: But yes, I would agree that in 2019, I stole more money than any other year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: CNN's Dianne Gallagher joins us now from outside the courthouse in South Carolina. So, Dianne, we really got more in-depth into the scope of Alex's drug abuse.

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We did, Bianna. And I can tell you that this morning for the first time, about mid- morning, the prosecution finally made its way to talking about June 7, 2021, the day that Paul and Maggie Murdaugh were murdered. Now, again, this is a murder trial. We've spoken about the financial deceit and those financial misdeeds going back for about a decade that Alex Murdaugh is accused of for, well, since the prosecution began its cross-examination. But we're now in the thick of it. And when we broke for lunch, essentially, the prosecutor is going through minute by minute in some cases second by second what Alex Murdaugh was doing that day.

And as they have done that, it has gotten more and more contentious with the prosecutor, Creighton Waters, using terms like your new story, trying to remind the jury that Alex Murdaugh's alibi, the initial thing that he told family, friends, and investigators about where he was that night was a lie, something that Murdoch admitted on the stand yesterday. Take a listen to when he was asked why he didn't offer this information up to law enforcement. And the first time anybody ever heard about that alibi lie was yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MURDAUGH: Did I ever reach out to law enforcement to say I want to tell you about the kennels? No, sir. I did not. What I --

JIM GRIFFIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It was the Fifth Amendment line?

MURDAUGH: Pardon?

GRIFFIN: This questioning about him volunteering information on these charges violates his Fifth Amendment rights and we strongly object anymore. We have to make a motion.

CLIFTON NEWMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE: The objection is overruled.

MURDAUGH: What I did was -- WATERS: Answer my question first, sir.

GRIFFIN: Yes, for the record. He did not bring it. He was talking about financial stuff.

NEWMAN: Sit down, Mr. Griffin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Now, Bianna, you mentioned the extent of Alex Murdaugh's addiction. He, on the stand today said that he was taking on average about 60 pills a day. The pills he said he was taking predominantly, 30 milligram instant release oxycodone.

He said that he also took time released OxyContin and other pills as well, saying that he'd been dealing with the addiction for roughly two decades, but it has worsened in the past year or so. Again, just an astounding amount the prosecution reiterating. That's about 2000 milligrams of opioids a day that Alex Murdaugh claims he was on.

[14:20:04]

GOLODRYGA: All right. Dianne Gallagher, thank you.

And let's discuss with our CNN panel. CNN correspondent Jean Casarez is with us, and CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson as well. Joey, let me start with you. From everything we heard today and even yesterday from Alex Murdaugh, do you think it ultimately was a smart decision by the defense to put him on the stand?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, Bianna, I think it was a necessary decision in retrospect. And why do I say that amongst people say, are you kidding me? Because what they had to explain is the timeline. Now, certainly, the timeline with respect to the data that the -- that the police have used in their investigation, the cell phone data had him there, the data with regard to the car, and of course, his voice being heard in that tape. So, he now had to explain why on earth am I here.

So, it was a necessary decision, I think to do it. The issue is will it be effective. And that's what we're getting at. And what we're seeing is the prosecution, right? They're trying to set up this notion that he is a con man, he is a liar, he is a thief, and he cannot be trusted. And then now we see why. Pivoting to today, if you can trust him about his financial crimes, he's looked at people in the eye and he said, I got your back. And now he's looking at you, ladies and gentlemen, the jury in the eye and telling you a story.

But does that story match the timeline with respect to how the prosecution is laying it out? They argue, the prosecution, it does not final thing. They are allowing him and the prosecutors in this cross to talk a lot.

We, attorneys generally don't like people to talk on cross. You answer my questions. I'm going to testify as the lawyer you're going to adopt my statement or rebuke it.

But here he's going on and on. And what I'm questioning is whether that is resonating with the jury and is it unionizing him more. Is it making him more relatable or are they looking at him as if he's a sociopath? That remains to be seen.

BLACKWELL: Well, Jean, because we also have to remember that Alex Murdaugh is an attorney himself. And there was a bit of jousting here between the prosecutor and the defendant.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. He's listening so carefully to the questions, and he parcels them out for the details, and then sort of turns it around either honestly or dishonestly. But you know, what's interesting? Joey made some fantastic points. Because normally in a case like this, it's the forensics, it's the blood, it's the fingerprints, it's the footprints, it's the DNA. They don't have that in this case and so they've gone to this iPhone data, which even records how many steps someone walks, although there was testimony that that's not completely accurate. And then also the OnStar data of the vehicle.

They didn't get the GPS data of Maggie's phone because they didn't process it correctly in the correct bag. But what he's going over and over again is that timeline and being down there at the shed. But he's also given an explanation saying, look, my partners told me not to talk. I knew I was the last one to see them. My pockets are filled with pills. And yes, I got a little paranoid and I told a lie.

The jury, that's all that matters here. And you know, jurors, when you think about them, what is their life experiences? When you think about law enforcement, some jurors believe that law enforcement is perfect that they, in every way, we can trust them.

He has said in his testimony, he didn't trust SLED. Other people have had bad experiences with law enforcement. So, when he tells this story about those feelings, do any jurors relate or not relate at all to what he's saying? That's important, too.

BLACKWELL: Yes. And that, of course, goes back to the testimony from yesterday where he tried to show this close relationship -- Creighton Waters tried to --

CASAREZ: That's right.

BLACKWELL: -- show Murdaugh's close relationship with law enforcement to ask how can you now say you don't trust the law enforcement officers when you threw parties and invited them?

CASAREZ: Yes. And you know what? We learned that answer because he said -- and I'm talking about Alex Murdaugh, he said later on, you charged my son with crimes, right?

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Well.

CASAREZ: And so that is where the distrust could have come from. GOLODRYGA: And, Joey, as we're waiting for the jurors to return to the courtroom and you excuse us, if we interrupt you, what did you make of how the prosecution handled the back and forth here? Because there were times where it seemed that the prosecutor was a bit exasperated and perhaps not only by Alex's personality as a whole, by -- or but also by his use of his own legal expertise.

JACKSON: Yes, without question exasperated indeed. And that's why everyone does things differently, Bianna, you know, with respect to how lawyers control a courtroom. And again, direct examination just by way of process is where you allow the client to speak, to explain, right, to illuminate, to otherwise give indications of where they were, what they were doing, and why. That's direct examination. Here, we're on cross. And the distinction is, you want to box them into the story.

[14:25:00]

Again, what happened? The defense made the calculated judgment that they wanted their client to address the issue of motive. I love my wife. I love my son. I never do such a thing.

They needed their client to address the issue of the timeline. This is what happened. I lied. I'm going to tell you why I did.

Then, of course, they had to get out. They, being the defense, these alternative explanations of who else could have done this, right? He's involved in these pills as a result, could he be dealing with unsavory people? His son Paul had the issue with respect to the criminal charge in which he killed someone.

And he was getting a lot of blowbacks and could have someone who had meant harm to him. So, I get why they put him on. But having putting them on now, the prosecution has to pin him down, right? You're familiar as an attorney with data, correct? You use it all the time, don't you? You won't dispute that the data is accurate as it relates to the cell phone, is that right? And let's talk about what you were doing during that timeframe, during the four minutes.

So, in this case, as I noted, what the prosecutor is doing is allowing him to talk, allowing him to explain, allowing him to question, allowing him to illuminate, allowing him to do a lot of things, and that's his style, and that's fine. But the issue will be ultimately does it serve his purpose or does that give him, the lawyer who's made a lot of money speaking to jurors, who's made a lot of money settling cases, who's negotiated, who's dealt with people, who knows how human reactions and interactions are, does it allow him to get that connection with one or more jurors who will say, you know what, that what he's saying I can relate to, I'm going to give them a pass, it's either hung or, you know, they just don't get the conviction?

And so, I think that's what Murdaugh is banking on by using his very good skill of communicating in that courtroom.

BLACKWELL: All right, Joey and Jean, stand by and watch with us. We're going to go back into this courtroom in Walterboro, South Carolina. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWMAN: I will not allow a person -- and accused or a person who's suspected to give contradictory information or to voluntarily give a statement or to voluntarily give a misstatement as has been acknowledged here. I do not find any Doyle violation and the record is protected. I certainly understand the defense raising any and all possible issues and that can be raised and you've done it here. The record is protected, but all motions are denied. Let's bring the jury.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Joey, as we're waiting for the jury to come in, I might have to cut you off. If you're trying to plan how long to go today, do -- does the prosecutor go all the way up to fill up the day as to not give his defense attorneys an opportunity to leave the jury with undercutting some of the points they've made before the weekend?

JACKSON: Critical question, Victor. Absolutely, what you want to do is to leave the impressions that you give as a prosecutor in the juror's minds as they go for the weekend. And you want to pin him down on everything. The timeline, you want to make the notation as the prosecution has been that he is a liar. He has no credibility. It's a story you have a complete mocking of him.

Today's the first time you said this. No one else heard it before. When was it that you decided to tell that lie as you were being questioned? All that in the jury's mind is powerful over the course of a weekend. You don't want to give the defense any ability, Victor, to rehabilitate him in the interim that is Alex Murdaugh such that they would be left with any other impression if you're the prosecutor than that he's guilty.

GOLODRYGA: Jean, they've already -- the prosecution has already admitted that he's a liar because he's admitted that himself. It's much -- it's a different story now trying to say since you've lied, you're -- actually, hold that thought. We're going back to the trial right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WATERS: Could you get that mic up a little bit, please?

MURDAUGH: Excuse me.

WATERS: Thank you. When we left off, we were talking about at what point during that interview in the car with Dave Owen that you decided to start lying about the murders of your wife and son. I'm going to pick up this video real quick. Not going to play the whole thing but we'll start from two minutes and nine seconds.

DAVID OWEN, SLED AGENT: So, just start it out. Take your time.

MURDAUGH: Like when I came back here -- I mean I pulled up and I could see him and you know, I knew something was bad. I ran out. I know it was really bad. My boy over there. I could see.