Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Challenge To Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Goes To Supreme Court; House Republicans Vowing To Investigate Train Disaster; EPA: Toxic Waste Shipments Can Resume From East Palestine, Ohio; Four People Charged In Murder Of Hong Kong Model; Judge Agrees To Let Murdaugh Jury Visit Murder Scene; Defense Calls New Witnesses After Murdaugh Wraps Testimony. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired February 27, 2023 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And some 26 million people had already applied for that program before it was initially struck down.

Let's bring in CNN's Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, to dive into this a little bit.

Joan, this is a really significant case for a lot of reasons. But one of the big reasons and perhaps the first one the court has to deal with is whether the states even have the right to sue in the first place.

Tell us about that.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Right, Abby. It is very consequential for borrowers but also for how the Supreme Court handles challenges to executive branch actions.

And the first thing is, if you're going to sue and get into court and have your case heard on the merits, you have to show a direct injury from the action that you're challenging.

And in this case, six states and two individuals who didn't qualify for the full forgiveness have sued.

And the states say they're -- they have a couple different claims on the standing issue for why they should be able to bring the case.

That some of their general taxes to the states for loan discharges and consolidations would be effective.

And the most specific allegation is that a Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, which actually services loans and receives fees from borrowers, that that would be affected.

So that is how states are claiming that they have standing.

The Biden administration counters that, in terms of the general taxing issues, they are too speculative and indirect.

And for the Missouri Education Loan Authority, what the Biden lawyers will argue tomorrow in court is that that is not an arm of the state.

That Missouri entity, which does have issues and could have some consequences, cannot be considered one of the states. Any losses it suffers cannot be attributable to the states.

And --

(CROSSTALK)

BISKUPIC: Go ahead, Abby.

PHILLIP: Oh, I'm sorry, Joan.

But the second big issue here, especially for these borrowers seeking this relief, the Biden administration did this in the first place because Congress would not. They are trying to go around a legislative process here.

But a ruling that goes against the Biden administration could have really sweeping effects. And it is not just about student loans. It could be about a lot of other things. Why is that?

BISKUPIC: That is because it tests when an executive branch agency, here, the secretary of education, can actually act based on a statute that isn't precisely saying that this action can be taken but that is enabling in some ways.

In this case, it is a 2003 statute that said that, in emergencies, the secretary of education can take action to waive or modify loans.

And here, the challengers are saying the government has gone too far affecting a half trillion of money due to the Education Department.

But the Biden administration says that that Heroes Act, as it was called, from 2003, precisely allows this kind of action in an emergency, as Covid-19 was and how Covid-19's economic fallout continues.

And what the Biden administration says is, look, in the past, the court has certainly brought down the hammer on executive branch regulations, major regulations.

But here, it is saying those precedents shouldn't really apply because this isn't a regulation. It's just pure forgiveness of these loans.

And that it was authorized by the Heroes Act that envisions all sorts of emergencies that could affect borrowers --

(CROSSTALK)

BISKUPIC: -- borrowers of every age. And in this case, more than 40 million affected.

PHILLIP: Yes, exactly. So many millions of people.

And this is such an extraordinary time. I feel like we're always talking about these really significant cases coming before the court.

And they're always significant, but in this case, these are things that affect people's pocketbooks today.

Joan Biskupic, thank you very much. We'll be following that one closely as well.

[13:34:00]

And straight ahead for us, the Biden administration's response to the toxic train disaster in eastern Ohio. Why Republicans say they are going to investigate it. We're live on Capitol Hill, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: Over on Capitol Hill, House Republicans are gearing up to launch investigations and possibly public hearings into how the Biden administration handled that toxic train disaster in Ohio.

Joining me now is CNN's Jessica Dean over on Capitol Hill. And CNN's Miguel Marquez, who has been following this case.

And, Jessica, I'll start with you.

This comes as Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says he wants to bring the CEO of Norfolk Southern over to the Hill to testify. What can you tell us about the prospect of that?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. A source telling CNN that earlier today, Abby -- and it remains unclear at this point -- if Alan Shaw would testify. We will see how that plays out.

It is worth noting though, with the current situation in the Senate and how it's split up between Democrats and Republicans, the Democrats do hold subpoena power.

It is not clear it would even come to that. But it is worth noting. And it is important context in situations like these.

It is also worth noting, over on the House side, that is where several committees are looking to investigate this train derailment and the fallout from all of this.

House Republicans very eager to probe the Biden administration's what they think is a very flawed response to this train derailment and the fallout that came afterward.

We know there are several committees looking in to really holding hearings and questioning authorities on this as well, the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Oversight Committee.

It is expected they'll be looking to people like the Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, the EPA Administrator Michael Regan, wanting to hear testimony from them as well.

[13:40:06]

We know the chairs of those committees have already put out several letters to the administration asking for information to try to start to put together all of this.

But, Abby, one thing is for sure. We can expect to hear much more out of Capitol Hill.

PHILLIP: I think that is definitely a sure bet.

Over to you, Miguel.

This is also a critical moment in which the waste from this toxic train derailment is being taken out of East Palestine. What's happening with that today?

MIGUE MARQUEZ, CNN SENIORNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it is now going to two different facilities in Ohio, itself.

This is after Norfolk Southern tried to ship it to facilities in Texas and Michigan. Both the states, the political set in those two states, objected to this. They didn't have any knowledge it was coming into their states.

So EPA saw this plan of Norfolk Southern's on Friday, stopped those shipments to both Texas and Michigan.

And now they have identified two approved sites in Ohio to deal with both the liquid waste and the solid waste from this derailment.

There are hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquid waste that need to be dealt with and tons of solid waste that needs to be dealt with as well.

This is going to be a long-term effort though. They're digging wells around the most contaminated part.

They're testing the air, the water, both the municipal and private wells. So far, no signs of contamination outside the immediate area.

But the wells they are digging around the contaminated site will tell officials probably over the next months if not years to come whether that ground water is seeping and moving into other parts of the ecosystem -- Abby?

PHILLIP: All right, Jessica Dean and Miguel Marquez, thank you both very much for your reporting.

Up next for us, a murder mystery in Hong Kong. What authorities are saying about the death of this high-profile social media influencer when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:46:38] PHILLIP: A horrifying story out of Hong Kong now. Four members of the same family are charged with the gruesome murder and dismemberment of a model and social media influencer.

I want to warn you, you might find some of the descriptions in this next story disturbing.

CNN's Kristie Lu Stout reports for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A fashion model and mother brutally murdered in Hong Kong in a case that is sending shock waves through the usually safe city.

Twenty-eight-year-old Abby Choi was a well-known social media influencer with more than 100,000 followers on Instagram who, just weeks ago, appeared on the digital cover of a luxury magazine.

She was reported missing on Wednesday. On Friday, police say pieces of her body were found in a refrigerator in the northern district of Hong Kong. They also found a meat slicer and an electric saw.

And later police discovered a head, ribs, and hair in a soup pot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SUPT. ALAN CHUNG, HONG KONG POLICE: It was a skull with hair. OK? As I said, unfortunately, there is a hole on the right-side rear on the skull, so the pathologist believes that that should be the fatal, fatal attack on the victim.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STOUT: Police arrested Abby Choi's ex-husband on suspicion of murder on Saturday. Police said they caught him at a pier in the city's Lantau Island.

(on camera): Police said Abby Choi's ex-husband, Alex Kwong, appeared here at the magistrate's court on Monday along with his father and brother. They are all accused of murder.

Kwong's mother also appeared in court. She's accused of obstructing the case. All four were denied bail.

(voice-over): Over the weekend, authorities launched a massive search operation to track down the rest of the model's remains.

They deployed more than 100 police officers, including a team and divers to search a cemetery and nearby catch water. They're still looking for several body parts.

A gruesome murder of this young woman in the spotlight who leaves behind four children, including two from the ex-husband who is now in custody.

Kristie Lu Stout, CNN, Hong Kong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP: Our thanks to Kristie for that.

And right now, in South Carolina, a major development in the Alex Murdaugh double murder trial. The judge will let the jury visit the property there where Murdaugh's wife and son were murdered.

Joining me now is CNN's Randi Kaye, who is outside of that courthouse in Walterboro, South Carolina, and also criminal trial lawyer, Sara Azari.

Randi, to you first.

The prosecution actually opposed this, which was fascinating. Why is that?

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the state was against it, Abby, because they argued to the judge the property has changed.

These murders occurred back in June of 2021 and they feel the property changed and it wouldn't be a fair resemblance of the crime scene for the jury, a fair picture of what really happened there.

Particularly, the trees. The trees between the kennels where the murders took place and the main house, the state argued, have grown taller and thicker.

This is key because the defense put on a witness who said he tested the sound of the gunfire at the home.

[13:49:59]

And that Alex Murdaugh, if he was, indeed, napping in the main house, as he said, he would not have been able to hear the gunfire from the shotgun or the rifle that killed Maggie and Paul while he was in the home napping or it he had the TV on.

And so the defense argued, well, he didn't do his test until January of 2023, this year. So that is not a fair representation of the crime scene at the time.

And it's that same argument about why the jury should not go and see the crime scene now.

PHILLIP: That's really interesting.

Sara, from the defense perspective, what are they trying to prove here? How would this help them to send the jury to go see this crime scene?

SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL TRIAL LAWYER: Yes, Abby. So it is always great for a jury to take this field trip to the crime scene because they can actually see, they can measure distance. In this case, it is not just about the acoustics. They can really see

how this two-shooter theory may have worked out, how long it takes to go from the golf cart from the house to the kennels and back.

The phone service, I mean, that is key, right? The time of death that this prosecution has been proceeding on for seven weeks is based on phone data and a lack of activity on a phone.

Part of the argument being that, in certain parts of Moselle, the property, you don't get cell service. They could turn their phones on and see if that's really true.

It is really important. And it is not a dire know, but I think they will be given a chance to go there and see for themselves.

One of the things I want to add about today's testimony of the pathologist, the time of death.

If the time of death can be determined by just a lack of texting or calling or activity on the phone , I mean, you and I could technically be dead right now because we're not using our phone.

It is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard.

So today is the first day that we're hearing science after eight weeks of trial. The defense is bringing the science.

And they're, in fact, introducing into evidence the autopsy report that the state pathologist did that obviously was not good for them.

It's major today.

PHILLIP: That's a really interesting point.

Randi, can you weigh in on that? After the dramatic testimony from Alex Murdaugh himself last week, the defense didn't rest. They called more witnesses.

What was the prosecution's response to the testimony from the forensic pathologist?

KAYE: Well, the pathologist certainly countered the state's pathologist, the prosecutor's pathologist. She said that both were shot at about -- within three feet.

And the pathologist today came on and said, well, Paul Murdaugh, the second fatal shot, was shot right -- it was a contact wound. It was right -- the gun was up against his head. It was that force that literally blew his brain out of his skull.

So that was very different than what the state pathologist had said.

Then there was a forensic scientist, Abby, who came on. This was really impactful because the defense had floated this theory a while ago about maybe two shooters because there were two weapons used, a rifle and a shotgun. And this forensic scientist came on and he said he believes there were

two shooters. He doesn't think that one person, man or woman, could have done this.

Here is what he said in court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIMOTHY PALMBACH, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: The individual who shot first with the shotgun, minimally, was stunned, probably blood and material in his eyes and may have been injured and would have taken some degree of time to recover.

And lastly, I think, why would you bring -- why would one shooter bring two long rifles, two long weapons to the event?

You can't handle and shoot two of them. So you either have to put one down, use one and then swap out and grab the other one.

Or I suppose you off one on a sling. But that's quite awkward and it's slipping around and it's banging around in an environment we know is very, very tight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: The defense also scored some points with that forensic scientist because he said the shooter would have been covered in blood, whoever shot Paul Murdaugh. It was such a violent shooting.

And we know that state's witnesses have told the court that Alex Murdaugh did not have any blood on his hands or any physical blood on him -- Abby?

PHILLIP: Yes.

Sara, on that point, I mean, the lack of evidence specifically tying Alex Murdaugh to these murders, blood on his clothes, you know, physical evidence, anything on him remains one of the biggest problems with the state's case.

What do you make of the developments from the testimony today?

AZARI: Well, I think, look, Abby, it is obvious that this was not something that Alex Murdaugh could have cleaned up in 15 minutes, OK?

Because this type of needs a cleanup of the cleanup. There was gore. There was brain matter, there was biological matter that inevitably would have been somewhere on him and then on the route back to the Moselle house, somewhere in the house. There is nothing.

So even setting aside the T-shirt, the destruction of the T-shirt, and the confirmatory tests, by the way, that they failed to disclose to the jury saying no human blood, they have no science. You know?

[13:55:10]

And instead, they focused on the lying narrative, you know, the big kennel lie, the fraud, the theft.

I mean, for seven weeks, it is really interesting, we're starting to see this come together. It is the defense bringing in the science that the state is missing.

PHILLIP: That's a really interesting and important point as this case, it seems, quickly approaches the end here.

Randi Kaye and Sara Azari, thank you very much.

And thank you for joining us here on CNN NEWSROOM.

But don't go anywhere just yet. There is much more news straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)