Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Blinken Calls On Russia To Release American Paul Whelan; Paul Ryan Defends Actions On FOX Board During 2020 Coverage; DOJ Asks Court To Reject Trump Immunity Claims In 1/6 Lawsuits; Harry & Meghan Are Asked To "Vacate" Home At Windsor Castle. Aired 1:30-2p ET
Aired March 02, 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]
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: And I think the other part of it that's got everybody concerned -- and Secretary Blinken talked about this two weeks ago or a week and a half ago at the Munich security conference.
He said we all sort of emerged from that conference with a sense that the blocs her, that Russia, China and Iran were coming together harder than ever, that the United States was trying to double down on sanctions with its allies.
And that leaves less and less room for compromise. That's really where I'm concerned, as Cedric pointed out before.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Yes. I think that that is the long-term problem for the globe, perhaps, it those blocs continue to calcify.
Colonel Cedric Leighton and David Sanger, both of you, always appreciate having your expertise. Wish we could have more time to talk about all of this. But thank you for joining us.
And from House speaker to lonely voice of dissent at FOX News. FOX board member, Paul Ryan, is now finding himself in the middle of a firestorm. Critics say he didn't do enough to stop the channel from airing these 2020 election lies.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:35:48]
PHILLIP: Just into CNN, the Justice Department says that former President Trump cannot claim total presidential immunity in civil cases related to January 6th.
The DOJ is urging an appeals court to reject Trump's claims and to let some lawsuits move forward.
CNN's Evan Perez is joining us with this reporting.
Evans, tell us about this DOJ brief.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: This is a big deal, Abby, because the Justice Department is saying the former president is not entitled to complete an absolute immunity with the lawsuits.
These are lawsuits filed by Democratic members of Congress, members of the Capitol Police, who were victims of the violence on January 6th.
So the Justice Department is taking the position that, certainly, presidents have a level of immunity while they are in office and even after they leave office. But in this case, because of the violence involved, it's not the same thing.
So I'll read a part of what it says in this brief filed in court today with the appeals court:
It says, "No part of a president's official responsibilities includes the imminent private violence."
And the Justice Department is taking a position that they want the appeals court to issue a narrow ruling.
They want them to essentially allow for perhaps the president to claim immunity in other things, for instance, political or electoral speech, but not for things related to this.
They are also not taking a position, Abby, on whether the former president has immunity on criminal matters.
So that's something that is going to be very relevant as the investigations continue into January 6th, something that the special counsel is looking at -- Abby?
PHILLIP: Further evidence that this is not all over, by a long shot for former President Trump.
EVANS: No, not at all.
PHILLIP: Evan Perez, thank you so much for that.
Let's bring in CNN legal analyst, Norm Eisen, on this.
Norm, this DOJ argument, they are balancing two things. One, the future, future presidents, not just Trump, and what this could mean for them, but also this issue of violence.
What do you think this means about -- for the cases that Trump could be facing, both civil and potentially criminal?
NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Abby, starting with the civil cases that he's facing, I think this reduces the likelihood that the courts are going to allow him to, in effect, block those cases.
So that means he's looking at discovery. He's looking at a possible trial. He's looking at damages.
But the larger significance is in the coming possible criminal cases that Georgia -- Atlanta D.A. has said that charges are eminent there. There's been much analysis about whether that includes the president. And even though DOJ goes out of its way to say, well, we're not reaching the criminal cases, this is a sign of DOJ saying, staging an attempted coup is outside the outer-most boundary. The legal term is outer penumbra of a president's duties.
So it's a bad sign for him if he gets charged in Georgia or other criminal cases.
PHILLIP: Yes, it's very significant.
I want to switch gears to another story. We have more court filings expected to come in this massive defamation lawsuit against FOX News.
And already we have seen, in the reams of evidence, that the network knowingly pushed election lies about the 2020 election.
And those documents also revealed what FOX board member, former House speaker, Paul Ryan, urged the Murdochs to do. He urged them to steer clear of Trump and his election lies.
Now Ryan was recently pressed by a well-known conservative about whether he did enough while on the board at this particular time.
Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any responsibility?
PAUL RYAN, FOX NEWS BOARD MEMBER & FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: I do. I have a responsibility to offer my opinion and perspective, and I do that. But don't go on TV and do it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
RYAN: So I have a responsibility --
(CROSSTALK)
RYAN: I do. I do.
(CROSSTALK)
RYAN: I offer my perspective and my opinion often.
[13:40:02]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In -- in --
RYAN: I'll just leave it at that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right, Norm, he's leaving it at that. But is that going to be enough to prevent Paul Ryan from seeing any consequences or others on the board for being accused of engaging in basically negligence and misconduct?
I mean, there's this lawsuit but you also have this reality that this is a company. And it's they're doing things that are deemed to be libelous, they could face consequences for that.
EISEN: Abby, it's not enough legally. When a board member seeing something wrong that is happening -- Rupert Murdoch admitted that FOX hosts endorsed the falsehoods about the 2020 election. They didn't just report on them.
The board member has a fiduciary duty to do more, not just to say, oh, I gave my president bush.
So legally, FOX is exposed to potentially a massive verdict in this case for libel.
It's ethically wrong. When you see something like that -- when I was the ethics in the White House, our philosophy was, you have to speak out. You have to stop the wrongdoing. Not just say, oh, I gave my opinion.
And I think it's politically disastrous because this election-denial ideology has hit the Republicans in swing states, where you had election deniers running on these continuing lies. They ran well behind so-called Team Normal in the Republican Party.
So on every front, Paul Ryan's behavior is far short of what of he should have done.
PHILLIP: All right, Norm Eisen, thank you for joining us on both of those topics.
And the rumors, they are true. Prince Harry and Meghan say they have been asked to move out of their royal U.K. home. But wait until you hear who could be moving in instead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:46:30]
PHILLIP: So before there was Wordle or Spelling Bee, it seemed that everybody was playing HQ Trivia. The new CNN film "GLITCH, THE RISE AND FALL OF HQ TRIVIA", reveals the crazy story behind that game show app. It went viral and then crashed and burned in record time.
Here's a preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT ROGOWSKY, COMEDIAN & FORMER HOST, HQ TRIVIA LIVE: This is HQ. I'm Scott, the host.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: HQ Trivia was everywhere.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You could actually win real money.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It just got so popular. The app is not ready to work.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it crashed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that's when the cracks started showing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Russ and Collin were polar opposites.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was jealousy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It leads to chaos.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining us now is the original host of HQ Trivia, Scott Rogowsky, aka, the quiz daddy.
So, Scott, thanks for being here.
ROGOWSKY: Oh, yes. Of course.
PHILLIP: I remember HQ Trivia. I didn't play it but my husband did.
It's hard to overstate, like, this was like a one-hit wonder kind of moment. It took off. It started with just a couple hundred players in august of 2017. And then it hit two million daily players, just seven months later.
So what was behind that? Why did this really touch such a nerve with people at that time?
ROGOWSKY: It was such a new concept. The idea of playing a game show on your phone where you can actually win money.
You weren't just watching a game show, like people watch "Jeopardy" and shout the answers and watch other people win money. You could be there, playing along, being interactive and winning yourself.
So I think the technology of it, which five years ago, six years ago was pretty revolutionary. Now we see live streaming and other activity happening everywhere.
That was the first part of it. And the second part was, I don't know, it was entertaining. I think I did a pretty good job hosting it. People wanted to play again and again.
And word of mouth. It took this thing from a couple dozen players to millions in a matter of months.
PHILLIP: I'm sure the money didn't hurt at all.
ROGOWSKY: Yes. You could get money, free money.
PHILLIP: You could actually get cash out of this.
So as quickly as it took off, it really just kind of imploded. The numbers really dropped off. But there was a lot going on behind the scenes, as you could see in
the preview for this documentary. What was happening there?
ROGOWSKY: A lot was happening, Abby. As you can imagine, it was difficult because most people did not have access to what was happening behind the scenes in the office.
People were seeing this app take off and go viral. But very quickly into the success of HQ, cracks were happening. There was a lot of tension between the founders of the company.
It's one thing to conceive an idea for an app, build the app, design the logo. It's another one to effectively and competently manage employees and run a company.
And the guy in charge -- this was not the right person at the helm -- took a company, which had all this potential and promise to be the future of television, $100 million evaluation, and it took it to zero in two years.
There was a tragic death of the other co-founder. There was a lot happening. It's all told, I think very well in the film, which I hope people watch Sunday night.
PHILLIP: That's really wild.
I'm told you have some questions for me. I'm not great at trivia but try me.
ROGOWSKY: I do, Abby. This first one is relatable. You are a mother now. Maybe you were researching baby names a couple of years ago.
[13:50:00]
PHILLIP: OK.
ROGOWSKY: I want to know if you know, what were the most popular baby names in the U.S. in 2021. Charlotte and Oliver, Sophia and William, or Olivia or Liam?
PHILLIP: I'm going with Olivia and Liam.
ROGOWSKY: You must have done your research when you named Naomi. I mean, yes, you are right. Olivia and Liam, according to Social Security, were the most popular baby names. You got that one.
Can you get the next one? This is one of the most savage questions we ever asked, OK?
In the Harry potter books, which of these animals is not one of the four Hogwarts house mascots? Raven, eagle or badger? It's kind of a tricky question.
PHILLIP: I'm going to say eagle because I'll just -- eagle.
ROGOWSKY: And 88 percent of the people got it wrong. Raven, despite Raven Claw being the name, Eagle it the mascot of Raven Claw. Raven is not the mascot. It's one of those weird quirks of literally history I guess.
But that was a tough one, Abby. I'm not going to blame you on that one.
PHILLIP: All right, OK. Oh, I didn't do too bad. I got one out of two.
ROGOWSKY: You're batting 500. You're a Hall of Famer.
PHILLIP: Thanks, Scott. I appreciate it very much.
Everyone can tune into the new CNN film, "GLITCH: THE RISE AND FALL OF HQ TRIVIA." It premieres on Sunday night at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time and Pacific, right here on CNN.
And is it royal retaliation? Queen Elizabeth gave Prince Harry and Meghan a home. But there is a new kid in town and it seems he's got other plans. That story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:56:16]
PHILLIP: The royal family never commented publicly about Prince Harry's tell-all book "Spare," but if actions speak louder than words, consider this.
A spokesperson for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle officially confirming that they are being kicked out of their U.K. home on the grounds of Windsor Castle.
The pair say they've been asked to vacate Frogmore Cottage, the five- bedroom home that the queen gifted them for their wedding.
CNN royal commentator and history, Kate Williams, is joining us now.
Kate, for those not on the inside, from the outside, this kind of looks like retaliation after this tell-all period for both Harry and Meghan.
What do you think it is?
KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR & HISTORIAN: Well, Abby, we did hear initially that the movement for evicting Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage happened not long after the publication of "Spare" back in January.
And it seems that the king has made the decision that it's not their home anymore.
We understand they're unhappy about this. Sources say they're distressed. That they consider it their house.
It looks like what the king is doing is really moving around. So Prince Andrew, a disgraced member of the royal family, he has a large property near Windsor Castle. It has a swimming pool. It's gigantic.
It seems that the king wants him to move into Frogmore Cottage, Harry and Meghan to move out, and someone to move into Royal Lodge, Andrew's house, possibly William and Kate, we don't know yet.
But the royals said, look, Harry and Meghan can stay at Windsor Castle. But it's not the same. It's their home.
So certainly, I think Charles is really getting tough here. That's what he's saying. And I think, certainly, people who are anti-Harry and Meghan have received this very well.
PHILLIP: And I think for those asking, is there a prospect of reconciliation for this family, it does seem to indicate that, at least from King Charles, he's moving in the opposite direction.
WILLIAMS: Well, there's been a lot of conversation, will Harry and Meghan be invited to the coronation in May? I was convinced they would be. I think it would be a terrible mistake not to invite them.
But certainly, what Charles is saying, you're invited to the coronation, but other parts perhaps you won't be invited to. And you aren't going to live on a royal property.
And this underlines how all of these properties are owned by the monarch, and they can give and take at will.
And I think Harry and Meghan feel very strongly. They loved it. They've got memories there.
But also, they suffered for it. Because let's not forget, in the British press and press all over the world, how much they were criticized for the $2.4 million that was spent on this property to renovate it.
It was crown money spent on crown property. It happened to all of the crown properties. They were all renovated with this amount of money.
But for Harry and Meghan, they were criticized and now they suffered for that. And now they've lost it. It's been taken from them.
PHILLIP: And I have to ask you about Prince Andrew of it all, he is facing so many scandals.
Do you think it's wise to have the optics of that, to move Harry and Meghan out for speaking out, and move Prince Andrew in?
WILLIAMS: I think that Charles wants Andrew out of the royal fold. He wants him out of this giant royal lodge.
We understand that Andrew does not want to move. He is going to resist it. He does not want to go to Frogmore Cottage. I presume, Andrew being -- he's so very grand, he thinks it's probably below him to go there.
And the optics are that Andrew gets Frogmore, which was Harry and Meghan's home, and someone else gets Royal Lodge.
I think, certainly, that the king is trying to find a way to get Andrew out of the big houses but doesn't want him out of Windsor entirely because he is such a loose cannon. He doesn't want him living on his own in London, which could be even more chaotic.
[13:59:57]
PHILLIP: Yes, I think it's very much seen by the royal family as a demotion for Andrew, getting him out of this massive grand house, as you described it, and into something a little bit more quaint, if you can call it that.
