Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Soon: Biden To Address Canadian Parliament, News Conference With Trudeau; Philadelphia Police Hunt For Gunmen After Teens Shot; Meadows Among Top Trump Aides Ordered To Testify In 1/6 Probe. Aired 1:30-2p ET
Aired March 24, 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]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: About an hour from now President Biden will address the Canadian parliament before holding a news conference with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Biden's first presidential trip to Canada is coming at a critical time for the North American partnership. It's gotten stronger in the face of challenges with China, Russia, trade and immigration.
Already the trip has resulted in Canada making a significant concession on a thorny migration issue, agreeing to restrict certain migrants who are seeking asylum.
CNN's Paula Newton is an Ottawa for us.
So what kind of message are we going to be hearing from the president next hour?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, next hour, in parliament, Brianna, as you know, because you've been witness to so many of these, he is going to address parliament in a historic way, right? This is going back to whether it's Kennedy or Reagan or Clinton or Obama.
He will be addressing parliament and, again, underscoring what everyone already knows. These are two of the closest relationships that you will find anywhere on the planet in terms of diplomatic relationships, shared values.
All those things that bind these two countries together towards, one of the really most undefended and militarized borders in the world.
Having said that, he will, the president, underscore the fact that the geopolitical landscape has changed. And Brianna, there is no escaping that, in the last couple of years, things have changed significantly in that context.
And perhaps not, Brianna in the speech to parliament, but in the press conference, we will hear that the United States has asked Canada to step up to spend more in areas of things like defense spending, and that Canada has agreed to.
They still may disagree on some points of interest. But again, this is part of the United States saying look, allies, you all need to step up. Things have changed significantly.
And perhaps consequentially, Brianna, this is one of the most, you know, important times, arguably, since 9/11 in terms of the United States getting allies to, you know, stand behind them, but also step up in terms of those defense commitments.
KEILAR: Yes, it really is. And it's huge what we're seeing in that regard.
So tell us about this asylum agreement. How this is illustrating the changing policy priorities for these two allies, especially in the wake of that Chinese spy balloon ordeal?
NEWTON: Yes, absolutely. And when we look at what they're doing on defense, you know, this is continental defense. Right? So you're dealing right up to the Arctic and going down to Mexico.
And in terms of what's going on in humanitarian issues, one of them has to do with that humanitarian crisis on the southern border. Now look, the numbers in terms of whatever is going on, on our northern border here, they pale in comparison.
And yet, the United States said that, look, if you want us to be able to have a more hardened border on that northern end, you've got to come to the table with something.
Canada has now apparently agreed to take in migrants that would normally be sent back to the United States. They will now take them in. And that will change things along that northern border.
I want you to listen now to me speaking to Justin Trudeau yesterday about the deal that's now in the works. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Do you expect that perhaps some migrants will be able to go to regular border crossings in Canada and be received that way? Because, as you know, right now, they would be turned back to the United States.
JUSTINE TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: There's a lot of work being done and we hopefully being to make to make an announcement to reassure Canadians and Americans that we continue to handle migration series.
NEWTON: And will that include taking migrants that sometimes even present themselves southern border or taking migrants directly from the United States?
TRUDEAU: Canada is always willing to do more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: We'll find out exactly what Canada is willing to do in the next few hours. As you said, Brianna, they have a press conference. And we'll be looking for so much more detail on whether it's this immigration deal or on specific defense spending that Canada has promised - Brianna?
KEILAR: All right, Paula Newton, thank you so much for that.
In Philadelphia, a brazen afternoon attack on teenagers caught on camera. Masked gunmen spraying dozens of bullets at three teenagers, a 16 year old and two 13-year-olds today. Two of those victims are in critical condition. And police are searching for the shooters here.
Let's talk about this with CNN's senior law enforcement analyst, Andrew McCabe. He's a former deputy director of the FBI.
So, Andy, we're looking at this. We see the faces of the gunmen are covered, but the video is very clear here. How optimistic are you that the shooters may actually be identified?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Brianna, I'm pretty optimistic. Video like this is obviously a great thing to work with at the beginning part of an investigation.
There's also, from the reporting, we know that they're aware of the description of the vehicle.
Likely what detectives in Philadelphia will do is work with both of the video and the vehicle description and go out to their broad swath of informants in the community, speaking to other individuals have been arrested recently, or people who they know have been involved in gang activity.
And it's only a matter of time before that sort of intelligence operation gives you some leads in terms of identifying and locating these individuals.
[13:34:59]
KEILAR: They say this is gang related. That's how they're investigating it. What are the trends that we're seeing right now when it comes to violent crime related to gangs?
MCCABE: You know, violent crime is - gang activity is always the source of a large percentage of the violent crime in an urban area, particularly violent crime that's fueled by guns.
So I was looking just before we came on, to date, in Philadelphia, they have had 98 homicides in 2023, which is actually a 14 percent reduction since 2022.
But the statistic that really jumps out at me, Brianna, is they've had about 350 shootings in Philadelphia just in this year, 74 of which have been fatal.
If you look at where the shootings are taking place, this block, this small neighborhood in western Philadelphia is not - does not appear to be at the heart of most of the shooting activity. But obviously, they have a really serious situation in greater Philadelphia with gun activity that is leading to shootings and fatal shootings.
KEILAR: And so what needs to be done in - in these cities across the country? How do you stem this?
MCCABE: Well, the strategies are - typically revolve around 22 different types. So in the short term, the way to reduce the sort of criminal activity on the streets is to flood the zone with police presence.
Now that means drawing resources away from other areas. But those you look at that heat map. You try to figure out where these shootings are taking place, and you just up the number of police on the street.
Longer term. The strategy is doing better enforcement in terms of on the prosecution side and putting people away for gun offenses.
If perpetrators know that they are facing a significant sentence if they commit a crime with a gun, they are less likely to carry guns.
If they're less likely to carry them, they're less likely to get into these spontaneous shootings or planned shootings for that matter.
So short term, more cops on the street. Longer term, you've got to do a better job about prosecuting people for being involved in gun felonies.
KEILAR: All right, Andrew McCabe, thank you so much for that. Just horrific what we're seeing on those on that video, obviously.
[13:37:15]
So any moment now, Gwyneth Paltrow could be taking the stand in a trial over a ski collision. We'll have details on this next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:43:50]
KEILAR: We have some breaking news just into CNN. A federal judge has ordered former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and a number of other former top aides to testify in the special counsel's January 6th investigation.
The judge rejected Trump's claims of executive privilege.
Let's get right to CNN's Evan Perez.
Evan, tell us what this means because this may open the door to so much more information in this case.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It really does, Brianna. The just the Justice Department been winning these cases where they're asking a judge to compel some of these, these former Trump aides to answer questions to part of this investigation into the attempts by the former president to overturn the 2020 election results.
And you know, they keep winning these because, you know, the judges are finding that, because of the importance of this investigation, former presidents claim that this is protected by executive privilege just does not stand.
In this case, we're talking about Mark Meadows, who is, of course, former chief of staff. He's a very, very important witness. He was there, or through all of this.
[13:45:02]
And in some cases, played a key role trying to pressure people to try to help support the former president's false claims of vote fraud.
You see, there's the list of some of the other aides, John Radcliffe, Robert O'Brien, Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino.
All of these folks had, in some cases, gone in and refused to answer certain questions because the former president was making this claim of executive privilege.
The judge in this case, Harrell, who was a former chief judge in the Washington, D.C., federal court, she has ruled that they must comply with the Justice Department's request to answer these questions.
Now what happens next is we expect that the Trump team is going to appeal. They've been appealing all of these and they keep losing. So it doesn't, of course, prevent them from trying.
And so we expect that they're going to appeal the Meadows ruling as well as some of the others. And then we'll see when the Justice Department can get those before an appeals court and perhaps even to the Supreme Court - Brianna?
KEILAR: Evan, what is this going to mean when it comes to the former vice president, Mike Pence?
PEREZ: Well that's a separate case. And you know, obviously one of the - his case is a lot more complicated because the former president is claiming not only executive privilege, but Mike Pence is also claiming that he is protected under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause.
And so he is saying that when he was acting in those days around January 6th, he was acting as a member of the Senate because of his role there as the president of the Senate.
The Justice Department is claiming or is arguing that Mike Pence, is his role, this was ceremonial. And so they're pushing back on that.
We anticipate that that ruling is sometime in the offing soon, Brianna. But you know, these are important witnesses that the Justice Department believes are key to this investigation.
Trying to get these people to provide evidence about what the former president's state of mind was, what he knew, what he was being told as he was pushing for these states to overturn their election results and keep him in power, even though he had lost the election.
KEILAR: What is the next step here? Because when you look at this, I mean, it's a number of aides and officials from the Trump administration.
A number of them, in varying degrees, are not going to want to be sharing information and are going to do everything they can to not do that. So what recourse do they have?
PEREZ: That's the thing. I mean, I think Mark Meadows has certainly been one of the more loyal of the former president's aides. He's tried his best to try to keep the council that he gave to the former president.
He's also, I think, because of his very overt role, perhaps in a in a position where he also may have his own exposure here as part of the Justice Department investigation.
So you're right, some of these - some of these witnesses, for instance, have already gone in and didn't know that they were supposed to claim executive privilege. So the former president made this claim in some cases after some of these people already went in to answer some questions.
So the issue here though, Brianna, what you're getting a picture of is the Justice Department, the special counsel in this case, Jack Smith, has really got his foot on the accelerator. He is trying to get these witnesses in. They're trying to move as quickly as they can.
Because I think you and I both know that there's a political calendar that's in the works here. You know you have the former president. Already he has declared that he is a candidate. You have other candidates coming in.
So the political season is upon us. And the Justice Department wants to bring a case they need to try to start moving that very, very soon - Brianna?
KEILAR: Without the cooperation, right, without the testimony of some of those folks, some of the faces that we're seeing here, there are blind spots in this investigation.
So what kinds of questions will some of these folks, including Mark Meadows, be able to answer? What kind of information will they be able to reveal that previously that previously the special counsel didn't have access to?
PEREZ: One of the things that I think a lot of us who have been watching this investigation very closely, I believe is happening here is that the importance of these witnesses is for the special counsel to establish what the former president knew what were his closest, most trusted people telling him?
You had people who - like Robert O'Brien, for instance, who was his national security advisor, and who was telling him that there was absolutely no evidence that there was foreign involvement in rigging voting machines, for instance.
Which is something that Trump was being told by what I think some of the witnesses have called Team Crazy, people like Rudy Giuliani and some of the other people who were trying to tell him that maybe there was some kind of interference right in voting machines.
[13:50:09]
So the importance of these witnesses is - for the special counsel, if they decide to bring a case, is to be able to establish that Trump, even if he can claim right now that that he believed that vote fraud was real, he was getting different advice from his most closely appointed aides.
People who were - who would have known, right, if there was any sign, any evidence of foreign interference in the voting machine and the vote count.
And he was being told by Robert O'Brien, by some of these other people that there was absolutely no evidence, and yet he was persisting in trying to pressure people in Georgia and in other states to try to find a way for him to remain in power.
That's part of what the importance of these witnesses are.
KEILAR: What happens, Evan, if some of these folks have exposure, and they are asked questions? I mean, are they - are they useful? Do they use their - do they plead the Fifth? What do they do?
PEREZ: Yes, some of them do. In the case of Mark Meadows, we now know from the grand jury report in Georgia, we know that he pleaded the Fifth in the investigation, there by the special grand jury.
And that tells you a lot, right? Because Mark Meadows was key. He was helping to set up some of these calls.
He was making phone calls himself to try to pressure people to find what the former president said in that now infamous recorded call to Brad Raffensperger, where he said he wanted to find 11,780 votes, right, to try to remain - to try to say that he won the state of Georgia, which he did not.
And so there are witnesses who do have their own legal exposure. And if you're the prosecutors, you have the right then and there to offer them at least limited immunity to try to get their testimony.
It's not clear whether that is exactly what's going to happen. All this stuff is, of course, happening in a closed court, where we don't have the benefit of being able to see, Brianna, what is happening?
But that is certainly on the table. We've seen it happen with some of the other witnesses who have gone in and had declined to answer questions where the Justice Department asked them or gave them immunity so that they could answer some questions.
KEILAR: All right, Evan, thank you so much for that. This is a big development here. A federal judge ordering former Trump
chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and several other former top aides to testify in the special counsel's January 6th investigation.
You see their faces here. They are familiar faces, in many cases.
We are going to be back here in just a moment with more information.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:57:34]
KEILAR: Back to our breaking news now. A federal judge has ordered former Trump chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and these other former top aides and officials to testify in the special counsel's January 6th investigation. The judge rejected Trump's claims of executive privilege.
I want to bring in former U.S. attorney, Michael Moore.
This is a big step here, right, because we are seeing the judge just poke holes in all of these claims of privilege, and this may crack things wide open for the special counsel. How big of a deal is this, Michael?
MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, it's a huge deal. And I think what you're starting to see some of the courts tell the Trump team they've had enough of the nonsense whether it be from the lawyer and the documents cases and now maybe to the staff that are trying to invoke executive privilege to Trump's claims.
Remember that executive privilege is not a shield to hard criminal conduct behind. So you can't do something illegal and then come around and claim executive privilege. It's just meant to protect the deliberative process.
And so, you know, I think that this is the beginning sort of the cracking of the dam, if you will, for these false claims that have been out there. And you're going to now have plenty of information and folks who had otherwise been reluctant to testify, coming forward.
KEILAR: What is the timeline here? Because a number of these folks here, they're not - you know, they don't - they're not just looking for the cover of this right?
They really - they don't want to share information with the special counsel. They're going to do everything they can to not do this, so this will continue with an appeals process.
What's the timeline? What are the next steps?
MOORE: My guess is that the appellate court will take it up fairly quickly. There was no question there will be an appeal on this. Trump's team
will take it out there, push the executive privilege argument as far as they can. You know, is it something that can be heard within a month? Maybe so.
But I do think there's a growing sense of urgency that there needs to be some resolution, some finality. This investigation needs to be brought to some conclusion, whatever it may be.
So you know, you'll have individuals who may be recalcitrant witnesses. You'll have Trump's people over here who are saying, well, we're pushing the executive privilege and it should go on up.
And I think you'll see that the courts handle in fairly short order compared to a typical appeal in a regular case.
[13:59:57]
Again, this is just a case but, at the same time, it's historic on its face.
