Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Investigation Of Leaked Documents Starting To Take Shape; TX Gov. Abbott Seeks Pardon Of Man Convicted Of Killing BLM Protester; Abortion Pill Case Could Set Up Another Supreme Court Ruling; Judge In Dominion Case Says He Has Received Death Threats. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 11, 2023 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:33:02]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And now to the fallout from a reported leak of U.S. intelligence. A senior Egyptian official is quoted as denying a report by "The Washington Post" that Egypt was planning to secretly produce 40,000 rockets for Russia.

That report cites the leaked secret intelligence documents that recently began appearing online.

National security spokesman, John Kirby, was blunt in his assessment of these leaks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL COORDINATOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: We don't know who's behind this. We don't know what the motive is. And I think, I can't remember who asked before, but we don't know what else might be out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: And now we're learning that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is requesting an all-Senate classified briefing on the leak as well.

And CNN's Natasha Bertrand is over at the Pentagon.

Natasha, you've learned some new reporting about the investigation and how that is starting to take shape. What can you tell us?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, obviously, what we're learning is that this investigation really is on two, or I should say even three separate tracks at this point.

There is a Pentagon investigation that is being led by the Office of Intelligence and Security that is looking at the damage assessment of how these leaks could impact U.S. national security.

And that is being coordinated with an even broader interagency investigation coordinated with the State Department, for example, and the White House about the broader impact of these leaks on, for example, sources and methods, whether any of that has been compromised.

There is also a separate investigation being carried out by the Justice Department, which is a criminal probe into actually who leaked these documents, so the source of this very damaging breach.

But look, we should note that all of this really is going to center around who had access to these documents.

And we're also learning more details about the kind of distribution of these highly classified documents just day to day in the Pentagon and across the entire administration.

And what we're told is that these kinds of documents that appear to have been part of a broader kind of briefing deck for senior Pentagon leaders, they are distributed daily to hundreds, if not thousands of people across the government.

[13:35:07]

As one official told us, quote, "Way too many people have access to highly sensitive information."

And that is something that the Pentagon's Office of Intelligence and Security is going to be reviewing very closely. Do all of these people who have access to this highly sensitive information actually need to be able to see it?

The Joint Staff, which is the military leadership that advises the president, the senior-most uniformed leadership at the Pentagon, they are going to be examining their distribution list to see whether everyone who is on those lists is actually supposed to be receiving this stuff.

And of course, there will be a close look at the printers in the Pentagon. Who had access to the printers, things like that.

Very basic, you know, investigative measures that are going to try to weed out who could have leaked this information that not only is potentially damaging to U.S. national security, but also to that of our allies - Abby?

PHILLIP: Yes, and something tells me that this is going to be a very significant story just given the nature of what was released in these documents, and we'll be following all of it.

Natasha Bertrand, thank you very much.

And coming up next for us, a political firestorm in Texas. The Republican governor there is putting a convicted murderer on the fast track for a pardon before he was even sentenced. We'll tell you why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:43] PHILLIP: Texas Governor Greg Abbott, he's now calling on the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles to quickly review and recommend a pardon for Army Sergeant Daniel Perry. It comes after Perry was just convicted of murdering Garrett Foster at a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin three years ago,

Now Perry's team argued that he was acting in self-defense when he shot Foster. Foster was carrying a legally -- a legally-obtained A.K.- 47 rifle.

Now Governor Abbott has faced growing calls from national conservative figures, including FOX News's Tucker Carlson to issue a pardon for Perry.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX HOST, "TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT": This is illegal atrocity and so obviously unjust that tonight we extended an invitation to the sitting governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to come on this show on Monday.

And we wanted to ask if he was considering a pardon for Daniel Perry. But for some reason, Governor Greg Abbott's office told us he just can't make it. There is no right of self-defense in Texas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Joining me now to discuss this is CNN political commentators, Maria Cardona and Alice Stewart.

So, Maria, I want to start with you on that.

Why -- why do you think this is happening here with Governor Abbott? It is a little reminiscent of how conservatives rallied around Kyle Rittenhouse after the Kenosha shooting. He was acquitted of killing a Black Lives Matter protester.

Why do you see this happening?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think, in this specific instance, Abbott is afraid of the power of FOX News, Tucker Carlson and the extremist MAGA base of the Republican party.

Look, and I think, if this pardon goes through without even the sentencing, and without even the legal process, having given a chance to go through what it should go through, it is dangerous. It sets -- it sets a really scary precedent.

Because as I understand it -- as I understand it, the facts of the case are that it was not self-defense. If you look at the posts, the social media posts of Perry, he went there to try to kill people. And that's exactly what he did.

He turned his car into the public. And one of those people that he almost hurt was Foster's wife. Foster went to signal to him to just move on, so that he couldn't hurt people anymore, and Perry took that as an affront to him.

And he even said, I didn't even give him a chance to aim at me. He did it. He killed him right then and there in cold blood.

And so I think it sets a very dangerous president for this governor to now go into huge gubernatorial power overreach on this issue. And I think it's going to hurt him.

PHILLIP: Alice, let me ask you about that. Because there is a process in Texas, and the governor noted that. But he seems to be putting his thumb on the scale here in a pardon process that he doesn't really control. It's not like the president of the United States.

Is that the right call for him from a rule-of-law perspective?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It does seem to be a little premature, Abby, because there has not been sentencing yet. That was expected to happen tomorrow.

But I do have to disagree with my friend, Maria, there in terms of what the facts appear to be in this case. Is that Perry was dropping someone off as an Uber driver in the area and his car was surrounded by the protesters.

He was in fear for his life. And the victim here pulled out an A.K.- 47, pointed in his direction, and he feared for his life and fired at him with a gun that he kept in his vehicle for his own protection.

And look, I have full faith and confidence in the judge and jury process. But clearly, Governor Abbott sees this in a different way. And he is clearly standing up for the Texas Stand Your Ground law, which allows people to protect themselves.

And he is not, I don't believe, being swayed by Tucker Carlson and FOX News. He's looking at this from the standpoint of the people of the state of Texas and the Stand Your Ground law.

And he is making it clear to his constituents that he's going to take steps to protect that.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: He's merely putting in a request for the board to do this. It might not even happen. But this is a gesture on his part to make sure that that right is protected.

[13:45:02]

I do think -- I mean, we should point out that the Texas Stand Your Ground law would have been looked at by this jury. And that that's how the legal process is supposed to play out.

STEWART: Yes.

PHILLIP: But they went a different way on that.

But, Alice, I want to ask you, on another topic, because we've been talking a lot about abortion here because of these court rulings.

The battle over Mifepristone is really heating up. And I want you to look at this recent poll from Ipsos. It shows an overwhelming 70 percent of Americans oppose federal courts banning access to that abortion drug. More than 50 percent of Republicans oppose it.

And just yesterday, GOP Congresswoman Nancy Mace, she's calls herself pro-life. She told CNN that we're getting we're getting it wrong on this issue. And she said, we have to listen to women.

Is it possible that Republicans, and even the courts being pushed by Republican activists, activists maybe going too far here?

STEWART: Look, I think Republican pro-life leaders are going to really fight this battle. Because they look at this and the numbers that the pro-life advocates are looking at have to do with the dangers of these medical abortion pills.

And I know that you shared earlier some of the facts and data that has been shared by the FDA. But pro-life advocates are looking at this, the way the FDA did these tests, they didn't feel as though it was full and complete and done. In the typical way the FDA does this.

They're concerned with the safety of women. Oftentimes, the injuries to the mother are not reported because they are not required to go to seek a doctor's care or go to the emergency room. So a lot of the injuries to the mothers are unreported for that very reason.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: But again, I think this is going to be --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Alice, I mean, I have to stop you there because, I mean, we do have the data on this. It is a very safe drug. It is very -- it's more safe than penicillin. It's more safe than even Viagra, which is so widely used.

And it's notable, I mean, the judges, citing psychological damage to two women, but not, you know, taking into consideration that there was a 20-plus year process in which this drug was deemed safe.

Why even does a judge have the right to decide what drugs are safe and what's not?

STEWART: Well, clearly, the pro-life and the abortion and medical abortion issue has been legally challenged. And judges are in the center of the controversy.

Look, I -- as you know, I'm pro-life. I think this decision is best left up to the states and let the state legislatures make the decision on this. And based on the numbers of people and where they stand on this issue, I do see a way or a pathway for these types of medical abortions to proceed. But it's in the legal process now and that -- the judges and the courts are making this decision.

But ultimately, again, this is one of the many issues I think are best left up to elected officials at the state level. And it should not be adjudicated in the court.

Maria, we've got to go, but I'll give you the last word here before we go.

CARDONA: Again, I think this is Republicans digging their political graves. They're going against what the majority of the American people believe. Who are they to say what the FDA can and can't do?

I am touched by the pro-life sentiment about my life and the life of other women. But no, thank you. Stay out of my life. Stay out of my bedroom. Stay out of the room where I make decisions with my family and my doctor.

And the majority of the American people are with me. And they're going to be in a world of hurt, politically, once again, come the ballot box.

PHILLIP: All right, Alice Stewart and Maria Cardona, I know both of you know how to disagree courteously here on our program. Thank you very much.

And we'll be right back.

CARDONA: Thank you, Abby.

[13:48:54]

STEWART: Thanks, Abby.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:53:35]

PHILLIP: We're following new developments in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case against FOX News. At a public hearing today, the judge overseeing that case says that he has received death threats.

Joining me now is CNN senior media reporter, Oliver Darcy.

Oliver, a lot happening in this hearing. Tell us more it.

OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER: That's right. The judge disclosing that he has received death threats. And this came during a conversation about whether Dominion can talk about the death threats its employees received in the wake of the 2020 election, when lies were spread about the company. The judge ruled partially in Dominion's favor, saying, yes, they can talk about the death threats but want some wanted them to keep it vague and not going to certain specifics.

The judge also ruled in Dominion's favor on a couple of other issues, saying that, yes, they can bring up financials in terms of FOX News, calling economics relevant to this case.

And he also said that FOX News can't bring up broadcasts where they did accurately fact-check Trump's election lies saying -- I'll read to you -- said, "You can't absolve yourself of defamation by putting someone else on at a different time."

Now that said, the judge did rule in FOX News' favor on January 6th. FOX News does not want January 6th to come up during the trial. And the judge agreed, saying that might be for another court at another time, but not for this court, at this time.

And, Abby, I should say that this pretrial hearing really sets the stage for the actual trial starting very soon.

[13:55:01]

Jury selection is starting on Thursday and then the trial will get underway on Monday with opening arguments, unless both sides can somehow strike a settlement before the clock hits midnight.

PHILLIP: Yes, and it is possible still that that could happen, right? I mean, are you hearing any indications they might be considering it?

DARCY: It's certainly possible that it could happen. I'm not hearing any indications that it will happen. But of course, no one says they're going to settle until they actually do settle.

So we'll see what happens. It could happen at any moment before -- before Monday. And we'll be -- we'll be keeping an eye on it for it.

PHILLIP: And we know you will be watching all of it.

Oliver Darcy, always good to see you. Thank you.

And that does it for me. I'll be back here tomorrow. But don't go anywhere just yet. We'll have much more news right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)