Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump's GOP Rivals Defends Him As Indictment Starts To Take Shape; Russian Missile Strikes Port City Of Odessa; Ukraine's Defense Minister Predicts Ukraine Will Win The War; Trump Says It Would Be Very Dangerous If He Is Jailed; White House Agrees To Guardrails With Top Tech Firms; Florida A&M Suspends Football Over Unauthorized Video. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired July 23, 2023 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

UNKNOWN: The technology just isn't there right now. Now, as it relates to writers, I think they can more easily be replaced by artificial intelligence.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Oh, none of that good news either. Donnie O'Sullivan, thank you so much. Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Fredericka Whitfield. "CNN Newsroom" continues with Jim Acosta right now.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the "CNN Newsroom," I'm Jim Acosta in Washington. Good evening. The clock is ticking toward what could be an historic week when Donald Trump is potentially indicted for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Even the former president himself believes the indictment is coming. The question is when.

It would be Trump's third criminal indictment and a potential game changer for the battle for the GOP presidential nomination. But some of Trump's Republican challengers are shrugging off Trump's role in the January 6th insurrection. Among those questioning the case, former Vice President Mike Pence. Here he is being whisked to safety that day, if you remember this, as rioters chanted "Hang Mike Pence" after believing Trump's claim that Pence could overturn the election results. Here's what Pence said earlier today on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The president's words were reckless that day. I had no right to overturn the election, but while his words were reckless, based on what I know, I'm not yet convinced that they were criminal. President Trump was wrong on that day and he's still wrong in asserting that I had the right to overturn the election. But what his intentions were, and as you know, criminal charges have everything to do with intent, what the president's state of mind was. And I don't honestly know what his intention was that day, whether as he spoke to that crowd, as he tweeted during the riot itself. But for my part, from what I saw, as I've said, his actions were reckless. I believe that history will hold him accountable. I believe that Republican primary voters know that we need new leadership in this party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: I want to bring in one of the U.S. Capitol police officers caught up in the horrors of the January 6 attack, Officer Harry Dunn was in the heart of the battle as a member of the first responder unit. Also, Dunn, thanks for being here, really appreciate it. Great to see as always.

HARRY DUNN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE: Good to see you.

ACOSTA: Good to see you. More than 100 of your fellow officers were injured that day and you've been discussing in public the PTSD battle that you've had to deal with, you got a book coming out about it later on in the fall about this, but let's talk about what the former vice president was just saying there a few moments ago. What's your reaction to Mike Pence essentially giving Donald Trump a pass for what happened that day?

DUNN: Well, it's good to be back on with you.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

DUNN: I was a little encouraged by the former vice president's statements. I guess the bar is low considering what he had said in the past. At least he's coming out and saying that his actions were reckless. But yes, I do believe the voters should hold him accountable. But we also, in the court of law in the United States, we are a nation of law and order and nobody's above it and I believe he said that many times himself.

And for him to stop short of saying that the Justice Department should continue to proceed with the charges, any potential charges, I guess since none have been officially announced yet, for him to stop short of that is a little -- not a little, it's very disappointing.

ACOSTA: You're disappointed that he would say that?

DUNN: Yeah. I mean --

ACOSTA: He was up there on the Capitol the same day you were.

DUNN: I believe, actually in that interview also, Dana pressed him on, they were saying "Hang Mike Pence" and, you know, how would you not feel, you know, fear and how could you not want the person responsible for inciting and invoking that reaction in people, how could you not feel the desire to have that person held accountable besides people -- the voters in the ballot box?

ACOSTA: Yeah. And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis seems to be going even further and downplaying Trump's role in the attack on the Capitol. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RON DESANTIS, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It was not an insurrection. These are people that were there to attend a rally and then they were there to protest. Now, it devolved and it devolved into a riot, but the idea that this was a plan to somehow overthrow the government of the United States is not true. It ended up devolving, you know, in ways that was unfortunate of course, but to say that they were seditionists is just wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Actually, he's wrong there because members of the Oath Keepers were convicted on our charges of sedition. He was not there, obviously, you were. How do you respond to that.

DUNN: You know, actually, that, yeah, he's wrong. I was specifically involved in that case and I'm not going to talk much about it, but yes, the members of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys have been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

[17:05:02]

So, unless he's saying that the government was wrong, is the jury of their peers wrong? Unless he's saying that, then his statement is 100 percent false. I can understand him having an opinion and saying that not everybody there may have not been there to overthrow the government. You could have that opinion, that's fine. But to come out and say that it wasn't, then you're wrong, Mr. DeSantis.

ACOSTA: Yeah, and the target letter sent to Trump, I want to ask you about this, reportedly does not mention insurrection or sedition. And we should know, we don't know what ultimately will be in the charging documents if Trump is ultimately indicted. But would you be disappointed if Trump is simply charged with election interference or interfering with congressional action, that sort of thing, and not inciting the attack on the Capitol, those types of charges?

DUNN: Well, I don't want to get ahead of myself. I do want to wait until I see what actually is in the charging doc, even if it is one, you know. This is one of the times where we believe in what President Trump has said. You know, like he said a lot of stuff. Do we even know that that's official yet? And I think one of the things that the DOJ has said is they will do their talking through court filings. So, I'm kind of just going to err on the side of waiting.

But I guess it would be a little disappointing, just to answer your question, specifically because the individuals that were there on January 6th, they told us this is the reason why they were there is because the president told us to come there. So, short of their own words, I don't know the evidence. I don't want to speculate or anything like that because that's only going to lead to more disappointment if it isn't something that I am expecting, so.

ACOSTA: Yeah. And let me ask you this because I'm sure you saw this. Trump seemed to make a not so veiled when he -- asked about the possibility of Special Counsel Jack Smith sending him to prison. He said it would be, quote, "very dangerous." He also reposted something on Truth Social that said something along the lines of, if you have around with us, we're coming after you, that sort of thing. But he seems to be, again, implying that his followers are more

passionate than ever. They may act if something happens to him. After living through what took place on January 6th, how worrisome is that kind of rhetoric coming from him once again?

DUNN: Well, you can't take it lightly because it's already been proven that people will act. So, yeah, you have to take his words seriously. And I know I just said that, can we take his words seriously? But when it comes to that, it's already proven and shown that his supporters will take action. And we can't -- we can't just act like these individuals don't exist. There is an audience for Donald Trump. There is a large audience of people that support Donald Trump, but we just can't brush them aside as if their feelings and their beliefs don't matter.

Although we disagree with them, we can't brush them aside. But there is, under no circumstances, any room in this country for political violence, or any violence for that matter, but let alone from the former president, the leading candidate, anybody in political office. There's no room for that in this country.

ACOSTA: Does it surprise you that Trump is leading in the polls and cruising ahead of the rest of the field for this Republican nomination?

DUNN: Nothing surprises me with him anymore. Nothing. No, I'm not -- I'm not surprised. I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised.

ACOSTA: You've got a book coming out this fall. I know you're going to do a whole book rollout and everything, I don't want to interfere with that, but tell us a little bit about what you plan to be saying in this book? What's the story you're trying to tell us.

DUNN: No, it's just -- it's called "Standing My Ground" and basically what I'm doing now, I'm not going to shut up about January six especially when there's so many people on the other specifically the two individuals, DeSantis, Mike Pence, and even Donald Trump. They are trying to downplay it and tell their individuals, their followers, their supporters that it wasn't what happened and it wasn't as bad as what happened. And I'm going to keep on fighting to make sure that never happens.

ACOSTA: And how much time are you spending up on the Hill these days? Are you still --

DUNN: Every day.

ACOSTA: You're up there every day?

DUNN: Every day.

ACOSTA: And when these -- some of these Republican lawmakers who have, you know, downplayed what took place on January 6th saying it was tourists and they were just walking around the Capitol and that kind of stuff, did they look you in the eye when you cross paths with them up on the Hill? Did they say hello to you? Did they -- what -- DUNN: You know, I --

ACOSTA: What is that like to see some of these same lawmakers who have downplayed what took place and lied about what took place up there?

DUNN: I'll say that when I'm on the Hill, I'm very focused on creating a safe environment for those individuals --

ACOSTA: You're doing your job.

DUNN: -- to do their job. And that's where I leave it there. You know, I don't try to get too involved when I feel that I can't do my job. So, I, you know, everything that I'm doing now is in my personal capacity and me just as an American and as a victim of the attacks of January 6th. When I'm up there at my job, doing my job, that's what I'm focused on, creating a safe environment.

[17:10:01]

No matter who they are, Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter.

ACOSTA: And do you think it could happen again?

DUNN: Yeah, there's been no deterrents put in place. Well, that's not entirely accurate. There have been some deterrents that have been put in place. But I mean, just look at, like you just said, Donald Trump's last words about it's dangerous to go down this route. So, yeah, it could happen again because you have a group of individuals, like you have an audience for him and for what happened on January 6th. So, yeah, I believe it can happen again.

ACOSTA: All right. Officer Dunn, great to see you.

DUNN: Thank you.

ACOSTA: Thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

DUNN: Thanks for having me on.

ACOSTA: Good luck with the book. We'll have you back again soon.

DUNN: Thanks.

ACOSTA: Thanks so much. All right. In the meantime, Ukraine's defense minister tells CNN he expects his country to join NATO not if, but when it pushes back Russian invaders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLEKSII REZNIKOV, UKRANIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: Ukrainians proved that we have a real combat experience how to deter Russians, to defeat them, to beat them and win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Much more from that exclusive interview next. And later, the Justice Department's plan to force Texas to remove new

barriers along the border with Mexico.

Plus, the impact of a new agreement regulating artificial intelligence. We'll talk about that as well. You're live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

ACOSTA: Russia's relentless assault on the Ukrainian port city of Odessa now apparently zeroing in on protected cultural landmarks. Moscow's fifth straight night of bombing, killing at least one person, injuring several others and heavily damaging the city's largest church building, the Transfiguration Cathedral. The historic church dates back to the late 18th century. It was destroyed by the Soviets under Stalin and rebuilt in the 1990s when Ukraine gained its independence. Officials say the cathedral was one of at least 25 architectural monuments the Russians targeted overnight.

CNN's senior national security correspondent Alex Marquardt is in Kyiv with the latest. Alex, what sort of reaction are you getting from Ukraine on this?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, fury, sadness, calls for more air defenses. We're seeing global condemnation. We're seeing outrage from UNESCO because so much of the damage today was in that historic downtown, which is a UNESCO World Heritage site. As you noted, five different days of strikes against Odessa. We spent most of the past week there. They were just incredibly intense strikes, starting not long after Russia pulled out of that grain deal that had been in place for the past year.

And in that past year, Odessa was relatively unscathed. It was not attacked in any way like this. And then as soon as Russia pulled out, they started this relentless bombing over the past week. Some 25 different architectural monuments were damaged today according to a local military official. At least one person was killed, a security guard who was at one of those historic sites. President Zelenskyy says that more air defenses are needed from the allies. He says that what is needed is a full-fledged sky shield, as he put it.

And that is what he says would be the only way to defeat Russian terror. Zelenskyy is not the only Ukrainian official calling for more air defenses. We've heard this from a lot of the top Ukrainian officials, including the defense minister, Oleksii Reznikov, who, Jim, we sat down with for an exclusive TV interview this weekend. We talked about a whole range of things. But we also talked specifically and at length about NATO and Ukrainian membership in NATO.

We know that there was great frustration going into the recent NATO summit by Ukraine that they weren't being given a concrete timeline for when they might join NATO. That's something that President Zelenskyy called absurd. But Defense Minister Reznikov does have a specific date that he told me for when Ukraine might become a NATO member. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REZNIKOV: It's absolutely understandable that it will be a political decision. After then, we will win this war because during this war, we have no options to have unanimous voting because Article Number 5 and some countries will be reluctant. But after the victory, after then we will win this war, it will be in the interest of NATO because we became a real eastern shield of NATO or eastern shield of Europe.

Ukrainians proved that we have a real combat experience how to deter Russians, to defeat them, to beat them and win using NATO standard weaponry. So, how many arguments they need more?

MARQUARDT: Why do you think the United States is not saying the day after this war is over, Ukraine will be a member of NATO?

REZNIKOV: I think it's not necessary. So, we will continue providing our reforms during this wartime also, but we will continue our reforms. So, it means that it will be after one day or two weeks. But my perception, next year will be summit in Washington, D.C. Seventy- five years history of these allies. Who knows, maybe it will be a very important day for Ukraine.

MARQUARDT: You might expect to join NATO in a year's time?

REZNIKOV: It's just -- it's just my forecast.

MARQUARDT: Do you think the war will be won by next summer?

REZNIKOV: Yeah. And we will win this war.

(END OF VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: So, a lot of confidence there by the defense minister Oleksii Reznikov. One thing he says are needed to win this war; those F-16 jets made by the U.S. He says there's now what he calls an F-16 coalition of Ukraine and 11 other countries, which he has nicknamed Oceans 11.

[17:20:04]

The training for Ukrainian pilots is due to start next month, he tells us. It will take place in Denmark, the Netherlands, maybe the U.K. and Poland as well. Not just pilots, Jim, but technicians and engineers as well. As for when we might actually see those F-16s on the battlefield, he says that training takes at least six months, so it would be early next year. In fact, in the spring, he believes that those F-16s would be up in the sky and over the battlefield.

And then finally, I did ask him if he thought that the counteroffensive would be going better than it currently is if they had the F-16s now, and he told me certainly. Jim?

ACOSTA: All right, Alex Marquardt, great interview. Thank you very much. And you'll be able to see a lot more of Alex's exclusive TV interview with Ukraine's defense minister throughout the day tomorrow on CNN. So be on the lookout for that. Alex, thanks so much. Stay safe.

Let's continue the conversation now with CNN military analyst and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, retired General Wesley Clark. General Clark, great to see you. Your reaction to what Alex heard from the Ukrainian defense minister predicting victory by next summer, what'd you think?

WESLEY CLARK, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I hope it's true, but it depends on -- there's a lot of factors in this. Number one, it's how much more assistance can we give them? We know they're short of ammunition right now. That's why we gave them the ICM's, DPICM's. But can we get enough for them? Does that make up for it? We know they need long range fires. We won't give them the RE tactical missile system that's been discussed. There was another headline today in "The New York Times" saying not going to happen anytime soon.

They need that. They need it as a reserve. They need it to strike deep. When are the F-16s going to come in? And what about the mine clearing equipment and the electronic warfare equipment? Russia's not standing still on this, Jim. There's no indication that President Putin has said, well, that's it. You know, let the offensive sort of burn itself out and don't, you know, we'll be happy to take our half of Ukraine. He's not saying that.

Instead, he's put the Wagner group in Belarus. They're threatening Poland, or they could come in the back door and threaten Kyiv. And the Poles are certainly taking this very seriously, as are the Lithuanians. So, this is far from settled. I know that President Biden said that Putin's lost, but that's cheerleading talk. We know that, and we have to keep up morale and we're doing okay on this, but there's a long way to go between now and next summer.

I hope Minister Reznikov is absolutely right. But to win, the Ukrainians have got to pierce that Russian defensive shield. They've got to get through the minefields. They've got to at least threaten Crimea. They've got to hold off the offensive that the Russians are staging in the Northeast. And we've got to hold the Wagner Group at risk. And they've got to stay out of the fight. Putin has a lot of tricks left. It's not over.

ACOSTA: No, and there's a lot of time between now and next summer. A lot can happen. But to your point that you were just making, General Clark, as you know, President Zelenskyy says Ukraine needs better air defenses, specifically those F-16 fighter jets. Earlier, our colleague, Fareed Zakaria asked Secretary of State Tony Blinken why the U.S. has not granted that request. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Our military leaders are using their best expertise possible to help determine what it is that can be most effective for the Ukrainians, how quickly can it be deployed, how effectively can they use it. That will continue and the process on the F-16s is moving. FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, CNN'S FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: Which means they will

get F-16s.

BLINKEN: Well, look, I believe that they will and the important focus is on making sure that when they do, they're properly trained, they're able to maintain the planes and use them in a smart way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: What do you think General Clark, has the Pentagon been too hesitant here? Have they just waited too long to get to this point?

CLARK: I have the greatest respect for Secretary Austin and General Milley and for Secretary Blinken. So, I don't want this to be taken personally. But there's kind of a dipsy-doodle going here. The president doesn't want to take the risk of really pushing Putin because of the nuclear threat. And maybe there are other reasons. There's a focus on China and the Pentagon budget is oriented toward China.

But you know, the military is sort of following the political guidance. In 1973, when President Nixon said, get TOW missiles and defensive stuff to Israel right away, it took 48 hours. If President Biden were to say to the Pentagon right now, I want the ATACMS missiles in Ukraine next week, there would be ATCMS missiles in Ukraine next week. Paperwork would follow. It could be done.

[17:25:00]

So, there's a measure here that I -- when I look at the administration, I think they sort of feel like, let's end this thing. Let's get it over with. Let's get a negotiated settlement. We'll back the Ukrainians as long as they want to continue to fight. Little nervous about Crimea. What if they go into Crimea and Putin gets an escalation? So maybe the thing will just sort of just wear down and there'll be a peace conference over the winter and then we can bring Ukraine in and there's no war.

That's sort of the what we expect some people inside are maybe saying. Ukrainians are not saying that. They want their country back. And the Europeans are not saying this. They are increasingly aware of the profound threat posed by President Putin. And in the last NATO summit, it was actually the United States which was holding back on the Europeans, saying, let's get them in, let's get them in, Ukraine. The U.S. says, well, not so fast, because it's kind of a bargaining chip with Putin. It might be something that you could work with if you're doing negotiations. You don't quite see how this war is going to end.

But look, the bottom line is we're in a conflict with Russia. Russia knows it. We don't quite say it. We've got sanctions on. We're getting a lot of military assistance to the Ukrainians. We're training them. We're coaching them. NATOs on guard and preparing its defenses with a new strategic plan. This is very, very serious. And the -- in military terms, Jim, when you're fighting, you don't go for a narrow win. A 62- 61 victory with a lot of casualties, that's not so good. We'd like to win 100 to 10, not 62 to 61. So, there's a lot of other resources that could be put in on behalf of

Ukraine. We should be doing it. We should be doing it rapidly while they've got a little bit of momentum on the counteroffensive. We shouldn't be pacing things out if you're asking my opinion but that's it.

ACOSTA: All right. All right General Wesley Clark that's why we wanted your opinion and I'm sure we'll get it again very soon. Thanks so much. Really appreciate it. All right, good talking to you.

Former President Donald Trump is issuing a dire warning of what might happen if he goes to jail. What he's saying and what other Republicans think about that. We'll talk live with Republican Congressman Tim Burchett. He's there standing by in his home in Tennessee. We'll talk in just a few moments. You're live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:29:59]

ACOSTA: As the legal net tightens around Donald Trump, he is reacting unsurprisingly with threats about how his passionate supporters might react. He warns it could be very dangerous, his words, if he winds up jailed over his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

Earlier today on CNN, Trump's former vice president and 2024 political rival Mike Pence downplayed that kind of rhetoric.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have more confidence in the American people than that. I hear -- I hear my former running mate's frustration in his voice. But -- but I'm sure the American people will respond in our movement in a way that will express, as they have every right to, under the First Amendment, to express concerns that they have about what they perceive to be unequal treatment of the law. But I'm not concerned about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Tennessee Republican Congressman Tim Burchett joins us now. Congressman, great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it. If Trump is charged, convicted, sentenced to jail, what do you think might happen?

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): I don't think there'll be riots. I think you'll have limited dissatisfaction with it, but I honestly just don't see it. I think this country is, and I know the conservative movement is just really tired of burning the country down and seeing it burn down. All over we went through a summer of that with Black Lives Matters and then everything else. I just don't think it's going to happen. I think it's clickbait and I think the American public knows better.

ACOSTA: You think Trump should be making threats like that, saying it would be very dangerous if he ends up in jail? BURCHETT: Of course not. Of course not. That's just Trump being Trump, though. You know, he's -- he's got that New York Roboto (ph) and I -- you know, I'm -- I guess you could make a career out of saying things you wish that he hadn't said, but it's just the reality of where we're at every time he says that his numbers go up. So, you know, it's not the way it is for me. I'll tell you that if I was --

(LAUGHTER)

You know -- you know East Tennessee better than most. My numbers would be declining right now.

ACOSTA: Yeah, but why aren't more Republicans calling him out and saying, don't do that? I mean, the last time he was whipping things up like this, we had an attack on the Capitol. Shouldn't he just knock it off?

BURCHETT: Yeah. I think that'd be the best -- the best solution for all of us, but that's not Trump, and you know it and I know it. If he was quiet about it all, we wouldn't be talking about it. His numbers wouldn't be going up again. And so, it's just him being him.

I wish -- I wish the heck they wouldn't -- he wouldn't do it. And I wish when he said it, people wouldn't publicize it. So -- but I didn't hear him say it. I don't know what context it was in. I assume I'd take you at your word though. I really do. And honestly, I would probably choose my words a little different.

[17:35:00]

ACOSTA: And as you know, we were expecting an indictment in this case any time now. That will be Trump's third. After the last one in the classified documents investigation, you call for the Justice Department to be defunded. Do you still feel that way?

BURCHETT: Yeah.

ACOSTA: Don't we need a Justice Department?

BURCHETT: I think at certain levels, we do. But I think what has happened, Jim, is, as you've seen, I mean, the Steele dossier for instance, it wasn't documented or anything.

And now we have these latest reports coming out showing over $10 million in payout bribery, if you will, to Hunter Biden and another Biden. And they -- those two are technically not documented but yet nobody seems to pay those any attention. But Trump was impeached with the last ones that weren't.

So, I just -- I think the Justice Department is kind of a pick and choose right now. And I think that's why when you see the Oversight Committee when most of the Democrats, instead of reviewing what was going on before you, those well -- those -- those gentlemen that came forward, the whistleblowers, very bravely came forward.

That's why they weren't -- the Democrats weren't attacking them because they knew their credentials were impeccable, and they knew at least one of them was a Democrat.

So -- and that's why they chose to direct their distaste towards Trump, because it's always -- it's good for the base. It sells memberships but, frankly, it doesn't do much for me.

ACOSTA: And in your view, has Trump done anything wrong in either the classified documents case or his attempts to overturn the 2020 election?

BURCHETT: Of course, I'm not a legal expert, I'm definitely not a lawyer, but from what I've seen, I mean, the circumstantial evidence, it's just that circumstantial evidence. And again, a steel dossier, unproven document, yet it was run, it was clearly politically- motivated and it was proven.

And now, we have -- we have informants coming forward telling us that these things that -- you know, that they accused Trump of are things that the Biden family was obviously guilty of. And now --

ACOSTA: Well --

BURCHETT: -- we are trying to find out if they --

ACOSTA: -- but it's not circumstantial evidence. Yeah, but in the documents case, it isn't circumstantial evidence that he had the documents and he was asked to give the documents back and he refused to return the documents.

BURCHETT: Oh, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

BURCHETT: No, yeah.

ACOSTA: I mean, he has admitted it.

BURCHETT: Yeah, you're correct there. You're correct there. I apologize there. No, I thought you'd done that, the Steele dossier.

ACOSTA: And he did try to overturn the election on January 6th.

BURCHETT: Yeah, absolutely, he should. Yeah, absolutely. And I actually, you know, I had discussions with leadership and others, and I've called for a different scenario for those type of documents. I don't think that they should ever be leave to the hands of the bureaucrats. I think they ought to be assigned to somebody.

And then when they're finished reading them, as is with me, when I go into the SCIF, I'm assigned a person, you know, like I say, it's James Bond, you take your cell phone off, you take your Fitbit. I don't carry a Fitbit, but anything else, pager, whatever, anything electronic device, you have a watch, what have you, and you have to leave it outside. And literally, there's somebody in there with those documents that watches you while you read over those documents.

And I feel like that ought to be the way -- that ought to be the way that they handle these things with the White House. They should never -- because they just keep going back. They keep finding them. They found them back, you know, Obama and then Clinton, of course. The Bushes have turned over documents after they've gotten out of office.

ACOSTA: Sure. But other folks have had documents but they've returned them. When they've been asked, they've returned them. Donald Trump refused to do that.

BURCHETT: Again, yeah.

ACOSTA: And I guess --

BURCHETT: Yeah.

ACOSTA: I guess my point is and where I'm going with this is that if he does these things and most folks can agree that it was wrong for him to retain the documents, refuse to give them back, a lot of people believe it was wrong for him to try to overturn the election results when it was clear --

BURCHETT: Yeah, I don't have a problem. I don't have a problem.

ACOSTA: But shouldn't he be punished for that? If he did bad things, shouldn't he be punished like anybody else?

BURCHETT: I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with saying that he shouldn't, but at what level was he doing it to disseminate that secret documents to foreign -- to our enemies? What was he doing? What was the intent there? Was the intent just to be -- just to be Trump and say, I'm not going to turn them back, you can't have them kind of thing? I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous. He should have returned them in the beginning.

ACOSTA: But do you think he should be punished? I guess that --

BURCHETT: -- kept them.

ACOSTA: What do you think?

BURCHETT: I don't know at what level.

ACOSTA: You're usually pretty good at giving a straight answer on this.

BURCHETT: I don't -- I don't see it as a major -- as a major thing. If he disseminated the information to some of our enemies, throw the book at him, put him in jail, cuff him and stuff him.

[17:39:57]

But if he just kept him there at his place and we don't have any evidence that anybody else could do us harm had saw him. And two, the reality is, Jim, once those documents are printed and they're out there, It's not very long. I mean, I've been in the SCIF and I've walked out and heard your colleagues from your state, from CNN, within 15 minutes talking about what was secret and what was discussed in the SCIF --

(CROSSTALK)

-- and I see that.

ACOSTA: But let me ask you something else.

BURCHETT: You have pretty good sources. You're playing yourself down, Jim. You're pretty -- you're a pretty influential guy. You've got some pretty good sources.

ACOSTA: But what about this talk about expunging the impeachment? You don't think that that is even possible. How would you do that?

BURCHETT: I don't see that happening. That's another question. You know, Speaker McCarthy -- apparently, I saw the reports. I saw that ABC jumped on it.

ACOSTA: Do you buy that?

BURCHETT: I don't. You know, I've heard -- I've heard some of our members. I've heard Marjorie Taylor Green and some of the other members are moving something forward. But, you know, legally, I don't know how you would do that. I've never -- I've never heard of that even being a possibility. Now --

(CROSSTALK)

No, no. And it's -- you know, I've heard the legal minds argue even over if a president can pardon himself. So, I don't know what the scenario there would be. I think that's up to the constitutionalists. I'm obviously not -- I'm not very learned in the legal world although I've spent most of my life passing laws.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

BURCHETT: A lot of times, I have to ask the lawyers exactly what's going on with that. So, go ahead. I'm sorry.

ACOSTA: Now, quick final question. I want to talk about a hearing that the House Foreign Affairs Committee is holding this week about the existence of UFOs or as they're now called UAPs. I don't know why we renamed them, but now they're UAPs, Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. You said you're 100% sold on this.

BURCHETT: Yes, sir, I am. I'm actually -- it's actually oversight, not foreign affairs.

ACOSTA: Okay. Sorry.

BURCHETT: Sorry, I corrected you. I know that's the wrong thing to do. No, but it's -- yeah. It's the 26th this Wednesday at 10 o'clock and we're having a full hearing. We've got three expert witnesses, pilots, military decorated folks. They're going to come and tell us some of this stuff. You know, I'm not going to bring in a flying saucer and little green men, but I think it's important to show. And you and the media, I would hope you all would question us about transparency.

You know, it's over 60 years since the Kennedy assassination. Who in the world is even alive that was mentioned in any of that stuff? I don't care about embarrassing the CIA or whoever.

And in this case, the Pentagon has stonewalled us from day one. They've -- you know, we've gone down to Florida, gone to see whatever we were supposed to see. We were turned away. And it was just -- it's just a fistfight the whole way. I mean, from even having the press conference. They tried to stick us in this little room and, you know, the whole staff and everybody.

I would hope you all would start looking at some of the congressional leaders who stonewall this, looking at their financial disclosures and asking them, say, why are these corporations contributing to you and why are you trying to keep the truth away from the American public? I sell a T-shirt on my website. It says, more people believe in UFOs than believe in Congress. And it's the truth. Over 57% of the population believes something else is out there.

ACOSTA: All right. Well, it's hard to blame them. Congressman, thanks very much for your time. We appreciate it.

(LAUGHTER)

BURCHETT: Always a pleasure, Jim. Thank you. And remember, in the Berkshire (ph) administration, you'll be invited to the White House.

ACOSTA: All right. I'll hold you to that. All right. Thanks so much. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: White House is making some progress on regulating the rapidly expanding field of artificial intelligence or AI. Seven of the world's largest companies working in AI agreed Friday to a number of guardrails around the development and release of the technology. Those measures include testing systems before they're released to the public, investing in cybersecurity for systems that aren't yet released, and a watermarking system for content generated by AI.

CNN's Jon Sarlin joins us now. John, what are some of the major takeaways from this agreement? Some of this is -- they're policing themselves, I guess.

JON SARLIN, CNN BUSINESS PRODUCER: That's right. Jim, the White House tells my colleague, Brian Fung (ph), that this is a first step, it's a bridge to where we need to go. Now, what is this first step? It's a voluntary agreement between seven companies, including the largest tech companies in the world like Meta, Amazon, and Facebook, and then startups like Open AI who are agreeing to a voluntary set of frameworks. Most notably, they're agreeing for external experts to test their products for safety before they reach market.

This is something called red teaming. Red teaming is where researchers go in and essentially act as villains, bad faith actors to try to break these products. This is something that these companies do internally. But with this agreement, they're saying they'll let external researchers do the same.

Now -- but that being said, this is a voluntary agreement. There's a lot we don't know. It doesn't have substantive teeth. Who are those external researchers? What are the standards that they will uphold? Will they have, say, a veto power if they find something that they don't like? We don't know. As the White House says, this is a first step.

Also, notably, the companies have agreed to try to make a watermarking system to identify AI audio and images. You know, we've seen a raft of AI images that are really only at this point we're able to detect with our eyes and our ears whether something is an AI audio or AI video.

Notably though, they don't agree to, in this agreement, there's nothing on text. Open AI obviously is chat GPT. We've seen in schools and universities, students use chat GPT to create essays and there is no real good way to identify that this agreement with the White House does not include text.

Now, what are the next steps? The White House says they're prepping executive action later this summer. There's a whole host of bipartisan bills being written. It's unclear which ones the White House will support.

[17:49:59]

And then the FTC has signaled they are taking an aggressive approach to AI. It has been reported that they are identifying that they are investigating open AI. So, right now, a first step, but many more to come.

ACOSTA: Yeah, it's a big subject. We'll definitely be talking about it well into the future here on this program. Sure, on a lot of programs because -- I mean, this is has just started to touch every part of our lives.

Our Jon Sarlin, thanks so much. Really appreciate it. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: In Canada, boats are replacing vehicles in the streets of Bedford, Nova Scotia. Extreme flooding there is forcing evacuations as crews search for four missing people. [17:55:01]

Two of the missing are children. Officials say three months-worth of rain all in one day inundated streets across the province. Nova Scotia is now under a state of emergency. The storms have compromised bridges and roads there. At least one bridge is known to have collapsed.

Florida A&M University is suspending all football-related activities after this rap music video that features some of the team's players filmed without permission in a football locker room and with participants wearing Florida A&M orange and green apparel.

Here is CNN's sports correspondent Carolyn Manno with more on this suspension.

CAROLYN MANNO, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, this is obviously not what any college football program wants just over a month away from the start of their season. Right now, an internal investigation is underway to determine not only who authorized the use of the school's athletic facility but also who gave the okay to use team apparel in this video that might actually violate licensing agreements currently in place with the school.

Florida A&M University head football coach Willie Simmons announced that the school has suspended all football-related activities until further notice after this unauthorized music video containing explicit language was shot inside the team's locker room.

Now, he said the video is not consistent with the school's core values. He added in a statement on Twitter that it is a privilege to wear the orange and green and that the school's young men have failed to live up to the standards set as a football program.

Simmons didn't name the musician who appeared in the video. But on Friday, rapper Real Boston Richey posted a music video showing him wearing Florida A&M gear inside what certainly appears to be the team's locker room.

CNN has reached to the Rattlers for comment on the matter. The Rattlers are scheduled to open the 2023 season against the Jackson State Tigers on September 3rd. Jim?

ACOSTA: All right, thank you so much. And this could be the week that Donald Trump is indicted for his actions on January 6th. The latest, next. Plus, how former Vice President Mike Pence is defending what the then president said on that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PENCE: Well, his words were reckless. Based on what I know, I'm not yet convinced that they were criminal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [18:00:00]