Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Biden Speaks About Death Of Alexey Navalny And The Fate Of Ukraine Aid In Congress; Alexey Navalny's Family Demands The Return Of His Body; Interview With Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA); Sources: Russia Attempting To Develop Nuclear Space Weapon; Global Outrage Grows Over Death Of Putin Critic Alexey Navalny; Trump's Fortune Take Major Hit In NY Civil Judgement; Basketball's Best Gather For NBA All-Star Weekend. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 17, 2024 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:42]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

Just moments ago, President Biden speaking to reporters about the death of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny and aid to Ukraine that is currently held up on Capitol Hill.

Let's listen to what the president had to say just a few moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I spoke to Zelenskyy this afternoon to let him know that I was confident we're going to get that money to keep their country from being overrun by Russia.

You know, there's so much at stake. I learned -- I watched the television the other night and the Republicans (INAUDIBLE) saying I've never explained to American people why NATO is so important, NATO is critical to our survival. If NATO was (INAUDIBLE) we have never been able to avoid a European conflict. As long as there's NATO we'll have allies. Allies that are competent and have defended us.

And by the way, the only time Article 5 has been invoked is when we were attacked on 9/11. So the idea that were going to walk away from Ukraine, the idea that we're going to let NATO begin to split is totally against the interests of the United States of America and it's against our word, we've given them since.

So it's about time we make sure that Congress come home and pass the legislation funding NATO. Its critical. Our security depends on NATO.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) that there isn't another city that falls right after the conference happened --

BIDEN: I'm not. I'm not. No one can be. Look, the Ukrainian people have fought so bravely and heroically.

They've put so much on the line. The idea that now they're running out of ammunition, and we walk away. I find it absurd and find it unethical, I find it just contrary to everything we are as a country.

So I'm going to fight until we get them ammunition they need and the capacity they need.

Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there anything else about what led to Navalny's death, sir?

BIDEN: I haven't -- I've heard several things. I haven't had it confirmed, but the fact of the matter is Putin is responsible? Whether he ordered it, he is responsible for the circumstances that that man had. And he is -- it's a reflection of who he is. And it just cannot be tolerated.

I said there would be a price to pay. He is paying a price already. Since 2000 when I made that statement, Russians have had sanctions imposed on them. And there are a whole range of other impacts.

Tut this is -- this is -- look, the idea that after 70 years we have a NATO alliance that has kept the peace basically in Europe, kept us out of -- the idea of transatlantic alliance is not overwhelmingly in our interest is bizarre. Ian only be -- I just I don't understand.

I don't understand their complete lack of knowledge of history or their lack of responsible. Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: There's President Biden in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware just a few moments ago commenting on the death of Alexey Navalny saying Vladimir Putin is responsible. And chastising Congress once again for failing to deliver on aid Ukraine as the Ukrainians are giving up ground to the Russians now as they are running out of ammunition.

You heard the president blasting that just a few moments ago to reporters.

I want to bring in our White House correspondent Priscilla Alvarez, who is with me here in the studio. Priscilla, I mean we don't typically hear from the president going in and out of church. It happens every so often.

But he is fired up about this issue of this funding being held up for Ukraine. I have not seen him this feisty on a subject for some time now.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: And this after we heard from him yesterday, where he also had fiery remarks about getting these funds to Ukraine. And the theme of the week, Jim, has really been the U.S. trying to reassert its leadership on the world stage, both with reassuring allies that the U.S. will stand by them after former president Donald Trump suggested that he, or at least said that he would abandon NATO allies.

[17:04:52]

ALVAREZ: And then also trying to reassure them that they'll also get those funds to Ukraine after Congress left for recess without moving forward on those $60 billion for Ukraine.

And so this was a moment where the president, again is trying -- is leaning in and saying Republicans have to come together. House Republicans and move forward these $60 billion, which by the way, the White House asked for back in October. But the infighting in Congress has stalled this from moving forward.

And there was a notable moment that happened in the early hours of today, and that is that Ukraine had to withdraw from Avdiivka. And that essentially cedes ground to Russia.

And it is those moments that U.S. officials have been worried about. And they say, these are the consequences of not giving them the aid they're looking for.

And the president very explicitly directly correlating the inaction in Congress to this withdrawal in Ukraine. And so all of it comes to the point that the president was making there, which is they need to move forward on this money, even though Congress is out for the next two weeks.

And also going on to say that it's critical and our security depends on it. That's been the message from the beginning. This isn't just about security for Ukraine. The president is tying it directly to U.S. national security and not ceding any ground to Russia. We heard it from the vice president this morning. We heard it again from the president just now.

ACOSTA: Yes, Congress skips town, Putin takes another town -- that's what's happening right now when it comes to Ukraine.

All right. Priscilla, thank you very much.

In the meantime, you heard President Biden mention the death of opposition leader Alexey Navalny. CNN chief international security correspondent Nick Paton Walsh has more on the international fury that has followed Navalny's death.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Jim, the death of Navalny really focusing minds here on the imminent threat that Moscow poses. More details emerging on the aftermath of Navalny's death.

His mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya having gone to IK-3, a prison colony known as Polar Wolf in the Arctic Circle, trying to get more details. Apparently according to Navalny's team, she'd got a telegram confirming the death, was told the body had been transferred to a morgue in a nearby town, went there and the body, she was told, wasn't there.

So still real lack of clarity as to how this happened and Navalny's team suggesting that Russian investigations now were essentially trying to obfuscate this entire situation.

While there is an immediate evidence suggesting that the Kremlin ordered a murder here as a very, most generous interpretation, they failed to keep a man in very frail health alive who was in their custody and their duty of care.

And that I think is possibly the fuel behind statements we continue to hear from western leaders, most recently U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, saying this is another example of the extraordinary brutality of the Putin regime.

And Navalny's death has been a backdrop here, reminding European powers, perhaps being concerned this conference might be about trying to reassure each other and get reassurances from the U.S. of their commitment to the NATO alliance. Instead now the Russian threat in full view.

And that perhaps assisted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his speech today, trying to shore up assistance from the West essentially telling European powers that what we're facing in Ukraine, if Putin wins is what you're going to likely face in the days ahead. And reminding them that commitment to each other in NATO may well be something that Europe has to honor without U.S. assistance in the future.

Zelenskyy also too facing the loss of a key town in the east, announced this morning that Avdiivka had essentially fallen because Ukrainian forces were going to pull out of it. Yet another sign of Russia's commitment to throw thousands of lives to take a town of minimal strategic importance.

Zelenskyy said that Ukraine had lost one soldier for every seven Russia had lost. Now that might be a sign, you might argue of superior tactics, but it's also a sign of how many lives Russia is willing to callously throw at objectives like that.

So already the slowdown in Western aid here another topic addressed by Vice President Kamala Harris having an impact on the front lines. They need that $60 billion fast.

Essentially Zelenskyy has been begging for months now, and we're beginning to see a real impact on the front lines, now Russia gaining ground, Jim.

ACOSTA: All righ.t Nick, thank you.

Let's discuss all this and more now with Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. He's a member of the House Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees. Congressman, good to see you. Thanks so much for being here.

I want to get your reaction to the death of Alexey Navalny, what we just heard from the president say -- say there, and what are the consequences of Congress leaving town without sending more aid to Ukraine?

The Republican House Speaker, Mike Johnson, essentially tabling this, freezing it for now.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): The consequences are dire. It's irresponsible to leave Washington when Ukraine funding, when border security, when Israel and humanitarian aid for Gaza and even helping Taiwan all hangs in the balance.

[17:09:50]

SWALWELL: And by the way, that is all our national security interests. It's cheaper to help these countries abroad with their troops on the frontlines than having to send ours because the fight will come to us.

But Jim, I'll just, you know, take a step back, you know, as a father, as somebody who works in public service, it's heartbreaking to see, you know, this murder of Navalny.

He also was a father. He is a husband. He was an opposition leader, and he was killed by Vladimir Putin and it was Putin who put him in jail.

But let's be real. Donald Trump and his MAGA accomplices gave Putin the greenlight.

ACOSTA: And Congressman, I mean is there a need to disentangle some of the funding that is being battered around up on Capitol Hill. There has been so much talk of combining aid with aid -- the aid too Ukraine, with aid to Israel, aid to Taiwan, funding for security down on the border.

Is that getting in the way of getting aid to Ukraine. Is it time to perhaps put together a piece of legislation that just takes care of Ukraine and then deals with -- you can deal with the rest of the stuff later.

SWALWELL: Yes. I'm all for doing that, Jim, because that is the most urgent and important conflict that is taking place right now. And Ukraine's security is our security.

And I just also just want to step back a little bit, Jim, and think about what message is being sent to Vladimir Putin and it's not a coincidence that in the same week that Mike Johnson rejects the Senate Ukraine aid package and Donald Trump invites Russia to invade NATO and the journalist Tucker Carlson interviews Putin and doesn't ask him about Navalny.

It's not a coincidence that Putin would use this window of opportunity to move and kill Navalny. So he sees green lights right now from the West to move farther into Ukraine, to ratchet it up. Not just as rhetoric, but you know, the brutal means to carry out this invasion.

ACOSTA: And you heard the president say just a few moments ago that he did recall the moment when he did say that there would be a price to pay for Vladimir Putin if Alexey Navalny were to die in prison, if he were to be killed.

And the president was asked about this just a few moments ago when he was asked about this earlier, just this past week, and he did indicate that Russia is paying a price for what they're doing in Ukraine right now.

But should something additional take place, should there be further sanctions? What more could be done to punish Vladimir Putin and Russia for Navalny's death.

SWALWELL: We should give Ukraine jets. We should allow them, you know, to defend their skies because right now the fact that the Kyiv economy can hum along and that people, you know, go to cafes, they go to their jobs, they pray in church. That contributes to their economy and their ability to fund this war.

But if they are constantly living in bomb shelters because more and more Russian rockets are falling on their cities, then they can't do that. And it also degrades their morale.

So that's the weapon system that they need the most and they're asking for the most. But the president can only go as far as a soft on Russia, Congress, and because of Donald Trump, Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, is soft on Russia and so it's time to step up. It's time to recognize that this fight is coming to us and it's cheaper to fight it now. And it's a moral imperative for us to fight and fund it now.

ACOSTA: If this aid Ukraine is, is held up indefinitely and Ukraine runs out of ammunition or begins to run out of ammunition or a way where we're seeing other pieces of Ukraine fall into Russian hands, would Ukrainian blood be on the hands of Congress in a situation like that?

SWALWELL: Ukrainian blood would be on the hands of Donald Trump and everyone in Congress who takes their orders from him.

ACOSTA: And Congressman, I want to ask you about a former FBI informant who was charged this week with lying about President Biden and his son, Hunter. You've heard about this case. The allegations made by this informant were incorporated into the Republican effort to impeach the president.

Does this unravel that case now. What should happen to that case?

SWALWELL: It's been unraveling Jim, and it's a comedy of errors from Jim Comer and, you know, Jim Jordan. But I've said all along that, you know, as Democrats, we have to play offense.

And we've tried to play this cute game where we say well Hunter Biden has problems, but his dad does not. Well, let me tell you this. The fish rots from the head down. And the Republicans have not been able to prove a single thing about all the conduct that they're alleging around Hunter Biden.

[17:14:48]

SWALWELL: So we shouldn't be conceding that any of that, what they're alleging with Russians, with Burisma, et cetera is true. And now were finding out that it's been all made up and the Republicans are relying on it.

So I would say, you know, we have to first show that it's all false, debunk it, and then make it clear that the Republicans have never accepted Joe Biden as president.

They led and ran and supported and rooted on insurrectionists. And this is just a continuation of that.

So we have to again stay on offense, play on their side of the field. And when we do that, we expose what they're really out to do, which is to completely delegitimize a lawfully-elected president who won frankly, in a blowout election in 2020.

ACOSTA: All right. Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you very much for your time this evening. We appreciate it.

All right. In the meantime, CNN has exclusive new reporting on what sources say is an effort by Russia to put an anti-satellite weapon in space. What we've learned about those plans and the potential threat they could pose.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[17:15:48]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: All right.

Right now exclusive new details about Russia's efforts to deploy a nuclear weapon into space. Sources familiar with U.S. intelligence tells CNN, this would be a quote "last-ditch weapon, if detonated could be capable of paralyzing some global communications".

CNN's Katie Bo Lillis is here with more of her exclusive reporting. Katie Bo, what more are you learning?

KATIE BO LILLIS, CNN REPORTER: Yes. So Jim, what we're learning about this sort of mystery, nuclear anti-satellite device that U.S. intelligence believes that Russia wants to put into space, is that it is something that military space experts called generally a nuclear EMP which is essentially a nuclear weapon that would be sort of parked in earth's orbit and if detonated, it would send out a massive energy wave that could cripple all the other satellites in the vicinity.

So think of this a little bit more like a directed energy weapon that would sort of burst outwards and blanket a bunch of different targets rather than a nuclear missile that would be fired at one single target, right.

U.S. officials emphasized both publicly and to us that this is not a capability that Russia currently has. This isn't up in orbit circling the earth right now. It's something that officials say is aspirational for Russia. It's just something that they want to do.

But if Russia were able to successfully build and field a nuclear EMP, what does that look like, right? It could potentially damage global communications. It could damage the kind of satellites that enable Americans to sort live their everyday lives, right? Like to use their cellphones, make phone calls, to shop on Instagram, you know -- any number of things that people around the world use technology, use communications to be able to do.

One potential target that's been raised to us or potential vulnerability would be SpaceX satellites of the kind that Ukraine is currently using to great effect to be able to communicate on the battlefield and to target their fires in their fight against Russia.

One thing that we don't know, Jim, is what the impact could be on GPS satellites and on Americas nuclear command and control satellites. Those operate at a higher orbit. And in theory are nuclear-hardened.

ACOSTA: Interesting. And what kind of timeline are we looking at right now? And does the U.S. have the technology to counter this potential Russian threat?

LILLIS: So it's a really good question. The idea of a nuclear EMP isn't new? It's been around really since the Cold War. And in fact, it's the plot of "Goldeneye", the first Pierce Brosnan --

ACOSTA: I remember that, yes.

LILLIS: -- Bond movie.

And U.S. officials say that they have been tracking this threat generally for months, if not for years. In fact we know from some of our sources that the Pentagon has been watching a stream of intelligence reporting in recent months focused on Russia's efforts to develop their nuclear-powered anti-satellite capabilities, which is kind of a related technology but at a less alarming application.

And President Biden yesterday talked about this publicly and he said, what worried the intelligence community so much in recent weeks was that they realized that Russia had the capability to launch one of these things, which is not the same thing as saying that they have a working nuclear emp.

And in fact, Russia has had a number of high-profile failures in their nuclear development program, even just a few years ago, a number of their prominent scientists were killed after the failed test launch of a nuclear-powered cruise missile just a few years ago.

So some of my sources that I spoke to on this story were a little skeptical that this is something that Russia is even going to be able to be successful in building. But certainly something U.S. officials are worried about watching closely and trying to decide how do you respond to this.

And part of the question here is, would Russia actually seek to use this? It is a weapon that would be indiscriminate and would in theory put their own satellites at risk. So I think the gamesmanship of what they think Russia's intent here is a big part of the policy question.

ACOSTA: Yes, that's really gotten the intel community buzzing, the security community buzzing here in Washington.

All right. Katie Bo Lillis, thank you very much.

President Biden moments ago saying President Putin is responsible for the death of Russian opposition leader and Putin critic Alexey Navalny.

"The Atlantic's" Anne Applebaum joins me next to discuss the fallout and the effort to reclaim Navalny's body from the Russian government. The family once his body returned.

We'll talk about that next. We'll be right back.

[17:24:20]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: As the world mourns the death of Alexey Navalny, many are left wondering what comes next in the fight for democracy in Russia. Some experts believe Navalny's legacy could be key.

My next guest writes, "Even behind bars, Navalny was a real threat to Putin because he was living proof that courage is possible, that truth exists, that Russia could be a different kind of country.

Now Putin will be forced to fight against Navalny's memory and that is a battle he will never win."

Staff writer for The Atlantic" Anne Applebaum joins me now. She is also a senior fellow at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Study and also staying up very late for us. Anne, I really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

You know, this was just heartbreaking to learn of the death of Alexey Navalny. We are seeing people trying to mourn his death in Russia. All of this is just so depressing to watch. Your thoughts.

Where do we go from here? Where does Russia go from here? And where should the U.S. go from here?

ANNE APPLEBAUM, STAFF WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": So Navalny was important for two reasons. One because he puts such extensive resources into researching and understanding the level of corruption in Russia And then packaging it and making it into videos that millions, tens of millions of people watched.

[17:29:48] APPLEBAUM: Secondly, he was important because he was a model of civic courage, even after being poisoned by Putin and managing to escape the country. He came back knowing that he would be arrested and knowing that he would go to prison and that he could die.

And what the Putin regime tries to do is really prevent Russians from having that kind of courage, preventing them from taking part in public life. And the fact that he did it sets an example for others.

And what you will see when you -- when you watch people being arrested and then in the coming days, as they try to mourn him, you will see people trying to emulate that kind of courage. And you will see the state trying to push back against it.

ACOSTA: And what happens to the opposition movement in Russia? Is there an opposition movement to speak of at this point?

APPLEBAUM: You know, there's silent opposition. I've met Russians whose names you will never learn, who have dedicated their lives, for example, to helping Ukrainians who've been deported to Russia or Ukrainian children who've been deported to Russia escape.

There's a kind of underground railroad in Russia now designed to help Ukrainian. So there's a -- there's a silent, secret opposition.

There's also a big and important exile opposition. The exile groups are better organized now. There's a -- they called themselves the free Russia community. They -- they work together.

I think Navalny was one of the links between those groups. His organization had a lot of links inside Russia, but also outside Russia. And so his death does a lot of damage to that movement.

But you know, you can't kill the idea that there could be a different Russia, that Russia could be running a different way, or that there could be different people in charge of it.

And I think that that idea lives on. And that's, of course, something that Putin will continually tried to kill.

ACOSTA: Yes, there's just no question about it. It's captured in this film, the CNN film, "Navalny," that we're going to be showing tonight. He really was, he and his family, they really were a light in this dark police state that Putin has created.

And, Anne, I wanted to ask you about, you know, we just heard from the president at the top of the hour condemning Republican members of Congress for holding up aid to Ukraine. And just in the last 24 hours, we're seeing another town fall to Vladimir Putin, in part, because of this ammunition that's running out.

What is your sense of how significant all of this is? And whether -- I mean, I just asked Ericr Swalwell about this, a little while ago.

Could Ukrainian blood be on American hands if this aid does not get to the Ukrainians? APPLEBAUM: Frankly, it already is. The Ukrainians are running out of ammunition. They're running out of weapons.

I'm here at the Munich Security Conference where there are a lot of Ukrainians around, including Ukrainian soldiers. And they say, very explicitly, they describe what's happening at the front line.

You know, the Russians can fire 10 bullets for every one that they can fire. It's a critical moment.

Europeans are helping. They're contributing more money actually than we are. But they just don't have the production capacity. They don't have the weapons in storage that the United States has.

And by blocking this, literally people are dying because of Congress's refusal to authorize this aid.

ACOSTA: And, Anne, I want to ask you about what's happening on the far right. Obviously, we saw what Trump said in the last week, where he said, Putin can do whatever he wants if NATO countries don't contribute enough to the common defense of NATO.

And then you're also seeing characters like Tucker Carlson and maybe folks who want to give Tucker Carlson a lot of oxygen here.

But he is still influential on the far right. And many Western leaders are taking note of Tucker Carlson giving Putin this platform and even dismissing the authoritarian leader's ruthless tactics.

We just heard Putin -- we just heard Putin, I guess, trash Tucker Carlson for doing sort of a lap dog interview that he did in the last several days. But Tucker Carlson has been giving Putin a pass and excusing what he's been doing.

Here's a clip from the World Government Summit in Dubai. I want to listen to this and talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: -- those are covered. And because I have spent my life talking to people who run countries, in various countries, and have concluded the following, that every leader kills people, including my leader.

Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people, sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: No, and Tucker -- Tucker has walked this back a little bit. But, you know, to have a figure on the far right say things, well, leaders kill people, that this is just what they do, how toxic is this in the American political discourse right now, do you think?

APPLEBAUM: It was an extraordinary statement. It was a repulsive statement. You know, the idea that leadership means you kill people, no, that's not how our system works.

In our system, the leadership is about building consensus. It's about creating prosperity. It's about making the nation better. It's not about killing people.

This level of cynicism is, of course, exactly what Putin sells to his own people. And unfortunately, yes, he's captured a part of the American political spectrum, too.

[17:35:04]

They've adopted the same kind of cynicism, the same -- the same level of apathy. Not just -- not just not caring about human rights but actively disdaining them.

I mean, these are, these are attitudes imported from Russia, from China, from North Korea, from Iran. And you know that we now have a party part of the American political spectrum using that language, too. It's truly shocking.

And I should say, it's not an accident that that interview was now, because Putin, of course, follows our political arguments. He understands exactly what's going on.

He knows that Congress is divided. He knows that the money is being delayed. You know, he wants the money to be delayed because, if the money is delivered, then he has even more dead Russians that he has to explain to people and he loses even more, even more equipment.

So he's seeking to activate whatever propaganda he can, whatever influence he can, whatever minority he can use to block the aid in any way possible. And Tucker is just part of that program.

ACOSTA: Yes. No, no question about aiding in that propaganda, no question about it.

All right, Anne Applebaum, thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it.

APPLEBAUM: Thank you.

ACOSTA: And if you want to learn more about Navalny, please make sure to tune in tonight for the Oscar award-winning CNN film, "Navalny." It will air tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.

If you've not seen it yet, it will really open your eyes as to what is going on in Russia and what Navalny did to sacrifice himself for a better future in Russia. Stay tuned for that.

And a quick programming note. In the new CNN original series, "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL," CNN anchor and chief Washington correspondent, Jake Tapper, dives into some of the most sensational political controversy and talks to some of the most infamous political figures of the modern era to dissect the truth from the span.

Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: We are here to get your side of the story.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

How do you view your time as governor?

ROD BLAGOJEVICH, FORMER DEMOCRAT ILLINOIS GOVERNOR: I had 2,896 days in prison to ask myself a thousand questions, including that.

TAPPER: For 30 or so years, I've shined a bright light on the inner workings of American political power.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It never occurred to him that extorting a hospital might harm people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I engaged in a consensual affair with another man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was shocking.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: How did you end up with the sex tape of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): They say, get on the phone, find some pigs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait, what?

TAPPER: You can't write this stuff.

Looking back, I can't help but feel that we were all so quick to embrace the headline that we may have forgotten to dig a little deeper.

(voice-over): This guy who's a crusader against human sex trafficking is actually a customer.

UNIDENTIFIED NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Did someone at the White House blow the cover of a CIA operative?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is horrifying.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She's still in danger.

UNIDENTIFIED NEWS CORRESPONDENT: The South Carolina governor is missing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His staff said he was hiking the Appalachian trail.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bottom line is this, I've been unfaithful to my wife. TAPPER (voice-over): Why do we keep ending up here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll never truly understand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've always been on the reporting side of things. Welcome to the hell we all have to live in.

(LAUGHTER)

ANNOUNCER: The "United States of Scandal" with Jake Tapper --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've got to get a therapist after having an interview with Jake Tapper.

ANNOUNCER: -- back-to-back, premieres tomorrow at 9:00 on CNN.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:42:32]

ACOSTA: Right now, Donald Trump is looking at hundreds of billions of dollars in legal judgments. On Friday, a judge ordered him to pay $355 million in the New York civil fraud trial, but factor in interest and that total could be closer to $450 million.

Joining us more I've talked about this CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center. He's also the author of "The Pursuit of Happiness, How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America.: A very important book.

Elie, I want to start with you first.

I mean, does Trump even have the cash to pay for all of this? I mean, I suppose, we showed this to our viewers on screen right now, earlier today, they announced they're selling some Trumps sneakers. I mean, I don't know if we have that image handy, but that was announced earlier this afternoon.

I guess this this goes in the long line of Trump products that have been sold over the years. Does he have the money for this, Elie?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, Jim, I'd have to see the image of the Trump sneakers. I'm very curious.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: I'm not the person. There we guys said, wow.

ACOSTA: OK.

HONIG: Here's how it's going to work with respect to payments. So first of all, Donald Trump will have a chance to appeal. He has a right to one level appeal, arguably to two levels of appeal. When that's all done, we will have a final number that Donald Trump will owe. And it's not optional at that point. You can't negotiate out of that. Once were done the appeals, whatever the number is, has to be paid.

Now, while the appeal is pending, he'll have to post a bond. There can be a cash component of that. It wouldn't be the whole $360 million.

And there could be some posting of a property, the deed to a property. That can be worked out between the parties or set by the judge.

But ultimately, when this number comes down, you have to pay it, either in cash or by liquidating assets, meaning by selling assets.

So important to understand, this ultimately will be the result of the courts and not something that's subject to negotiation.

ACOSTA: Yes. Jeffrey, let me let's -- let's dive into that a little bit because, I mean, not only is -- there's supposed to be this concept in this country that nobody is above the law. I guess nobody is above also paying these legal fines in Donald Trump's case.

But there's also the question of immunity. We were just talking with Anne Applebaum in the previous segment about Putin's Russia.

I mean, Trump is also, on top of everything else, attempting to seek from the Supreme Court absolute immunity for presidents of the United States of the country.

You work for the National Constitution Center. That would be contrary to our constitutional form of government in this country, would it not?

JEFFREY ROSEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER & AUTHOR: It's the antithesis of our form of government. The president is not a King, or a Tsar or Putin in America. And the Putin example is really powerful.

[17:45:06]

In America, the president can't kill his enemies and call up judges and remain immune.

It was really important that the D.C. circuit unanimously rejected the immunity claim. The Supreme Court is likely to reject it as well, either by not hearing the case or hearing it quickly.

But it's a central point. And it's so important, as all of these cases are coming together, that Donald Trump is trying either to delay the trials or to claim that he's immune from them. And he's not succeeding in case after case.

And its -- what's important for viewers is this is the American -- the American system is supposed to work, and attacking the legitimacy of the system and attacking judges is not the American way. ACOSTA: Yes, Elie, I mean, it's been described as sort of a political

stroke of genius or Donald Trump to go to all these hearings and cause a big kerfuffle out in the hallway outside the courtroom and so on.

But is accountability starting to happen for Donald Trump with the E. Jean Carroll case and now this civil fraud trial damage amount, the fine that was imposed by the judge there?

There are lots of other cases that are coming up, lots of other hearings that are very consequential to, I guess, answering that question in the coming weeks.

HONIG: Yes. Well, on the civil side, Jim, there's no question about it. I mean, we see the verdicts now between the two E. Jean Carroll verdicts and the verdict yesterday.

I think if you tally it all up with interest that comes out to over half a billion dollars. And like I said, that's money that ultimately has to be paid. So there's definitely been and accountability on the civil side to me, of course. And you alluded to this.

The much bigger question is, will we see accountability on the criminal side? And to that end, yes, things have been delayed, not extraordinarily, by the way.

We're not at all beyond the normal timeframe for when a case will go to trial. If anything were on the short side of that.

That said, we do now have a trial date. Donald Trump there'll be going to trial, by all appearances, barring some really unexpected last- minute development, on March 25th in New York City. That is happening.

That is the hush money falsification case. And when it comes to that case, I think, does Donald Trump have a risk of being convicted? Sure.

I mean, the healthy majority of criminal defendants who go to trial do you get convicted? I don't think there's any secret. he's going to have an unfriendly jury in Manhattan.

But it is important to know that is the least serious of the four criminal cases. I don't think there's any argument against that.

And even if he's convicted on the highest variation of the charges he faces in that case, under New York State law, that's unlikely to result in a prison sentence.

So the bigger stakes are the ones coming up, the federal cases and potentially the Georgia case.

ACOSTA: Yes.

And, Jeffrey, you and I were talking about this during the break. You don't think it's that unusual, some of the delay tactics and some of the delays that we've seen so far.

I mean, every defendant is -- has that right to try to adjudicate all of these various things through the hearing process.

What's your sense of where things stand, right now? Do you think we'll see the Jack Smith January 6th case go to trial this year before the election? Do we think we'll see that?

ROSEN: Well, you're absolutely right, and Elie is right, that this is not an unusual delay. And defendants are supposed to use every legal avenue.

And in fact, challenging prosecutions can be productive, as we saw in the Hunter Biden case, where the key informant was just disqualified for lying. So challenging is what defendants are supposed to do.

The Jack Smith timing depends on, first, what the Supreme Court does. Is it going to re-hear immunity or just uphold the D.C. circuit?

But then next month, there's a centrally important case in the Supreme Court where the court's going to decide whether the core of Jack Smiths charges involving obstruction of justice are consistent with Constitution and the law or not.

If they throw those out, that's going to be a stake in the heart of the Jack Smith case. It won't prevent it, but it'll make it much harder to pursue.

ACOSTA: All right. Jeffrey Rosen, Elie Honig, gentlemen, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Great to see both of you.

HONIG: Thanks, Jim.

[17:50:01]

ACOSTA: All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Get ready for an epic slam dunk weekend as the NBA's bests are gathering in Indianapolis for the league's all-star weekend.

Plus, there will be a special treat, a first ever showdown pitting the best three-point shooter in the NBA against the WNBAs best.

CNN's Andy Scholes is live in Indianapolis for us.

Andy, looks like a great assignment. How's it shaping up out there?

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yes. Well, I'll tell you what, Jim, all-star Saturday night is always one of the best nights of the year for basketball fans. You've got the skills competition, the three- point, the slam dunk.

And this year, we've got an extra special three-point competition between Steph Curry and Sabrina Ionescu.

Now Sabrina won the WNBA three-point contest over the summer, scoring a record 37 points in one round. That certainly compressed the staff with the two-time point champion himself and also owns a record for most points in a round.

Now, we've had a battle of the sexes on a tennis court before between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. Now we're going to get it three- point line.

And I caught up with Steph and Sabrina earlier today and asked them if they think their match will have the same impact.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPH CURRY, GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS GUARD: How cool an opportunity it is to do something that's never been done before in our game.

For her to have a presence on this stage is going to do a lot to inspire the next generation of young boys and girls that you want to compete and see themselves in either one of us.

And wherever it goes from there, like we know, kind of plant our flags doing something really special.

[17:54:59]

SABRINA IONESCU, NEW YORK LIBERTY GUARD: It would've been really easy for me to say that I was scared of the moment and not want to come out there and embarrass myself or be afraid of failure.

And I didn't do that because I understand who I am and the belief in myself, but also what it's going to show so many young girls that are watching that they could go out there and they can be a boy on the playground or they can play for a boys team, or they can go out there and be the best on their girls team.

And I think having that in the back of my mind, always understanding that that's what I'm playing for, overrides any fear that I have not coming out here in winning.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOLES: Yes, Sabrina is going to be shooting from the NBA three-point line for the competition, Jim. It should be lots of fun.

And what's going to make it even more fun? Check out the court for all-star Saturday night. It's a giant LED screen. We've been watching rehearsals. The visuals are just incredible. So it's going to be so much fun watching the skills the three-point Steph versus Sabrina and the dunk contest on that LED screen.

So be sure to tune in tonight on TNT.

ACOSTA: Yes, Andy, I'm a little worried about Steph Curry. That's going to be fun to watch.

All right, Andy, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

All right, coming up, Ukraine is withdrawing from a key city along its eastern front of its war with Russia. Why President Biden says Congress is to blame.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)