Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Robert Hur Defends His Report On Biden Classified Docs Probe; U.S.-Israeli Citizen Killed In Oct. & Hamas Attack, Israel Says; Haitian Prime Minister Will Resign Amid Escalating Violence; U.S. Announces New $300M Weapons Package For Ukraine. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired March 12, 2024 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:05]
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Michael Zeldin, appreciate you being with us and helping us make sense of what we've heard there on Capitol Hill. Thanks, Michael.
And that does it for me. Do stay right here with CNN.
I want to hand over, in fact, to my colleague, Jim Sciutto, who's in Washington, D.C. for much more. Very busy day in Washington, D.C.
I'll see you tomorrow. Bye-bye.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: A very good afternoon to you.
We have been watching the testimony of Robert Hur, the now former special counsel with U.S. Justice Department, who investigated President Biden's handling of classified documents. He spent hours before the U.S. Congress, answering questions from both Democratic and Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, and facing fire from both sides of the aisle. Republicans demanded to know why he chose not to prosecute Biden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT HUR, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: My team and I conducted a thorough, independent investigation. We identified evidence that the president willfully retained classified materials after the end of his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. We did not, however, identify evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence fell short of that standard, I declined to recommend criminal charges against Mr. Biden.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Democrats not only drew distinctions between Biden's handling of documents, classified documents, and former President Trump's, but they also attacked Hur for how his report is written report referred to the president as, quote, an elderly man with a poor memory.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): You chose a general pejorative reference to the president. You understood when you made that decision, didn't you, Mr. Hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn't you?
HUR: Congressman, politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps. My decision with the words that I put in my report.
SCHIFF: You understood nevertheless.
Mr. Hur -- Mr. Hur, you cannot tell me you're so naive as to think your words would have created a political firestorm. You understood that, didn't you, when you wrote those words, when you decided to include those words, when you decided to go beyond specific references to documents, you understood how they would be manipulated by -- by my colleagues here on the GOP side of the aisle and by President Trump, you understood that, did you not?
HUR: Congressman, what I understood is the regulations that govern my conduct, a special counsel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: We witnessed perhaps the unusual circumstances of lawmakers from both parties attacking the star witness invited before their committees.
CNN legal reporter Marshall Cohen, he joins me now. He was following the hearings closely.
Tell us, Marshall, what the other highlights were and specifically, did we learn anything new either about the charges or the president's mental state?
MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: You know, Jim, special counsel Hur really wanted to play this straight. He was not trying to extrapolate beyond the 388 pages of his report, despite the attempts of lawmakers from both sides to do just that.
There was a exchange with one of the Republican members of the committee who was trying to convince Hur and cajole Hur into declaring that Joe Biden was senile, even read the dictionary definition of senile. But Robert Hur wouldn't do it. He wouldn't go there.
Then on the Democratic side, there were similar attempts to twist and distort the conclusions of the report to fit their narrative. I've got a clip for you here, Jim, of Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. She's one of the most progressive, liberal members of the House. She was trying to elicit out of Hur a declaration that he was exonerating Joe Biden and Hur wouldn't do it. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): This lengthy, expensive, and independent investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President Joe Biden.
HUR: I need to go back and make sure that I take -- take note of the word that you used. Exoneration, that is not on a word that we used in the report. That's not part of my task as a prosecutor.
JAYAPAL: Mr. Hur, I'm going to continue with my question. I'm going to continue with my questions. I know that that the term -- I know that the term --
HUR: -- the judgment that I received, that I ultimately reached, (INAUDIBLE) whether sufficient evidence existed such as the likely outcome would be a conviction.
JAYAPAL: You didn't -- you exonerated him. I know that the term willful retention has --
HUR: I did not exonerate him. That word does appear in the report.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: So, it's a little hard to hear the special counsel there because he's getting talked over, but he said I did not exonerate him. But at the same time, Jim, special counsel Hur did not charge Joe Biden and he said in his report in black and white, that even if he was allowed to because there is a rule in the Justice Department against indicting the sitting president, even if he was allowed to, there was not enough evidence to do it. And that is what the White House has been capitalizing on, all day, that no matter what you think of this report, no matter what you think of some of the damning allegations in there.
[15:05:01]
And some of the startling findings about Joe Biden's memory or his age, the bottom line here is that he did not break the law.
That's the conclusion from the special counsel, and that's what's going to carry the day with the -- with the White House. And they hope that Americans are tuning into that bottom line finding.
But while you get there, Jim, on your journey to get to that final conclusion, there's some ugly stuff and some things that I'm sure the White House would rather just ignore.
SCIUTTO: Listen, each party is going to choose its sound bites and play those liberally. Marshall Cohen, thanks so much for joining us.
CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider joins me now to discuss more.
You had on the legal first and then well get to the other question about the president's mental acuity. But on the legal, Democrats focused on this statement from the special counsel, did not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, fell short of that standard charge. That makes them happy.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right.
SCIUTTO: Now. It doesn't make them happen. You saw Jayapal's questioning there because he also does not say exonerate, does not say there was no evidence of anything here which is not dissimilar from previous special counsel reports, which we've seen in which they've investigated, decided it doesn't rise to the standard, but say, listen, there were some things here that went on that should not have gone up.
SCHNEIDER: Well, Robert Hur operated in his capacity as a special counsel as the experienced prosecutor that he is. And when you're a prosecutor, it doesn't just mean because a few facts and evidence lineup that you should charge somebody. He explained that he had to fully -- he and his team to fully consider what the jury -- how they would respond, how they would view the evidence, how they would view the potential subject, the president, and how the defense might mount their defense and what they might bring to the table.
And he went into great length, especially toward the end of the hearing, talking about how they deliberated as to how this might actually play out if they were to charge, if they were to go to trial and in their estimation, it they could not convince a jury to convict on any charges that they might bring, and that's why they said there should be no charges.
SCIUTTO: Now, in the transcript, which they referred to frequently, transcript of his interview with Hur going back a number of months, they referred to frequently. There were dates that the president could not identify, but he also answered, I do not recall to several questions.
Now in years, too many years of covering Washington in previous hearings, I do not recall is a favorite answer, a lawyer --
SCHNEIDER: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- answer to their clients when being questioned about controversial things.
Did you hear -- as you look through the transcript -- did you see any of what might have been lawyers advice to not comment under oath on things about which you don't know the specificity as opposed to foggy memory?
SCHNEIDER: Well, you know, Joe Biden, it seems in this very winding, lengthy transcript, I think the interview lasted just about five hours, which is what they prescribed that he would sit before, it was very meandering. So when you ask was he following lawyers advice saying, I don't recall, I'm not sure about that, but I would also say that lawyers probably wouldn't have liked or didn't like the fact that he was so long winded and often went off track on different topics.
You know, you're supposed to keep things very short, very much measured when you're sitting for any sort of interview deposition.
SCIUTTO: True, anyone who knows or has interacted with Joe Biden through --
SCHNEIDER: Knows that he's -- yes.
SCIUTTO: -- in Washington know that short answers are not --
SCHNEIDER: Exactly.
SCIUTTO: -- his characteristic.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: I suppose for the lawyers' perspective.
But there were things in the transcript where there were dates that were -- that he didn't recall.
SCHNEIDER: Yes.
SCIUTTO: For instance, he recalled the date on the calendar in May that his son died, but required prompting for the year in that moment --
SCHNEIDER: Right.
SCIUTTO: -- at least.
SCHNEIDER: And I mean, that was one of the things that prosecutors, special counsel Hur had to weigh. I mean, that's what led to their conclusion where they wrote a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory that's what may have been presented to the jury to say, look, maybe he remember that these classified documents had been packed up, but then maybe forgot. I mean, you know, that's something that they had to consider when determining not to bring charges.
SCIUTTO: Now, to be fair, there were other parts of the transcript in which Biden corrected Hur on issue, say actually it was this date, not that date.
SCHNEIDER: Right.
SCIUTTO: It was a long -- you know, many hours long.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: The key is the specificity of the memory. But I think safe to say in this hearing, you did not hear even when they tried to push him, a grander statement from Hur about his impression of the president's sharp --
SCHNEIDER: And I think the most interesting part of this entire hearing, which was actually shorter than I expected it to be, was when we heard from Republican congressman who just announced he's leaving Congress the end of next week --
SCIUTTO: Ken Buck. SCHNEIDER: -- Ken Buck kind of applaud Robert Hur when he first -- when he first spoke during the hearing, saying you managed to anger both Republicans and Democrats and that sort of shows potentially that Hur was doing his job just sticking to his investigation and what he wrote in the report.
[15:10:04]
SCIUTTO: Just the facts, ma'am.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much, as always.
Joining me now because there was certainly political elements to -- well, anything that happens to Washington, but certainly this hearing, we are in an election year, joining us now, CNN senior reporter, Isaac Dovere, he covers Biden very closely. And "Axios" national politics reporter, Sophia Cai.
Good to have you both on.
Edward, I think its safe to say that when the Hur report came out with that line about the president's mental sharpness and his memory and then it was announced that Hur was going to have public testimony, I imagine the fear of Biden's team was that Hur was going to come out guns blazing and given -- an even more fulsome and negative appraisal of the president sharpness. He did not do that.
To that point, I want to play a moment when Republicans -- Republican Congressman Fitzgerald asked the question and specifically use the word senile in his question of the special counsel, Robert Hur. Let me let me play that moment and get your thoughts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SCOTT FITZGERALD (R-WI): Webster's Dictionary defines senile as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability, such as memory associated with old age. Mr. Hur, based on your report, did you find that the president was senile?
HUR: I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report, Congressman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: That conclusion does not appear in the report. Isaac Dovere, is that a moment that the Biden team maybe breathe a sigh of relief?
EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: I am not sure it's much of a win for somebody to say, no, he's not senile. This report was pretty politically damaging at the time. Of course, the Biden team feels like they have rebutted that pretty solidly with the State of the Union last week from the president.
It's such a difference. Imagine if the state of the union had happened before that reported come out, where is hearing it happened before the State of the Union. It's -- the context of its seeing now, we all got to see for at least an hour-and-a-half, two hours, the president action. It -- he didn't come off senile then either. And that only gives more fuel to the Biden team's attempts to say that Hur was out -- way past his skis saying more than had to do with the law and doing it in a sort of partisan political way to damage the president.
SCIUTTO: Sophia, as with so many things, what the three of us say about how the public is digesting this is very different from how the public is digesting this. And some stories about Biden, including the public's impression, even Democrats, we should note, impressions of his age, energy, et cetera, those have been fairly sticky issues for this president.
Is their expectation in the Biden camp, Sophia, that this -- that this changes. I mean, do they feel they can genuinely push this?
SOPHIA CAI, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: I'm not sure if they think that they can do more with the Hur report, but they're trying to use Biden to show the country. I mean, they're trotting him out to swing states. They're getting all the cabinet members to do the same.
I mean, but it is significant that on the day -- on the same day that both former President Trump and President Biden could both get enough delegates for the Republican and Democratic nomination for president, that we are sitting here talking about Robert Hur's testimony.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
CAI: I mean, it's because it gets at the nexus of classified documents, the legal issues, as well as the debate of President Biden's age and memory. So, you know, I think that's significant and I think, you know, voters are also influenced by what they see on TV, what they read and, you know, it just so happy happens that today when Trump could get to 1,215, and Biden could also get those delegates, we're sitting here and listening to the testimony almost in full, as well as, you know, distinct but pushed from both sides.
SCIUTTO: Isaac, as you know, so often in Washington, particularly during a campaign, messaging is often about neutralizing an issue as opposed to winning it, right? Because many issues you just cant win, particularly in this partisan environment. And it strikes me that today on two fronts, the Biden team wanted to neutralize and the Trump team, frankly Republicans, Trump team wants to neutralize his indictments for handling of classified materials by drawing attention to Biden's mishandling here, although he was not indicted.
Meanwhile, the Biden team want to draw attention to Donald Trump's mental lapses and memory lapses. You saw Jerry Nadler, for instance, a Democratic congressman, play a long tape of Trump's various verbal flubs to draw attention away from their own weakness on this issue. Is that safe to say?
DOVERE: Yeah, look, for Biden, there's an effort to, on the one hand, make sure there's no equivalence between anything that he's done as president and what Trump did as president, including on the documents situation.
[15:15:01]
Of course, there are hundreds of documents that were there for Trump that are part of the investigation into him, and lots of attempts to -- for the National Archives, to get back those documents. It's very different from what happened with Biden. So they don't want any equivalence on that.
And Democrats and the White House and Biden campaign very happy to make sure that people see that difference. But what they do want some equivalents on is the age issue. You saw the president himself at the end of the State of the Union last week, say that there's another guy of his age who has very different view of America. That is what Jerry Nadler was getting at in the way that he played those clips of Trump saying, okay, you want to say that Biden has some trouble speaking or that he's old, whatever, you look at, what happens with Donald Trump.
So that -- those two things consider going on and the Republicans in the Trump folks obviously pushing back the other direction in both ways.
SCIUTTO: Sophia, on Trump's classified documents problem, the indictments, the ongoing investigation still no trial date set. We did -- we did have quite an enormous revelation yesterday, were one of the witnesses in that case spoke to our colleague, Kaitlan Collins, and said on camera that he participated in moving boxes of classified documents out from Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence after the investigation was already underway. That is something -- that's going to last certainly beyond today, beyond the confines of this testimony regarding Biden's handling of classified documents.
CAI: Oh, absolutely and he's facing trial in four different cases. We're not quite sure, you know, if all of them will happen before election day. In fact, most will not. But I think the Trump team also looks at the legal cases. They can bind them into one and just hope that if they win one there'll be able to make that case that everything is against Trump.
You know, the problem is if you take a bigger step back, I mean, there is a real Trump effect on how judges are behaving, how special counsel's are behaving. I mean, I've been talking to some of these court-watchers and they've seen a real difference and people like Robert Hur. He's 51, young, ambitious, he knows exactly what he's doing and I think Adam Schiff pointed out that he knew that this report would be public.
SCIUTTO: No question.
Isaac, before we go because so much attention was paid prior to this about how much how much detail Biden remember the exact year in the moment, the exact date in the moment as he was being interviewed by Robert Hur, number of months ago back in October, I'm going to read that section from the transcript.
This is President Biden speaking in that transcript. He says: Remember in this time frame, my son is either been deployed or is dying. But if I ran again, I'd be running for president. And so what was happening though, what month did Beau die? Oh God, May 30th. Ms. Cotton, one of his team says 2015, an unidentified male speaker says 2015. President Biden says, was it 2015? He had died. That's confirmed it was May of 2015, it was.
This seems to be the basis of hers comment in his written report that Biden couldn't -- in effect -- to the effect of couldn't you remember the exact date of his son's death.
Now, when you read the transcript there, you see that well, he said the day on the calendar needed reminding of the year, how did this come across in the testimony today? Did it move the ball forward?
DOVERE: Like this seems to be one that's the eye of the beholder here the president definitely remember is that it was May 30th when his son died and he is not the one who said 2015. It's other people who are working for him who say that.
You can make the argument that there's a swirl of things that were going on then. But he was vice president, he was finishing his vice president.
Beau died a year before he was done being vice president. But Beau Biden was deployed years before that. So, there is this haze of memory there. It seems like a little bit, but it's not clear whether that means that the president was just not pegging the exact date to -- the exact year to what happened or whether he was actually jumbling the facts of what was going on there. And I think that's the difference of it.
But this -- the idea that he doesn't remember when Beau Biden died was always a little bit hard to believe. And you see in the transcript here, he remembers exactly.
SCIUTTO: Sometimes, I have to do the math on the year that my father died. I mean, it happens I think to some of us, this is something that folks at home, voters are going to make their own judgments on. Whether there was a gotcha moment today in that testimony, not clear.
Sophia Cai, Isaac Dovere, thanks so much to both of you.
Coming up next, more of the fallout from today's testimony on Capitol Hill, particularly legal questions, and we're going to go live to Jerusalem amid developments in the Israel-Hamas war for still waiting for a ceasefire.
[15:20:02]
Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
We have been breaking down the fallout from today's congressional testimony by Robert Hur, a former special counsel for the U.S. Justice Department who investigated President Biden's handling of classified documents. He spent hours taking heat, notably, from both Republicans and Democrats.
Let's take a listen to how Democrats specifically took him to task.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA): Are you a member of the Federalist Society?
HUR: I am not a member of the Federalist Society.
JOHNSON: But, you are Republican, though, aren't you?
HUR: I am a registered Republican.
JOHNSON: Yes, sir. And you're doing everything you can do to get President Trump re-elected so that you can get appointed as a federal judge or perhaps to another position in the Department of Justice. Isn't that correct?
HUR: Congressman, I have no such aspirations. I can assure you and I can tell you that partisan politics had no place whatsoever in my work. It had no place in the investigative steps that I took it at no place in the decision that I made and it had no place in a single word of my report.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Partisan attacks were flying across Washington. President Biden's top advisers were certainly keeping a close eye on the hearing.
Joining me now, live from the White House, CNN senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak.
Kevin, I wonder how the White House viewed Hur's testimony today. Prior, there was certainly trepidation about the moment. Do they still feel that?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: I mean, I think on the whole what you hear from the Biden world, White House officials, campaign officials, is that this could have gone a whole lot worse.
And you're right, they were prepared for a hearing that would underscore some of the findings that Hur found in the report, particularly about the president's memory, and they were sort of bracing themselves to do a real-time rapid response fact check, which they did. But in the end, I think what really emerged from this hearing was less about the president's memory. It was in there, but much more about this comparison between Biden's case and Trump's case.
And even Republicans in their line of questioning tried to highlight what they claim as a discrepancy in how these two men, men's cases were handled. And when you talk to Biden's aides, they think that is a comparison that very much favors President Biden. It doesn't include this -- these questions of obstruction. It doesn't include destruction of documents. All of these things.
And so, on that front, I think what you're hearing from the Biden folks this hour is that this hearing essentially went better than they could have expected, and I should note that we will get an official response soon from the spokesman for the White House counsel's office, Ian Sams, he will come out here at the White House to take reporters questions.
The other thing I think you're hearing a lot from Biden's aides, is this question over the Beau Biden scenario in the transcript, these question about whether President Biden could remember when his son died. He was able to recall the exact date and they are pointing to that as sort of a discrepancy in how Hur described that exchange and what is actually contained in the transcript, Jim.
[15:25:07]
SCIUTTO: No question. That's why we read the transcripts, right?
Kevin Liptak at the White House, thanks so much.
CNN's Manu Raju joins me now live from Capitol Hill.
Manu, I wonder if Republicans feel they got what they wanted today. It struck me that their focus seemed to be more on Hur himself and why he didn't charge Biden as the DOJ has charged Trump. Less so -- less so at least for the bulk of the hearing, there were certainly questions about it, but less so on the president's mental fitness.
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And look, both sides, in fact, believe that the hearing went the way they wanted, underscoring their political points. Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, saying that he believes that in his view, Joe Biden willfully withheld classified information and that he -- that he disclosed that information as well in which he shouldn't have done that. That is Joe -- Jim Jordan's ultimate conclusion here.
And he says that also that they need tapes. They want the audio tapes of all the interviews that the special counsel conducted through the course of this investigation, including with Joe Biden himself. So watch for that to be the new pressure point, the new focus of the House Republican majority as it tried to move forward, this being part of their larger investigation into the president as they've tried to move and impeach Joe Biden, and have not gotten enough support to move forward and actual articles of impeachment against Joe Biden.
But the investigation will continue and this effort to try to understand everything that the special counsel found out, everyone he interviewed will be part of that, which will take weeks and weeks and go dominate this presidential campaign season.
But on the Democratic side, the view is, of course, much different. They believe that the special counsel's account or the president's memory will not nearly go as far as they had initially feared in the outset, that report, in large part because of Biden himself, his speech to the State of the Union and the belief that after the transcript was released, much more context with provided about the president's interview and back and forth with the special counsel and criticism from Democrats that the special counsel did not include some of the exchanges that were part of that transcript in that report.
So Democrats feel out the end of the day that this will be a blip that was the word of Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee just told me moments ago. Republicans, of course, see this much differently. But as you can imagine, Jim, they're in charge of the majority in the House and they're not going to drop this just yet.
SCIUTTO: Nope, slim majority, but they still get the majority. Manu Raju on the Hill, thanks so much.
So let's play some more from the hearing. This is Robert Hur, the former special counsel, defending himself for his focus in that written report on Biden's memory and mental acuity. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT HUR, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL: My assessment and the report about the relevance of the president's memory was necessary and accurate and fair. Most importantly, what I wrote is what I believe the evidence shows, and what I expect jurors would perceive and believe. I did not sanitize my explanation nor did I disparage the president unfairly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: So what's the answer?
With me now to discuss, CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero.
Did Hur the special counsel, make the case successfully for why he included that assessment in his report? And did the transcript as we read it, justify that assessment?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think he made the case effectively for why he included the information. I thought he conducted himself in the hearing today in a completely professional nonpartisan way. He presented the findings of his report. He explained why he included that and information.
Now, when I read the report and this report was almost 350 pages long, when I read the report, I look at it and I think that there were certain things that perhaps were superfluous in it, that were additional context and information that needed to be in it. There's a whole history of classified information.
You know, this report has chapters.
SCIUTTO: Right.
CORDERO: However, I think that the special counsel believed that he needed to do that, that that was what the report called for.
What I get calls into question is the special counsel regulations altogether. I think what his report shows and we can look back at other special counsels' report that have sort of created this entire political firestorm but at the end of the day, led nowhere. I think what it demonstrates is that the special counsel regulations leaves such a broad discretion to the special counsel about what to include in them that those should get a second look and perhaps they should be more narrow and precise and targeted to either a declination or a prosecution recommendation.
SCIUTTO: That's the law, but there's also the practice and the special counsel, him or herself, they write the report.
[15:30:04]
And I wonder, I mean, it feels you could draw a line between his report or go back to James Comey as he announces he's not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, but says from his bully pulpit there, but boy, what she did is really bad, right? In part to explain, but it also seems to justify the lack of charge.
And I wonder from a prosecutorial standpoint, from a legal ethics standpoint, is that their job? Or do you just -- I mean, you've heard old-timers say, just say if you're going to charge or not. If you're not going to charge, you know, tell me why didn't charge on the law and then go from there.
CORDERO: Right. And that's why I'm calling attention to the special counsel regulations themselves because it's vague in terms of the content of the report. Clearly in this scenario, I think the attorney general and the office of the attorney general didn't want to either in fact or be perceived as weighing in on the special counsel's report.
So once special counsel Hur determined that this is what he has a prosecutor and I take him at his word that he thought that this was the appropriate information to include, once he makes that case, that he thinks that the right information to include as a prosecutor in the confidential -- confidential that we all know what's going to become public and that he knew would become public in this report that goes to the attorney general.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
CORDERO: Once he made that determination, there was no ability or willingness on the part of the attorney general to them then back that away.
SCIUTTO: Big difference from Robert Mueller when you had then attorney general -- Donald Trump's Bill Barr, Mueller decides not to characterize, decides not to charge the president, does --does not say exonerated. Trump did not.
And then Barr says, there's clearly nothing in here and I've spoken the final word, Merrick Garland deliberately kept his hands off it.
CORDERO: Right. SCIUTTO: I do want to ask you another because as key to this is the
issue of intent and willfulness. And Republican Congressman Ken buck, he questioned her about that very question. Have a listen and I'll get your response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEN BUCK (R-CO): Where's the willfulness missing?
HUR: Well, sir, prosecutor to prosecutor, I certainly agree with you that the evidence in the form of the audio recorded statement where the president said to his ghostwriter, I just found all the classified stuff downstairs that is evidence that that any prosecutor would present as significant evidence in a case if this went to trial. So there are -- and reasonable jurors might well infer that that President Biden formed criminal intent based on that piece of evidence. But what we did in our report was to try to walk through exhaustively, you know, well, as a prosecutor, you need to assess with a very cold eye the strength of your case and the weaknesses of your case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: So in effect, Hur said there this case wasn't strong enough to meet that intense standard. And I wonder based on your reading of the transcripts and as he explained that they are in his testimony, do you think he made the right call on that?
CORDERO: I think -- well, I think he made right call from the perspective of a prosecutor is not supposed to bring a case unless they think that they could win it at trial. And so from that perspective, he's the one who is evaluated all the evidence. That's his judgment. And so then that is the right judgment based -- based on the fact that were in there.
On the question of different facts that are in the report that indicated some kind of intent by President Biden. For every fact that was in the report that indicates that maybe would have lend itself towards prosecution, there were other facts that were mitigating factors that the report lays out that the president would have used as a defense. And if you want to take this particular scenario and compare it, for example, to the case against President Trump, my view has always been of the Mar-a-Lago case, that that case would have never been brought by the Justice Department by the special counsel, had he not obstructed it, had there not been allegations of obstruction.
And in this example, in this particular factual scenario as it relates to President Biden, there was zero evidence of obstruction.
SCIUTTO: Obstruction, no question. As they say, it's not the crime, it's cover up. We've seen them many times in Washington.
Carrie Cordero, thanks so much.
Coming up this hour, we're going to go live to Jerusalem for what we're learning about whether a deal could be near, still alive as there is a chance to pause the fighting between Israel and Hamas. We'll check in.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:36:37]
SCIUTTO: Israel announced today that a dual American-Israeli citizen who had been missing, Itay Chen, was, in fact, killed on October 7 during those initial terror attacks on Israel. This is dozens more people in Gaza were reported killed in recent fighting there, the U.S. military said it conducted another airdrop of aid into northern Gaza. This in cooperation with the Jordanian military and a ship carrying some 200 tons of food aid is now on route to Gaza. This food delivery arranged by World Central Kitchen, led by chef Jose Andres, help desperately needed there.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Jerusalem.
There was hope. It was a lot of talk of a deal -- ceasefire in exchange for some released hostages before Ramadan. That hasn't happened.
Are the negotiations still alive?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they still appear to be alive, but there isn't a ton of optimism for any kind of imminent breakthrough, Jim, and we've been hearing from multiple parties involved in these negotiations, most notably the CIA Director Bill Burns saying before Congress that there is, quote, still the possibility of a deal, but saying that it is a very, very tough process.
And also making clear that a ceasefire and a deal here is needed now, more than ever, saying that if the two parties failed to reach an agreement, that the alternatives he said are definitely worse, not only for innocent civilians who are suffering in Gaza but also of course for those Israeli hostages, nearly 100 of whom are still believed to be alive, even as we learn of the death of yet another hostage who was taken captive on October 7, Itay Chen, and who the Israeli military now says was actually killed and his body taken captive on that day.
Now, we're also hearing from the foreign ministry spokesman for the Qatari -- for the Qatari foreign ministry, Majed al-Ansari, saying that they are nowhere near a deal, but that the conversations are still ongoing. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJED AL ANSARI, QATARI FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON: Since the collapse of the last pause, we always knew that we needed a comprehensive deal that would lead to a longer pause and would lead, therefore, to a most sustainable ceasefire between the parties of this conflict. We are right now engaged in constructive dialogue between both sides. Situation on the ground is begging much difficult, and we all know we need ideal at the moment. However, we are working day and night to make sure that we have the right ideas going cross between both sides.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DIAMOND: And so, as you can hear there, there are still efforts ongoing to try and bring these two sides together, but it is also clear that enormous gaps still remain. Hamas in recent days has continued to insist that it wants to see a pathway towards a permanent ceasefire, the withdrawal of all Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip as part of these negotiations. That's simply something that the Israeli government is never going to go for as part of this deal.
A six-week ceasefire was on the table, but that appears to not be susceptible to Hamas, Israel for its part, is continuing to demand a list of hostages that would be released under this deal. Something Hamas also hasn't provided yet, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So you have a civilian aid ship coming from Cyprus to Gaza. You have the U.S., the Jordanians, I believe the Moroccans also airdropping aid into Gaza.
Can you remind people why this is how aid is getting in and is not being driven across the border?
[15:40:14]
DIAMOND: Well, there are clearly onerous restrictions that the Israeli government is imposing on the entry of aid. They have been denying of various shipments trying to get into northern Gaza. They, of course, insist that they are not preventing aid from getting in. They have blamed NGOs and U.N. organizations for failing to distribute the aid.
But what is clear is that not enough is getting in and so you see this kind of myriad efforts to try and get the aid and the latest of which is this 200 tons of aid moving via ship from Cyprus to Gaza. This is a key first test of this new maritime corridor that is being established there.
We will see, of course, in a matter of days when that aid gets there and how exactly it can be effectively distributed -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv, thanks so much.
Well, a major development in Haiti today. The Prime Minister Ariel Henry said he will resign after weeks of violence, chaos now in the country. Henry says he will step down once a transitional council is put in place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARIEL HENRY, HAITIAN PRIME MINISTER: My government will leave immediately after the inauguration of the council. There will be a caretaker government until they name a prime minister and a new cabinet. Haiti needs peace. Haiti needs stability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: That announcement comes just hours after the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as well as other leaders from the region, met in Jamaica to discuss a framework for a political transition.
CNN's Patrick Oppmann has been following the story for us.
Patrick, I wonder what the timeline is for this transitional council and what difference Secretary Blinken and others believe that will make. I mean, the problem -- problems just seems so entrenched there right now.
PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And for Haitians, they're simply running out of time according to aid organizations. One million Haitians are on the verge of famine, of starvation. People do not have access to food or water and hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. In terms of this transition council, you know, everything's seems to take longer than it should some have said that could happen within the next few days, but again, the politics of Haiti, the different parties and how they connect with the gangs and civil society is a complex puzzle.
And we saw Ariel Henry basically unable to return to his country and still took him over a week to give in to both intense pressure from within Haiti and, of course, intense pressure from the U.S. to figure out how to best move forward here, and he had stepped down essentially say he was going to resign from Puerto Rico because he's still unable to return home. So certainly from the international community which is watching this very fast moving disaster take place in front of the very eyes. They're hoping this transition counsel can name a new prime minister, can and name a new prime minister.
But, you know, we're already seeing gangs inside Haiti, the ones that have the upper hand, Jim, saying they won't accept the authority of that transition council, already rejecting it before it's even formed.
SCIUTTO: Meanwhile, the people suffering.
Patrick Oppmann covering for us from Cuba, thanks so much.
Coming up, back home, the Pentagon has announced a new round of military assistance to Ukraine. What exactly is in that package and where they find the money as Congress still delays a load on aid. We're going to have details, next
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:45:43]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
Today, the Biden administration announced a new package of military aid for Ukraine. Latest package worth about $300 comes after months of officials warning there was no money left. Of course, it's a small fraction of the tens of billions of dollars the U.S. is currently seeking from Congress for Ukraine. CNN's Oren Liebermann, he has more from the Pentagon.
So what specifically is the focus of this aid package?
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Jim, this is all the munitions and equipment that we've learned over the course of the past two years of war are absolutely critical for Ukraine to effectively stay in the fight. That includes 155 millimeter artillery ammunition. That's the NATO standard that Ukraine has been firing at a small fraction of what Russia has been able to fire, given that Russia's economy is on a full-war time footing.
There are also anti aircraft systems. We see repeated reports of Russian aerial assaults and the damage they're capable of doing. It also includes ammunition for HIMARS. That's the multiple launch rocket system that Ukraine has been able to use very effectively, as well as small arms and ammunition and several other pieces of equipment.
This is essentially what's been critical for Ukraine to stay in the fight and without the U.S. providing some of this artillery, some of this ammunition, and some of this equipment. Ukraine has given up ground, even as other countries in Europe, especially have tried to fill in that gap, what the U.S. is capable of providing, Jim, obviously, you know, this is such a big part of what Ukraine needs for the fight.
So the U.S. able to give something here, but officials both here at the Pentagon and the White House have made clear this is only a small fraction of it, and that's supplemental some $60 billion is still very much needed to keep Ukraine from giving up more territory to Russian forces.
SCIUTTO: Now, I know with a many hundreds of billions of dollars budget there at the Pentagon, sometimes you find some money. But do we know specifically where they found this $300 million for this aid package?
LIEBERMANN: So this was savings that added up over munitions purchasing contracts. You buy it from the weapons in arms manufacturers and, you buy it effectively in bulk, and when you negotiate these contracts, you're able to institute some level of savings, especially with larger contracts. That the Pentagon says and senior defense officials say is whether were able to recoup some of that money here.
Previously, they said, look, we've run out of replenishment money, meaning we can't send anymore to Ukraine because we can't backfill it. We can't refill it. Now they say, look, we have saved $300 million over the course of the past several months here, and we've recently discovered that. And it's added up.
So we have some money now to backfill our own stocks, which means we can give $300 million more to Ukraine. Jim, its worth noting this is not the first time we have seen this when it comes to Ukraine. Last year, the DOD announced they had $6.2 billion extra effectively because of a different way of accounting for what was sent. So it is theoretically possible this happens again, but again, $300
million is a very small piece of what's needed. And as you pointed out, a very, very small piece of that supplemental.
SCIUTTO: Well, and you and I will have to wait for our piece of that I suppose.
Oren Liebermann from the Pentagon, thanks so much.
Joining me now to discuss, the importance of this, the impact, CNN military analyst, retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.
Good to have you, sir.
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Good to be with you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So starting with this new aid package, it's not a lot, but it's something particularly at a crucial time of shortages for Ukrainian forces. I want to play how the national security adviser Jake Sullivan, described the intent of this. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE SULLIVAN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: This ammunition will keep Ukraine's guns firing for a period, but only a short period. It is nowhere near enough to meet Ukraine's battlefield needs, and it will not prevent Ukraine from running out of ammunition in the weeks to come. It goes without saying this package does not displace and should not delay the critical need to pass the bipartisan national security bill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: He seems to be saying, you know, desperate times require desperate measures. And here is one, a small one, but it does have ammunition for things like the ATACMS, long-range missile system, which Ukraine does need today. Does it have an impact?
LEIGHTON: It will have an impact. Now the type of ATACMS that they're going to be using for this kind of -- these kinds of munitions in this package is the -- basically the one that has 100-mile range. So it's going to give the Ukrainians a shorter range capability than what they would like.
[15:50:04]
But the fact is that this is a stopgap measure. And as you correctly pointed out, as, and as, Oren, this is going to be something that is, you know, basically a little finger in the dike and it's going to require a lot more to keep Ukraine a float when it comes to munitions, when it comes to their ability to hold their line especially in the east and in the southeastern corner.
SCIUTTO: This administration has been very clear and they're not alone because you are similar from allies in Europe that without this aid, Ukraine is in trouble and at the worldwide threat hearing yesterday, the CIA Director William Burns made exactly that point. I want to play you his assessment and get your thoughts. See if you share it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BURNS, CIA DIRECTOR: I think down one road with supplemental assistance approved by the Congress lies the very real possibility of cementing strategic success for Ukraine and a strategic loss for Vladimir Putin's Russia down another road. However, without supplemental assistance, it seems to me, lies a much grimmer future.
Ukraine is likely to lose ground and probably significant -- significant ground in 2024.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Lose ground, likely significant ground, possibly lose the war. Do you believe? What's your assessment?
LEIGHTON: Well, I think that's basically correct. And now I think the Ukrainians might have a chance to basically engage in a stalemate --
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
LEIGHTON: -- if they don't get the supplemental. But that's the gamble. And I think its wiser to look at it from Director Burns' point of view because you will always want to, in essence, make a worst-case scenario situation out of this.
And the reason you do that is because you don't know what types of things can happen if the Russians gain momentum, for example, it's going to be a much more difficult situation for the Ukrainians. If the Russians were able, for example, to prosecute their win in Avdiivka, that would have created some major problems. It looks as if they cannot move forward from that, that they've in essence lost momentum after their major victory in Avdiivka.
But there's always a chance that they might be able to use their tremendous production of munitions, of drones and their capability to reach back into Iran and North Korea to help them. And that's going to be a critical problem. And plus, we always have to remember the Russians have significant manpower reserves that the Ukrainians don't have, and that's the situation that we find ourselves in.
It's basically the brains of the Ukrainians against the mass of the Russians. And that's going to really guide us forward in the next few months. And supplemental is going to be critical to giving the Ukrainians the type of firepower that they need in order to rule really prosecute this war to a desirable conclusion.
SCIUTTO: And Russia with seemingly endless openness to sending more cannon fodder to the front.
Cedric Leighton, thanks so much.
Coming up, we are hearing new terrifying details about what happened inside the flight that left some 50 passengers injured, one passenger says the pilot said he lost control of the plane. Details coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
Today, New Zealand investigators are working to retrieve the black boxes from the New Zealand bound Latam flight.
[15:55:06]
That's Chilean carrier that encountered, quote, a technical event mid- air. That event sent passengers fly through the cabinet. It injured at least 50 people. We're now learning new details about what the pilots themselves experienced.
CNN's Pete Muntean is tracking this.
Passenger said the pilots lost control. Is that true?
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, that's what they tell passengers. This is real really interesting account here from a passenger named Brian Jokat, who is on board Latam Flight 800 between Sydney, Australia, and Auckland, New Zealand.
The airline describes this as a technical event that caused a sudden movement on the plane, a lot of PR speak euphemistics there. But the key here is that passengers felt a sudden jolt on board. The cause right now, pretty mysterious, although passengers say that other passengers were thrown up to the ceiling and some of them were bloodied by the severity of this jolt onboard. Initially thought to be as severe turbulence issue, but now, there's a new wrinkle well here based on these accounts from passengers who spoke to the pilots.
And I want you to listen now to Brian Jokat. He said it seemed like a scene from a movie. And on the way out of the plane, as they were deplaning in Auckland, where 50 people had to be treated by first responders, 12 taken to the hospital. He was able to ask one of the pilots what was the deal with that? Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN JOKAT, PASSENGER ON LATAM FLIGHT: And I immediately engaged with him and said, what was that? And he openly admitted, he said, I lost control of the plane. My gauges just kind of went blank on me. And that's when the plane just took a dive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MUNTEAN: No doubt that investigators in New Zealand and Chile, which is leading this investigation, that's where Latam Airlines is from, what want to speak to the pilots, but they will also want the data from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. The flight data recorder is key. That will show any change in airspeed, altitude. It could even show the position of the switches that could have led to this possible blankness in their screens that they experienced there in the cockpit, Jim.
SCIUTTO: What kind of plan was this?
MUNTEAN: A Boeing 787. It's not clear if this is all connected to the Boeing issues we have seen lately, although this is definitely not a MAX 9 that we saw the door plug come off of on January 5th.
SCIUTTO: Pete Muntean, thanks so much.
And thanks so much for all of you for joining me today.
I'm Jim Sciutto, and "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
