Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Soon, House Votes on Bill That Could Ban TikTok in U.S.; Ukraine Defense Source Says, Drones Hit Oil Refineries Deep Inside Russia; Judge Dismisses Some Counts Against Trump in Georgia Case. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired March 13, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We are following breaking news up on Capitol Hill. At any minute, House lawmakers are expected to vote on a bill that could effectively ban the social media platform TikTok here in the U.S. Supporters of a potential ban claim it's China-based parent company, ByteDance, could somehow use TikTok to spy on Americans who use the app. If signed into law, the measure would give the company less than six months to sell to a non-Chinese owner if ByteDance fails to do so. TikTok could be all but shut down here in the U.S.

Users of the platform, which is wildly popular among younger Americans, are trying to stop that from happening.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know I'm not the only one that relies on this app every single day to provide for their family. I know I'm not the only one that relies on this app to get by.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's taken me six years to get to this point. Literally not even a month ago, I quit my job to do TikTok, social media full-time, and now this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are eight years of Generation Z that are now eligible voters in this election year. Do you really want to piss them all off by taking away their favorite app where they make friends, where they make contents, where they laugh, where a lot of us creators make our money? You want to take that app away?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: It could happen.

Let's begin up on Capitol Hill with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju. Manu, a lot of last minute lobbying some strange bedfellows on this issue, Republicans, Democrats who were supportive of this and who are also against this. How close is this going to be?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we do expect this to pass in the House. This is, we'll need two-thirds majority to get there, and we do expect a bipartisan majority choosing the concerns over national security, over the concerns over freedom of speech in the middle of this hotly contested election year.

Even as Donald Trump has lobbied against this bill because he contends that it could hurt, it could help Facebook, who he detests. Trump also met with a TikTok mega-donor recently as well, reversing his position on this, and also warnings that if Joe Biden were to get behind this bill from some Democrats who are warning that that could actually hurt him with some young voters. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXWELL FROST (D-FL): I don't think it will be helpful with young voters. But, you know, my argument here, yes it has to do with young people, but taking a step back, I just think it's bad policy.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): Successful politics is an addition to multiplication, and cutting out a large group of young voters is not the best known strategy for re-election.

RAJU: How about Trump's opposition to this?

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I agree with him the first time mono the first time around on this, when he is president, tried to ban it.

RAJU: The former president tried to kill it.

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Well, he's wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, even though, Jim, this is expected to pass the House in just a matter of minutes, its future in the Senate is much different. There are concerns about the way this language is structured, even from proponents who support banning TikTok, including someone like Senator Mark Warner, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, who is concerned about naming a specific company in this legislation which would force Beijing-owned ByteDance to sell TikTok.

If not, TikTok would be banned on social media platforms here in the United States. He has raised constitutional concerns. There are different versions of the bills that are moving around the Senate right now, and the majority of it in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, indicated that he is in no rush, that they want to move through the committee process and figure out the right way to move ahead here.

So, this is going to take some time to play out in the Senate, but that does not mean that the debate on the House floor at the moment, very emotional, at this key time where they're trying to get this bill through, and we're expected to pass here in a matter of minutes, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right, we're going to be watching that vote. Manu Raju, thank you very much.

In the meantime, China is lashing out at this potential ban and delivering some strong words to the U.S.

CNN International Correspondent Marc Stewart joins us now from Beijing. Marc, you heard from China's foreign ministry this morning. What do they say?

MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, Jim. Look, the messaging from Beijing to Washington is very blunt. It's very direct.

[10:05:00]

And the phrasing to Washington is, you're acting like a bully, this at a time when the United States and China are trying to figure out this working relationship, especially when it comes to these matters of business and economics.

I did talk to the spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I said to him, regardless of what happens in Washington today, there is still this feeling of distrust from American lawmakers, from American citizens toward Chinese companies.

Let's listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WANG WENBIN, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN: Even though the U.S. has not found evidence on how TikTok endangers its national security, it has never stopped going after TikTok. Such practice of resorting to acts of bullying, when one could not succeed in fair competition, disrupts the normal operation of the market. It undermines the confidence of international investors and sabotages the global economic can trade order. This will eventually backfire in the U.S. itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEWART: I was also curious about the role the Chinese government is taking all of this. And I asked, is the government advising ByteDance on how to proceed? The response I got, Jim, was very much in line with what you just heard, no real insight as to what kind of approach, what kind of role the China government, if at all.

ACOSTA: Yes, and I'm sure that is not helping TikTok's cause here in Washington when they have that kind of posture.

All right, Marc Stewart, thank you very much.

Joining me now for more on this, CNN Contributor Kara Swisher, she's the host of the podcast On and Pivot and the author of Burn Book, a Tech Love Story. Hey, Kara, how are you this morning? Great to see you.

What do you think? What you do think about all this? I was just thinking a few -- good, very good. You know, I watching Manu Raju's live shot a moments ago, when he had a group of teenagers behind him. I was just thinking, you know, what would happen if Manu were to turn around and talk to these teenagers? I mean, for the ones who are, I guess, not in school right now, they must be looking at what their screens are saying, wait a minute, what, what's going on with TikTok?

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if we should take our cues from teenagers all the time. You know, this could be a national security issue. There's certainly concerns about it. And I wrote about years ago that this was propaganda and surveillance from the Chinese government is going to be a problem going forward. And so you have to think about that.

And I get that they're trying to gin up the teenagers to get all angry in the political aspects of it, but they should make these decisions based on national security issues and whether a Chinese-owned company should have this much access in a media company to the U.S.

They certainly couldn't buy CNN, could they, or control CNN. They couldn't do other things. So it's a very complex subject, and, of course, we'll get emotional, it's a complex subject.

ACOSTA: And what do you make of -- you know, I mean, I remember. I'm old enough to remember covering the White House, Donald Trump, when he was president, he was in support of banning TikTok, and now he's changed his tune on this. What's going on? Why is that happening?

SWISHER: Money, Jim. He wants money from different people. He, of course, met with Jeff Yass, who's an investor in ByteDance. And I think that he suddenly changes minds being lobbied on by Kellyanne Conway.

In addition, there's a thing called Project Texas going on that Oracle is, which is a supporter -- Larry Ellison is the supporter of President Trump, former President, Trump. And that's going to try to make it safer, make it if this doesn't pass.

There's still a lot of issues going forward, whether the Senate will take it up. There have been legal challenges that have won. And it's it a long road before this happens. But, eventually, we have to figure out what to do about this company and companies like it using -- being able to have access to our world here in the United States, and we can't have reciprocal access to theirs.

That's something people do need to pay attention to. Social media sites aren't allowed in China. Ours aren't certainly.

ACOSTA: No, I've been in Beijing when you walk outside and you leave your VPN network. You can't get on Facebook, you can't get on certain apps over there in China. I mean, it just doesn't happen.

And so when I listened to Marc Stewart reporting from Beijing a few moments ago, and he was talking about the complaints coming from the foreign ministry about anti-business practices, I was -- you know, my head almost exploded because that's pretty rich coming from the Chinese. SWISHER: Well, they like having this here, I suspect. And the issue is what do you buy if they sell it. That's another issue. You cannot -- they're not going to let us have the algorithm because the algorithm will prove whether they've been manipulating it for propaganda or surveillance.

And so what is TikTok without its magic algorithm? That's a big question too for any buyer.

ACOSTA: Yes. And we should note to our viewers, Kara, I mean we're watching this vote right now. We're thinking it's going to pass. It could happen at any moment.

[10:10:00]

Before we go, I wanted to ask you about your reaction to this new reporting that a State Department Commission report warns that A.I. could pose an extinction level threat to humans. I can't remember if you and I have talked about this in the past, some of these dire warnings. Sometimes you hear from the business community, now it's from this report that was funded by the State Department. What's your sense of all that? Overblown?

SWISHER: I don't know. I think, yes, of course, they have to put that in, right? Of course, it could. So could nuclear weapons. So could a lot of things. It doesn't mean it has to.

It has capabilities. I mean, if the wrong person gets in place and says, say they say to the A.I., let's solve world hunger without any rules. You know what it would do? It would kill people. Like that's what it would do.

So, there's all kinds of things depending on who maintains it and what guidelines we have and regulations. And that's why regulations are critically important.

ACOSTA: All right. Kara Swisher, great to talk to you. As always, we're watching this vote on Capitol Hill with you. Thank you so much.

And note to our viewers, you are looking at that vote taking place right now. As soon as we get a final vote in the House, it is expected to pass. As Manu Raju was saying it a little while ago, uncertain what takes place in the Senate. And even though the White House has indicated the president has indicated he may sign this legislation, you heard some Democrats sort of complaining about this legislation. So, you know, anything could happen. We're going to keep our eyes on all of this. We'll break in as soon as we get a final vote on all of that.

In the meantime, coming up, the dire warnings from the Biden administration about Ukraine's ammunition supply as the president announces a new military aid package. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00] ACOSTA: All right. I just want to keep you up to speed on what's happening right now. The House is voting on a bill that would effectively ban TikTok here in the U.S. We are monitoring that vote count. We'll bring you the latest as it comes in. Stand by for that.

In the meantime, new this morning, Ukraine is stepping up its drone attacks deep inside Russia targeting three oil refineries overnight. This new video coming into CNN shows one of those attacks.

A Ukrainian defense source tells CNN these attacks were part of a special operation to go after Russian oil reserves and cut a major source of revenue from Moscow. It comes as the White House announced a surprise $300 million military aid package to Ukraine as Kyiv is running dangerously low on ammunition.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE SULLIVAN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: When Russian troops advance and its guns fire, Ukraine does not have enough ammunition to fire back. That's costing terrain. It's costing lives. And it's costing us, the United States and the NATO alliance, strategically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: CNN Pentagon Correspondent Oren Liebermann is following the story for us. Oren, what's in this new package?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Jim, there are some critically needed munitions and equipment for Ukraine in this package, but the White House and the Pentagon were quick to point out that this is hardly a stopgap measure. The White House said this may last a matter of weeks, perhaps as little as a couple of weeks, and that's simply because of the nature of the war in Ukraine.

It is very heavy on artillery. For example, 155-millimeter artillery is in this package, and Ukraine also needs anti-aircraft missiles to repel the repeated Russian air assaults that are coming in, as well as small arms ammunition and more.

The key here is to keep Ukraine in the fight. As Jake Sullivan pointed out there, as we saw him speaking yesterday, the Ukrainians need this essentially to hold the line against the Russians who have been advancing and have been taking territory from Ukraine, so Ukraine needs this to be able to keep on fighting against the Russians.

Meanwhile, both the Pentagon and the White House very much saying, look, we still need the supplemental to be able to make sure Ukraine can really stay in this fight because this $300 million package won't last very long.

Where did it come from? Well, the last U.S. security package was back on December 27th. At that point, the U.S. had run out of what's called replenishment dollars. It had more authority to send equipment, but it couldn't refill it in U.S. stocks. This $300 million came essentially from savings on the purchase of weapons contracts. Add enough of that up over years of negotiations, and you got to $300 million. That gave the White House and the Pentagon a little breathing room to send over a little more aid to Ukraine.

But, Jim, the White House, the Pentagon, making it very clear this is not enough and it will not last very long.

ACOSTA: Yes, it's a fraction of what is said to be needed right now. Oren Liebermann, thank you very much.

The White House's request for a $60 billion aid package remains stalled in the House after passing the Senate. Today in Washington, a truck with a large screen will circle the Capitol all day, playing an ad put together by the group of VoteVets Urging action on Ukraine funding, using the words of Ronald Reagan. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: You all knew that some things are worth dying for, one's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman joins us now, he's a senior adviser with VoteVets. And Colonel Vindman, great to have you on the new program, thanks a lot for stopping by, I appreciate it.

I want to talk to you about the ad in just a moment, but first let's talk about this $300 million. I mean, is this the equivalent of sort of looking under the sofa cushion in the Pentagon budget to help the Ukrainians over there, it's a drop in the bucket in terms of what's needed.

LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN (RET.), U.S. ARMY: It is, frankly, I'd say in Pentagon dollars, that is a seat cushion, you know, what you find in your seat cushions. It's not going to take them very far.

I think the key point to this is that there is about $4 billion in presidential drawdown authority. There is not replenishment dollars to be able to refill the stores.

[10:20:00]

But the president does have the ability to use those funds. And we need to start thinking about severing the replenishment from the drawdown. Why? Because the fact is that we have additional resources.

We have padded our stockpiles and stores to fight our own wars in case our own troops are involved. But like I said, they're padded. So, it means you have some extra breathing room. You could apply some of those resources to help Ukraine win and then put the onus on Congress to pass additional money to make sure our cupboards aren't bare in case our own troops are at risk.

We need to move in that direction now. That's probably one of the critical things we could do in order to sustain the war effort until Congress passes the $60 billion supplemental.

ACOSTA: Yes. And that VoteVets at, let's talk about that a little bit. Why use Reagan?

VINDMAN: Well, I think the fact is that Reagan probably is one of the most thoughtful in terms of thinking through the dangers of authoritarianism. He oversaw the final stages of the end of the Cold War. And I think he captured the spirit of the United States, which is facing down authoritarianism, nurturing democracy.

And we are trying to remind the Republicans of their roots that they were the party of national security and defense. Clearly, that's not the case now.

ACOSTA: This was Reaganism?

VINDMAN: Yes.

ACOSTA: Reaganism was to stare down the Russians, call their bluff, peace through strength.

VINDMAN: And now we have a Republican Party that's willing to cast aside national security, the potential risk to our troops in order to curry favor with Donald Trump, who himself is trying to curry favor with Vladimir Putin.

And that's not the roots of the Republican Party. That is also not going to serve the Republican Party very well. They certainly have lost the brand of national security and defense. And frankly, they will be held accountable if American lives are lost.

And that's what we are trying to remind them of. We're having this billboard rotate through. We're having Fox News campaign with this particular ad.

ACOSTA: Running the ad on Fox?

VINDMAN: Running the ad on Fox. We're going to run this in several districts for vulnerable Republicans, hold them accountable. Either they pass the bill or they could be accountable to their constituents. It's a full court press. We're in a narrow window where we could pass this Ukraine aid bill. We're going to try to do the best we can to remind, awaken the Republicans to their roots. And if not, we're going to impose some costs. So, either they do the right thing for national security reasons or they get held accountable at the ballot box.

ACOSTA: And you and I have talked about this a little bit before, in an interview with state media, Putin is talking, he's doing some saber-rattling again, talking about using nuclear weapons. He seems to do that every six months or so. What's your sense of that?

VINDMAN: I think the fact is though those have rung hollow with me since the beginning. Putin acts on the basis of regime preservation regime survival, aggrandizing, empire-building. Nuclear weapons are the road to destruction, mutual destruction. So, those are really hollow threats. And we saw a recent report about the fact that the administration was deeply concerned about some saber-rattling in the past. I think that's intentional. It's what Russia does with regards to information confrontation. It reflects the control, this idea, this doctrine that they've developed, if they do certain things, they elicit certain responses. And they've done that successfully with regards to escalation, warning off the administration for providing adequate support.

This administration -- it's on the Republicans to pass this bill it's the most important thing we could do. But this administration has recourse also. It could provide additional support through the presidential drawdown authority. It could dip into Russia's central bank assets that are frozen and pass those off to Ukraine. That's an easy thing for the administration to do.

The administration has a decision that it's on with the president to lift some severe restrictions on contractors in country. That's critical because we provided masses of equipment to Ukraine without any means to support them.

ACOSTA: The question is whether any of -- the question is how much the administration can do at this point. The $300 million is an indication that you know that they're running out of unilateral options.

But as always, Colonel Vindman, thanks a lot for your time. We'll be on the lookout for that billboard and that ad, maybe not playing on this channel as much different channel, interesting to watch.

VINDMAN: We'll cover -- we'll blanket everything. We're going to do everything we can to be effective and make sure that we leave nothing on the table to get this aid bill passed. It's critical for U.S. national security and that's what VoteVets does. We make sure that our troops are secure now and going forward.

ACOSTA: All right. Colonel Vindman, great to see you. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

All right coming up, CNN has learned that former President Donald Trump is expected to attend tomorrow's hearing on his motion to dismiss the classified documents case. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

ACOSTA: All right. Some breaking news to tell you about out of Georgia, the judge in Fulton County has just dismissed some of the charges in the Georgia election subversion case.

CNN's Nick Valencia has been following all of this for us diligently. Nick, what's the latest? What are you learning?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, these are charges that have to deal with the violation of an oath of office. So, 6 of the 41 charges in this case have been thrown out by Judge Scott McAfee.

And we want to be very clear. We don't want to confuse our viewers here as we anticipate and wait for his decision as to whether or not he's going to remove Fani Willis from this case. This is not that order. What this is, though, is a victory for the defendants, including the former president.

One of those charges he was accused of trying to get the secretary of state to unlawfully overturn the election results here. The D.A.'s office had said that it is a violation of the oath of office, that he was soliciting from the secretary of state.

But, ultimately, the judge in this case ruling that the D.A.'s office failed to include sufficient details that would allow these defendants to intelligently prepare for a future trial.

[10:30:09]