Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Modi's BJP Leads, But Appears To Be Short Of Majority; Biden Expected To Limit Asylum-Seekers' Illegal Crossings; Garland Testifies Amid Republican Attacks On Justice Dept. Aired 11a- 12p ET
Aired June 04, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RAHEL SOLOMON, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": Good morning or good evening, depending on where you're watching. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York.
Ahead on CNN Newsroom, U.S. President Joe Biden is expected to announce a big change in U.S. asylum policy, a major shift during this election year. We will take you to the White House on what to expect. Plus, final results are due really anytime now from a potentially pivotal race in the world's biggest democracy. We are live in New Delhi for all the latest here. And opening statements have begun in the trial of Hunter Biden. We will look at what this means for the U.S. President's election campaign.
We want to begin in India, that's where votes are still being counted, although it looks like Prime Minister Narendra Modi's party may need a coalition if it wants to remain in power. Let's look at these live pictures from New Delhi where we are expected to hear from Mr. Modi at any moment. Results are trickling in as election officials count some 642 million votes. Mr. Modi is seeking a third term in office, and his party is leading so far. The Prime Minister has already declared a historic victory, but the numbers paint a more nuanced picture, a different picture. The opposition has done better than a lot of people expected, and the BJP looks set to lose its majority in parliament.
Let's bring in CNN's Ivan Watson, who was live in New Delhi with the latest. So, Ivan, put this in context for us. I mean, what more do we know about the results so far?
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Again, preliminary. We don't know the final results just yet. But, this does not look like the landslide victory that Narendra Modi was predicting. In fact, it looks like his BJP, his party, which won by large margins in the last two national elections may have a hard time getting over the halfway mark to have a majority in parliament, and will likely have to form a government with coalition partners. If that, in fact, plays out that way, it would be the first time that Narendra Modi has had to govern in a coalition in his decade in power. So, it does look like he is poised to win a third term, but his election mandate will have shrunk considerably. That's, again, if the preliminary trends that we're seeing do, in fact, pan out.
He has been out on Twitter already, basically declaring victory, even though the final results aren't out yet, and saying that people have placed their faith in the NDA. That's the National Democratic Alliance. That is the block of parties that he has been leading. Notice, he did not say his own BJP, that's his own party, which doesn't appear to have performed nearly as well as it did in the last national election. He is calling this a historical feat in India's history.
Now, it is interesting how his opponents are spinning this. They're calling this a major setback for Narendra Modi, even though Modi is likely to be Prime Minister again for another term. Listen to what Rahul Gandhi had to say. He is the leader of the main opposition party, the Indian National Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAHUL GANDHI, INDIAN OPPOSITION LEADER: The country has unanimously and clearly stated, we do not want Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Amit Shah to be involved in the running of this country. We do not like the way they've run this country. We do not appreciate the way they have attacked the Constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATSON: And that's been a policy note that the opposition has run on, waving copies of the Constitution and accusing Modi and his government of eroding democratic freedoms in this country.
SOLOMON: Look, Ivan, I think -- I mean, obviously, we'll wait to see how it all pans out. But, I think the surprise -- the results nonetheless are surprising for a lot of reasons. I mean, the way he is often described, certainly at least in Western publications, is extremely popular. So, what does this mean for his political future?
WATSON: Again, it looks like Narendra Modi will get another term in office, but he'll have to make compromises. He'll have to govern potentially with partners. That's something he doesn't have a lot of experience at doing. And I was talking at his headquarters with a 25- year-old Modi supporter, a BJP supporter, who was thrilled with what looks like another potential victory for his party and his leader, but also conceding it's not as big a victory as he had wanted.
[11:05:00]
And I asked, well, why is that? And he said, well, I think many people have been annoyed by the BJP's monopolistic decisions. That was the word of a BJP supporter. But, I like those monopolistic decisions. So, yes, Modi is very popular with his supporters. He has almost like cult-like following. He is at a rally and people are dancing and playing drums and they're celebrating and they're lighting fireworks. But, he is also a polarizing figure who has frightened members of religious and class minorities in this country with his Hindu nationalist rhetoric. And there are other economic challenges. While Narendra Modi has
celebrated the fact that India is now the world's fifth largest economy, and he often speaks in triumphalist terms about where India is headed with its economic growth, which is the envy of other countries, he is perhaps overlooking the fact that you have 45 percent unemployment among the youth in this country that there is huge income inequality and people are also struggling with inflation. Those are all issues that may have contributed to the fact that his electoral mandate looks like it appears to have shrunk.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. Ivan Watson live for us there in New Delhi. Ivan, thank you.
Well, from Indian politics to U.S. politics, just a few hours from now, the White House says that U.S. President Joe Biden will deliver remarks. He is expected to tackle one of his biggest political vulnerabilities, immigration. Now, CNN has learned that the President will announce an executive order that will effectively shut down the U.S.-Mexico border to asylum seekers crossing illegally, when a daily threshold of crossings has exceeded. Now, that order uses a regulation that was unforced or enforced under the Trump administration. And at that time, it was widely denounced by Democrats. This controversial move happening just weeks before Mr. Biden's CNN debate with Donald Trump.
Let's bring in Arlette Saenz, who is joining us from the White House. Arlette, give us a sense of what more we can expect from this order.
ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rahel, sources who have been briefed on this expected executive order saying that President Biden is planning to restrict the ability of some migrants to seek asylum in the U.S. if they enter the country illegally crossing the U.S. southern border when a certain limit, daily limit, is reached for border encounters. Now, that number, sources say, is expected to be about 2,500 daily encounters. So, put that in perspective, just yesterday, there were about 3,500 of border apprehensions. And so, this suggests that it could go into effect potentially almost immediately. We will see exactly what the final details of this executive order are, when we expect they will be announced a bit later today.
Now, one exception to all of this would be for those unaccompanied children who are coming to the U.S. southern border. That is a move that is causing some concern for immigration advocates who are worried that this would simply encourage families to send their children to the border, make the trip to the border by themselves. Now, as you mentioned, this is tapping into an authority that former President Donald Trump tried to use back when he was President in 2018. At the time, that was criticized by many Democrats, and it was ultimately struck down in the course. Biden's expected executive order likely would face a number of legal challenges as well.
But, it all comes as the administration has been trying to show that Biden is trying to do -- take steps to address border security issues at a time when it has increasingly become a concern for American voters in this election. SOLOMON: OK. So, Arlette, it may face legal challenges. How is this
being viewed politically, even by some on the right?
SAENZ: Well, Republicans and former President Trump have really tried to paint President Biden as weak when it comes to border security issues. And part of the administration's hope is that they will be able to offer some proof that Biden is trying to do more to address specific border issues that have played out during this campaign. Now, Trump has made his own hardline immigration policies a central focus of the campaign. And one thing that we have repeatedly seen from this White House is them really trying to take a more aggressive approach when it comes to immigration.
Think back just a few months ago, Biden had gotten on board, supported a bipartisan border -- a bipartisan attempt to reach a border agreement. Ultimately, that was scuttled by Republicans up on Capitol Hill at the urging of Trump, something Biden said at the time is that he would spend the time between now and Election Day trying to remind voters that Republicans thwarted that plan. So, what the President is trying to do here is address an issue that voters have increasingly said is a top concern for them heading into the election. Of course, this is coming before that debate just a few weeks away, where Trump likely will try to take aim at Biden's border policies.
[11:10:00]
But, it's clear that what they're trying to do at this moment is trying to neutralize this political liability for the President, as they're preparing to face off against Trump in November.
SOLOMON: Yeah, really interesting to see how this all shakes out. And we should say that that plan that Biden had thrown his support behind, it was one that the Border Patrol Union had actually supported. They came out, of course, Arlette, as you remember, and said, look, it's not perfect, but it does -- it's a first step. Arlette Saenz live for us at the White House. Arlette, thank you.
And as we wait for President Biden to make that announcement, let's get the view now from the U.S. southern border. CNN's Rosa Flores is there now with a look at how people there are reacting to the news of this potential policy change. Look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Reaction on the border is mixed. There are the officials who support the President, like the group of mayors who have confirmed that they will be at the White House today by President Biden, supporting him while he makes this announcement. That includes the Brownsville Mayor. Brownsville is here in south Texas. That mayor issued a statement saying in part quote "President Joe Biden is expected to unveil an executive order that may notably impact migrants' ability to seek asylum along the U.S. southern border." Now, that mayor, like some of the other officials, are not commenting on camera yet because they want to know the specific details of the executive order before commenting. Now, there is another group of mayors who are upset about the
President doing this. They say it's too little too late or that this is not going to fix the issues on the U.S. southern border. And some of them are upset because they weren't invited to the White House event today. Well, that includes the El Cajon mayor, and that is in Southern California. That mayor issuing a statement saying in part quote, "This is nothing but a sham and an insult to those of us dealing with the real consequences of his failed border policies."
Now, the White House would argue that no executive action is going to fix all the ills on the U.S. southern border that Congress needs to act, that congressional action is required for comprehensive immigration reform to actually happen. Now, the timing of this is very interesting, because we're not in December of 2023 when the U.S. southern border was experiencing a surge. There were about 200,000 migrant apprehensions at that point in time. The numbers at the border have plummeted. We have the numbers for you. In April, about 120,000 migrant apprehensions occurred.
I talked to a source yesterday who says that the numbers dropped even more last month, and everybody that I've talked to here on the U.S. southern border point that, the fact that the numbers are so low right now to say that this is a political move by the Biden administration. And I can tell you that the ACLU says they're going to be looking at those details carefully to figure out if they're going to (inaudible).
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOLOMON: All right. Let's continue this conversation further. Joining us now from Delaware is Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, who is the President and CEO of Global Refuge. Her group is a faith-based nonprofit that helps refugees and immigrants find a new home in the U.S. She also served in the Obama White House and the State Department. Krish O'Mara, welcome. Good to have you today.
KRISH O'MARA VIGNARAJAH, PRESIDENT & CEO, GLOBAL REFUGE: Thanks for having me.
SOLOMON: Let's just start with this executive order as we understand it. Obviously, we're still waiting for the official details. But, as far as we understand it, what are your thoughts so far?
VIGNARAJAH: Well, I think it's important to understand the context. The Biden administration is clearly hamstrung by congressional leaders who refuse to acknowledge that secure borders and robust humanitarian protections are not mutually exclusive concepts. The fact is we can and should do both. Unfortunately, our immigration policies haven't been updated in any meaningful way since the 1990s. And both efforts to pass bipartisan legislation in the past six months have been torpedoed by partisan politics, and that inaction is unacceptable.
I think that's why we're seeing so many people come to the southern border because other pathways have been so backlogged, and that's also why we've seen President Biden forced to essentially legislate by executive order, which is wholly unsustainable. SOLOMON: So, both political sides seem to appreciate this as an issue the American public cares a lot about. You see it in poll after poll after poll, but it's how to address this issue where you see the division. What do you think would be a more effective fix for the Biden administration?
VIGNARAJAH: I think this is where the administration needs to get back to an approach that balances the carrot and stick. That's what the vast majority of Americans want. Poll after polls show that they support a policy framework that ensures a secure orderly border and robust humanitarian protections that align with our core values. I think the problem with this executive order is it is purely stick.
[11:15:00]
And so, that's where I think focusing solely on administrative actions that curtail asylum rights is problematic. The Biden administration, I think, instead should look to implement a holistic policy to manage our southern border, which includes increasing legal pathways such as guest worker and family reunification programs, building up the safe mobility offices in the Western Hemisphere. Those would allow migrants to apply from abroad. And of course, we often used to really kind of cut down on trafficking operations.
SOLOMON: But, Krish O'Mara, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. For the politicians who say that there needs to be something in place that deters people from coming to the southern border, that there are systems in place to allow for legal migration, but there has to be a system in place to deter some of these folks from coming there -- coming here, what would you say to those people?
VIGNARAJAH: I'd say that there is more that unites us than divides us if we can actually try to legislate and solve this problem. Our view is we are a sovereign nation and we need to be able to manage our borders. But, at the same time, organizations like Global Refuge who work with vulnerable asylum seekers, we don't want migrants trying to gain the asylum system. But, this executive order really does raise a number of concerns. One is the legality. As you just heard earlier, the Trump administration tried to invoke this same authority to shut down access to asylum, and that was ultimately blocked by the federal courts.
And I think this is where we have serious concerns about the implications of this strategy. It doesn't recognize some of the clients that we work with, who are fleeing the most dire of circumstances, and they have a legal right to exercise their opportunity to seek asylum. And then I guess just the final point I'd make to those politicians is we know the Trump-era policies, that are these hardline restrictions, don't actually deter people from crossing the border. In fact, we saw crossings increase when these types of policies have been implemented in the past.
SOLOMON: Let me ask you lastly, both political parties, I'm sure, work with people like yourself, who are close to the issue, who boots on the ground, really understand the issue day in and day out. And yet, as you have pointed out, there hasn't been significant immigration reform since the early 90s. How do you explain that to people who may be watching thinking, how is that possible? Both sides understand the issue. Both sides work with people who understand the issue, and yet, nothing seems to happen significantly.
VIGNARAJAH: It's a great question because I think it explains how many days I feel like I'm just hitting my head against a wall. We don't have a policy problem. We have a politics problem. And I think understanding that one side has made this a wedge issue, the other side has viewed this as their Achilles heel, and so they haven't wanted to talk about it has led to this dynamics where people want to score political points on the backs of some of the most vulnerable children and families who are seeking refuge in the U.S.
And so, what I tried to explain is, as a nation of immigrants, where it is in our economic interest, it's our national security interests, it is the right thing and the smart thing to do. There is an opportunity to course correct because we have the lowest birth rates since the census has been tracking this issue. We need immigration. That is the only way we keep Medicare and Social Security afloat. It's the only way we keep food on our table. It's how we address inflation. And so, I think this is where the American public needs to speak to our politicians and say, lead. Don't grandstand. Don't fearmonger, but actually fix this problem.
SOLOMON: We will wait to hear, of course, the details of this. But, Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, great to have your insights today and your perspective. Thank you. She is the CEO of Global Refuge.
VIGNARAJAH: Thanks for having me.
SOLOMON: All right. Still ahead, Hunter Biden, President Biden's son, is now on trial. Opening statements have started, and we'll have the latest on what has happened so far and what to expect with the charges. Plus, I will not back down. Right now, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, that's a quote, is in a face-to-face showdown with Republican members of Congress. We're live on Capitol Hill, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. And the gloves are off on Capitol Hill. Right now, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is locked in a tense face- off with Republican members of Congress. We will show you these live pictures here. As we can see, Garland pushing back on claims that the Biden administration has quote "weaponized the Justice Department against Donald Trump". He is also slamming Republican threats to hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over the audio of President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.
Let's go to Capitol Hill now and Annie Grayer, who has been following all of this. Annie, it has been has already been tense. It hasn't even been a few hours now. What more can we expect from this hearing today? ANNIE GRAYER, CNN REPORTER: Well, Rahel, we've already seen fireworks and this hearing is just getting started. This was supposed to be a routine hearing where members of Congress ask the attorney general questions. But, given the context at this moment that Donald Trump was just convicted in New York and that Republicans are trying to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, there is a lot of underlying tension here. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan came out swinging in his opening statement, accusing the attorney general of weaponizing the Department of Justice to target Donald Trump and play favorites with President Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, the top Democrat on the Committee, Jerry Nadler, accused Republicans of essentially turning the Judiciary Committee into an extension of the Trump campaign, accusing Republicans of using their perch in Congress to simply play defense for the former President. But, what we've seen so far from Attorney General Merrick Garland is he is holding his ground.
So, on this issue of contempt from Republicans, Republicans are trying to hold Garland in contempt because they want the audio tapes of President Joe Biden's interview with the Special Counsel Robert Hur, you may remember this from many months ago, but the department has said they will not turn over the tapes and Garland reaffirmed that today. But, he also said that he will not be intimidated by the repeated threats from Republicans. Take a listen to what he said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNY GENERAL: I will not be intimidated and the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs, free from political influence, and we will not back down from defending democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GRAYER: So, shortly after that, members started asking the attorney general questions. They've taken a quick break, as they're now invoked, and we're expecting it to resume shortly, Rahel, and we will be keeping you posted.
SOLOMON: So, Annie, we've sort of laid out there, and you did as well, what the Committee is hoping to accomplish here. But, assuming that Merrick Garland does not turn over those tapes, which it sounds like he has no indication of doing, what more can the Committee do? I mean, what else do they have in their toolkit here?
GRAYER: Well, the vote to hold Garland in contempt hasn't happened yet. It's passed out of Committee, but it still needs to get a full vote on the House floor, and we're expecting that to happen shortly. That would be the next step. But, that's a tough vote for Republicans specifically in swing districts to take. Republicans have a very narrow majority. But, if they're able to schedule that House vote passed out of Committee, then Republicans would essentially be referring Garland for contempt to the Department of Justice. We haven't gotten to that step yet. So, we're waiting for the vote to be scheduled, Rahel.
SOLOMON: OK. Keep us posted. Annie Grayer live for us on Capitol Hill. Annie, thank you.
Well, the jury is seated and day two of Hunter Biden's federal gun trial is underway right now in the state of Delaware. Opening statements have wrapped up. Prosecutors began the day with a fiery opening statement about President Joe Biden's son. They said quote, "No one is above the law does, it doesn't matter who you are or what your name is."
[11:25:00]
They also showed a picture of Biden's Colt revolver to the jury. Biden is accused of purchasing the firearm at a Delaware gun shop in 2018 when he was an active drug user. He has pleaded not guilty.
Let's go to the courthouse now for more. That's where we find CNN's Paula Reid joining us now. Paula, good to have you. So, just give us a sense of what we've heard so far in opening arguments.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Opening statements wrapped up just a few minutes ago, and any minute now the jury will hear from the first witness in this case, who is expected to be an FBI agent who has worked on this investigation. In those opening statements, which were delayed because they had to deal with some housekeeping issues, some evidentiary issues, the fact that a juror was dismissed, but in the opening statements, prosecutors kicked off their case by telling the jury that no one is above the law. And that's interesting, because that is the same theme that prosecutors up in New York used in the Trump hush money case starting about two months ago.
They also went on to emphasize that, look, it doesn't matter even if your name is Hunter Biden. You cannot lie when you purchase a firearm. And in the course of their opening statement, they also had to address the larger issue here of addiction. This is, of course, a sensitive issue. We have a drug addiction epidemic in this country. We saw that during jury selection yesterday. The majority of potential jurors said they had some experience, either themselves or a loved one who struggled with addiction.
So, the way prosecutors addressed that is they said, look, addiction is not a choice, but it is a choice, they said, to illegally buy a firearm. And this was a very multimedia presentation. They showed a photo of the gun that he purchased. They also use audio clips from Hunter Biden's memoir, which he actually narrated himself, the multimedia opening statement to present their initial theory of the case to the jury.
When Abbe Lowell had a chance to get up, one of Hunter Biden's defense attorneys, he focused on a lot of different legal arguments. The first is, of course, the fact that prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter Biden knowingly committed these crimes. They focus a lot on his state of mind at this time, how addiction could interfere with that. They also tried to pass some of the responsibility onto the individual who sold Hunter Biden this gun, arguing that Hunter Biden wasn't looking to buy a firearm. He was going to the AT&T store to deal with a phone issue, and that this individual working at the store was the one who led Hunter Biden to this firearm.
Now, they wrapped up these opening statements pretty quickly, and they're now moving on to the witnesses. This case is expected to last anywhere from three days to up to two weeks.
SOLOMON: And Paula, just give us a sense of how this may play into the election. I mean, we're now five months away, just about. I mean, how could this sort of creep into the election? It already has, you could argue.
REID: Well, this case is interesting because it's one of two that Hunter Biden is facing. And Senator Lindsey Graham, obviously, a Republican, mostly loyal to former President Trump, said recently, he said, look, if I look at these two cases that Hunter Biden is facing, the one, the tax case out in Los Angeles, he said of most Americans prepare their taxes the way Hunter Biden did, that they too had faced criminal prosecution. But, he added a much dimmer view of this gun prosecution here in Wilmington, Delaware. He said, look, I'm not sure about that case. I don't think anything good will come of it.
So, this case, in particular, it's not clear that this is going to move the needle one way or the other in the election, even when you have prominent Republicans saying, yeah, they're not too sure about this case. But, again, he is facing a second trial later this year, closer to the election, expected to go in September, that's in Los Angeles, and that case focuses on alleged tax violations. But, at this point, it's really not clear what impact, if any, these two cases will have on the election.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Interesting timing, though, right? That other case expected to start in September, just months before American voters physically head to the polls. Paula Reid live for us in Delaware. Paula, thank you.
Let's continue the conversation now. Joining us is Jeff Swartz. He is a former Florida judge and professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Jeff, good to see you again. Let me start where Paula left off, just sort of some politicians, Republican politicians saying they're not really sure how strong this case is. From your perspective, how strong is the government's case?
JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE, & PROFESSOR, THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Well, the truth is, it's a pretty simple case for the prosecution to prove at least prima facie case. He walked in. They are going to be able to prove that he in fact was an addict at the time. He has admitted to it in his autobiography. And he bought a gun and he checked off the wrong box and said he was not an addict at the time. So, the case generally is pretty easy to prove.
The problem is, you're dealing with the idea of the defense wanting to do what's amount to be jury nullification. And two of the witnesses that the government is supposed to be calling is his former sister-in- law, who at that time was his girlfriend and his subsequent girlfriend, to testify to his addiction. But, they may turn on the government. They may be more friendly on cross-examination. So, on the basics of proving a prima facie case, this is government is OK, but they're really facing an uphill battle.
[11:30:00]
SOLOMON: What about what Paula mentioned there, the burden to prove Hunter Biden's intent to state of mind? Does that seem like a challenge to you?
SWARTZ: It is a challenge, because again, if you know addicts and apparently there are people who know addicts on the jury, who have addicts in their family or dealt with drug addiction, have -- you have a situation where if a guy is high on drugs, can he really formulate a specific intent to check off that box and commit a crime? And that is a problem. However, voluntary intoxication of sorts is generally not a defense to a specific intent crime. So, they're going to have to deal with that.
Hunter really has a problem because this judge has said he cannot call that person who works in the store and he cannot call a drug addiction expert. He was told that he cannot call the witnesses. So, he has got kind of a -- he also has a problem. But, this is a case where it should have never have gone to trial. This is a case where most people end up in a pretrial deferral program. But, because the plea deal included the tax issues, the judge rejected the referral to the pretrial deferral program. So, he is not -- I don't think he is looking at jail. He is not looking at jail, I don't think.
SOLOMON: Two questions, Jeff. Does that -- is that included to a jury just that this was supposed to be a plea deal and then it sort of failed in a spectacular fashion? Is that something the jury would hear? And two, you said something that really got my attention, just about the jury and about his addiction issues. Addiction is an issue that a lot of people have some connection to, either you have a family member. You have a friend. You don't have to go far to find someone who has a personal connection to addiction. Does the government run the risk of leaning too hard into this, and it potentially backfiring, and the jury actually feeling perhaps even sympathetic for Hunter Biden?
SWARTZ: And that's the way Abbe is going to play this, this trial. He is going to be looking for the jury to say, wait a minute, he is a drug addict. He bought a gun. He may have been high at the time. He may have been straight at the time and felt in some people who are addicted. If they've gone several days without using drugs, think I'm really not an addict. I used because they want to. And they justify that in their mind.
So, he -- Abbe is going to go for a lot of this and try to say he really doesn't -- he really should not be considered a criminal. This should not have happened. But, he can't say that a plea agreement was rejected by the judge. That's one thing he cannot say, and that there'll be no testimony in front of them. But, he is going to go after this jury and those people who have a history of drugs in their family or drug addicts in their family, and try to play upon their sympathy.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. Well, it's expected to last a week or two. We shall see. But, Jeff Swartz, great to have you today to help us understand how this may all go down. Thank you. We'll see you soon.
SWARTZ: Nice to see you again, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. All right. Still to come, Benjamin Netanyahu's biggest coalition partner says it supports a U.S.-announced hostage and ceasefire deal for Gaza, putting even more pressure on the Israeli Prime Minister to suspend the war. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. You're watching CNN Newsroom. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York.
I want to get to one of our top stories we are following this hour, back to India, where the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is declaring victory in the country's elections. Now, the votes are still being counted and full results are due in the coming hours. But, Mr. Modi has been speaking at the headquarters of his BJP party in New Delhi, and he calls this a quote "glorious day." He is thanking voters for what he calls a win for India. Early results show the Prime Minister might fall short of an outright majority and need coalition partners to form a government. We will, of course, continue to follow this and bring you updates on the official results as they come in.
OK. Now to the Middle East, Qatar, a key mediator between Israel and Hamas, says that there is momentum building for a hostage and ceasefire deal announced last week by U.S. President Joe Biden. But, it also says that there are quote, "contradictory statements by Israel -- Israeli ministers on the plan", urging Benjamin Netanyahu's government to take a unified position. Qatar says it's also waiting to hear an official response from Hamas. Prime Minister Netanyahu may be feeling more pressure today to accept the deal after his biggest coalition partner signaled support. He is also under pressure to stabilize the situation on Israel's northern border. This after large fires broke out following a rocket barrage by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The IDF says that it is working with firefighters to try to put out the flames.
Let's get more now from our Jeremy Diamond. He is live in Jerusalem for us. Jeremy, let's start with the ceasefire. What is the latest on this deal, because there does seem to be some confusion about where things stand?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. No question about it. There has been a lot of muddying of the waters, some of it intentional on the part of the Israeli Prime Minister, as he tries to avoid making this key choice that he may have to make once and if, I should say, Hamas agrees to this proposal, and that is a choice between his government's survival and agreeing to this deal, implementing this deal. We have watched as two of his right wing governing coalition partners, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, have been threatening to leave the government, which would lead to its dissolution, and if indeed the Israeli Prime Minister moves forward with this deal.
And so, what we've been watching the Israeli Prime Minister do is insisting that this is not going to lead to an end of the war. And two interesting things about that, first of all, so far, he has been unsuccessful in convincing those governing partners that it is a good deal, that it's not going to lead to an end of the war. And even as it's been unsuccessful, what we've also witnessed is that it may be counterproductive to actually getting Hamas to agree to this deal.
I've spoken with two Israeli sources familiar with the matter, who say that there are now concerns that the Israeli Prime Minister may be undermining the very fabric of this deal, some of the ambiguity surrounding how long the ceasefire would last and whether it would transition into a permanent ceasefire, effectively, the main way that the United States and some of the mediators involved in these negotiations are trying to pitch Hamas on this deal. And so, major questions about whether or not Hamas will ultimately agree to this. As you know, they have previously asked for an upfront commitment that this will lead to a permanent ceasefire, and the Israeli Prime Minister is very much refusing to do so, suggesting even that it will not lead there, even once they get to the potential second phase of this agreement.
SOLOMON: All right. Keep us posted on that. Jeremy, meantime, let's go north. These dramatic images of these fires in northern Israel apparently caused by rocket fire from southern Lebanon, as we look at these pictures here, just truly dramatic and incredible. Jeremy, what more are you learning about this?
DIAMOND: Yeah. The Israeli military and Fire and Rescue Services are continuing to try and get these wildfires under control. According to Israel's Fire and Rescue Services, there have been changing winds, high dryness, high temperatures, all of this contributing to and accelerating the spread of these fires. Indeed, they were sparked by a rocket fire from Lebanon as well as at least one fire that was caused by an Israeli interceptor missile falling in an open area.
[11:40:00]
It's unclear how long it will take the Fire and Rescue Services to contain these fires, but already they have burned through thousands of acres in northern Israel, and perhaps more importantly than the fires themselves, it the attention that it is drawing to the situation in the north, and the extent to which it speaks to the fact that eight months into this war, despite multiple promises from the Israeli Prime Minister and his government to effectively resolve the situation in the north to get the tens of thousands of Israeli residents who've been evacuated from that area to be able to return to their homes, that eight months in, there are still continued cross-border exchanges of fire between the Israeli military and Hezbollah.
In fact, those exchanges of fire have ramped up to a certain extent over the course of the last week, still falling well short of the kind of all-out war that many have feared between Israel and Hezbollah. But, certainly, it is drawing attention once again to these unfulfilled promises from the Israeli government, and to the task that they still have ahead to somehow bring that situation under control to allow those residents to return to northern Israel. But, so far, there is no end in sight. It seems the only way that there could be some kind of a diplomatic resolution to that situation is if there is first a ceasefire in Gaza itself. So, a lot riding on those ceasefire --
SOLOMON: Yeah.
DIAMOND: -- negotiations that we were just talking about. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Absolutely. Well put. Jeremy Diamond live for us in Jerusalem. Jeremy, thank you.
Well, Iranian media are reporting that Israeli airstrikes in Syria have killed an Iranian military adviser. Now, that's believed to be the first member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps killed by Israel since April. That's when Israel bombed Iran's embassy compound in Damascus.
Let's bring in CNN's Fred Pleitgen, who is following the story, and joins us live from Berlin. Fred, what more can you share with us? What more have you learned?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Rahel. Well, I think one of the really important things is that the Israelis so far have not acknowledged they were behind these strikes. Of course, that's something that we see fairly commonly from the Israelis that they don't acknowledge that they're behind strikes that happen outside of their territory. Nevertheless, we do have Iranian media, for instance, blaming the Israelis. The details that we're getting, still a bit murky, but there are some details that are coming out.
And in fact, Syrian media has been reporting that there were several strikes that took place, as they put it, in the vicinity of Aleppo city, so, the Aleppo governor, at the area around Aleppo city. That happened on Monday, very early in the morning hours, at around half past midnight. Now, having been in Aleppo a couple of times during the Syrian civil war, that area is a heavily industrialized area. There are some military bases around there, but also some industrial complexes, where in the past, there have been some militias fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who have set up shops there, of course, some of them were supported by Iran.
And so, now Iranian semi-state media are saying that an adviser of the Revolutionary Guard Corps was killed in one of those strikes. What we've seen so far has been a photo popping up from this adviser, and also what appeared to be images of a funeral taking place for him. It's not clear whether or not those pictures were taken inside Syria, or whether or not that funeral took place inside Iran. There hasn't been any official confirmation yet from the Revolutionary Guard that one of their members or one of their advisers has been killed. But, nevertheless, of course, all of this comes as tension between
Iran and Israel has really been at a boiling point over the past couple of weeks since we had that strike on the embassy compound of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Syria. That, of course, killing several members of the Revolutionary Guard as well, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Fred Pleitgen live for us there in Berlin. Fred, thank you.
All right. Still to come, for a lot of workers in the U.S., it could take 200 years, 200 years to earn what their CEO does and just want a stark pay gap (inaudible) coming up next. Plus, Donald Trump has called his hush money conviction a scam. But, it now appears that conviction helped fuel a silver, more accurately, a gold lining, for his campaign. We will explain, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. Donald Trump's campaign says the conviction in his hush money trial actually helped the campaign with a major fundraising boost. The campaign says that it, along with the Republican National Committee, raised an eye-popping $141 million in May, with many of those donors contributing to the Trump reelection effort for the first time. Trump officials say that the campaign raised $53 million online in just the 24 hours after the former President's conviction. Other organizations supporting Trump brought in another $150 million last month.
With more now, let's turn to CNN's Alayna Treene. Alayna, some might find it surprising to hear that a felony conviction actually led to a fundraising boost. Why do you think Republican donors are feeling so energized?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, there is a couple of things here. And first of all, I just want to point out that this is very similar to what we saw, Rahel, in the immediate aftermath of the four criminal indictments brought against Trump last year. We saw a similar major boost in fundraising and support. But, look, when I talk to people on the ground about this, as well as the Trump campaign, there is a few things they know. One is that many of Donald Trump's fiercest supporters believe exactly what Donald Trump and his campaign are saying, that this was a sham trial, that it was political, and that this is their way of standing by the former President.
Another part of this as well is that Donald Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee, and he has a lot more big donors in his back pocket than he did last year when he was facing these indictments as well. And so, I think that seeing all of this money come in is just a sign of how many more people are ready to support Donald Trump at this point in the campaign. But look, I think when you talk to Donald Trump's advisors about this, they say that this is them trying to make the most of what they view is a negative situation, of course, and it's an unprecedented conviction against a former President, and they recognize that they can capitalize on that both politically and financially.
Now, you brought up the $141 million raised by the RNC and the Trump campaign. There is a couple things I want to point out that's very interesting about this. One is that it is far more money than we have seen the Trump campaign raise really in this year and in his election, or his campaign, excuse me, overall. It's also more than what Biden raised combined in March and April, and that's important to note, because for months, Donald Trump's campaign has been trying to catch up to the Biden campaign in fundraising. Now, it shows that they are likely on track to out-fundraise Joe Biden's campaign this month. They also outraised the Biden campaign last month. So, that's really helpful for them as they look forward.
We know that Donald Trump later this week is going to continue with a fundraising tour in -- on the West Coast in California and in Vegas. And so, this is something that is very important to the Trump campaign at this point in time.
And one other thing that I think we have to be very clear about, Rahel, is that despite this immediate boost in fundraising, it's still very unclear how this will play out politically for the former President and his campaign. When I talked to Trump's advisors, they acknowledge that they do not know how this will impact him in the long term as they look ahead to November, and a key date that they're watching is July 11. That's the current date for Donald Trump's sentencing in this case. And it's, again, unclear if Republicans leading up to the convention and after that sentencing date will potentially be turned off by this conviction, if specifically independent-leaning conservatives could be turned off by that conviction. That is still an unknown despite these fundraising numbers.
SOLOMON: Yeah. The only thing that both sides do seem to both agree on is that it could be very close and we shall see. Alayna Treene live for us in Washington. Alayna, thank you.
Well, speaking of bringing in a lot of money, it may come as no surprise to you that the bosses of some of the biggest companies are paid very well.
[11:50:00]
But, a new study shows just how well they're paid and just how big the pay gap is between top executives and their workers. So, the Associated Press is reporting that about half of the CEOs from companies trading on the S&P 500, included in the AP's annual pay survey, earn at least 196 times more than their average workers, and their median pay package rose to a whopping $16.3 million, up more than 12 percent.
Joining us now is Matt Egan. Matt, you and I over the last year or so have talked a lot about increasing wages, certainly not to the 12 percent to, and talk to us a little bit more about what you're learning in this new survey. MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Rahel, clearly, it is a great time to
be a CEO. Some of these pay packages are absolutely massive. Now, it's not shocking that CEOs get paid more than workers. That's always been the case. But, the gap between CEO pay and workers, that is widening. As you mentioned, the median CEO in the S&P 500 is making 196 times what the employees are making. That is up from 185 times in 2022. Now, the gap is widening because CEO pay is going up faster than that of workers, right, the median CEO making $16.3 million. As you mentioned, it's up 13 percent from the year before. Employees, they're making more too, but at a slower pace, right, up five percent.
To take this a step further, the annual pay increase for workers is about $4,300, for CEOs $1.5 million. Now, a big reason why this is happening is the fact that the stock market had a gangbusters year last year. We know that CEO compensation, it's really made mostly from stock rewards. And this survey from Equilar found that the stock award for the median CEO was up by 11 percent last year to $9.4 million. Again, that's on top of the perks and the salaries that CEOs earn.
And when you look at the list of the highest paid CEOs, one name stands out among all of them, and that is Hock Tan. He is the CEO of Broadcom, and that CEO made more than $161 million last year alone. He is the only CEO in the S&P 500 to earn nine figures, and this came after Broadcom's stock price more than doubled in 2022. And another -- other interesting names on there, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Ted Sarandos, the Netflix CEO.
So, Rahel, clearly, the CEOs are doing better. Hopefully, worker wages continue to rise as well, ideally at a faster pace.
SOLOMON: Yeah. That would be a good thing, especially because inflation, while moderating, is still on the up and up. So, workers certainly would appreciate a bit more in their paycheck. Matt Egan, thank you.
EGAN: Thanks.
SOLOMON: All right. Speaking of the stock market, let's see how stocks are doing. Not so great today right across the board, across all the major averages in the U.S., the Dow Jones off about let's call it two tenths of a percent. The NASDAQ off a little bit more than that. The S&P, the worst among them right now, off about four tenth of one percent. A sluggish start to the month of June for U.S. equities.
Turning overseas, you can see European markets are also lower, with the DAX the worst among them. Asian markets, a more mixed picture, more nuanced picture, in Asian markets, with Shanghai Composite up closing up about four tenth of a percent.
All right. Coming up next after a short break, look over dad. In today's one more thing, we will tell you about a congressman's son who stole the spotlight during the speech for this reason. You can see it on your screen. We'll talk about it when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. And one more thing before we go. Taking your child to workday didn't exactly go quite as planned for one U.S. Congressman. Representative John Rose had his six-year-old son Guy sit behind him while he gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. House. And as six-year-olds will do, Guy took the opportunity to ham it up for the camera. He has been natural, clearly. In a tweet later, the Republican from Tennessee took some responsibility, saying "This is what I get for telling my son Guy to smile at the camera for his little brother."
Earlier, CNN spoke to father and son and put Guy to the test. We asked him for a few of his other faces that he maybe has been working on, and then in true six-year-old fashion, Guy came through for us. Love it. You always need a little levity on a Capitol Hill. We thank Guy for his for his levity.
And we know your time is money. So, thank you for spending some time with me today. I'm Rahel Solomon in New York. Stick with CNN. One World is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
