Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: Biden Announces Order Limiting Asylum- Seekers At Southern Border; PM Modi Wins Third Term But Does Not Secure Supermajority; Day Two Of Hunter Biden's Federal Gun Case Underway; New Report Details Cyber Threats Facing 2024 Paris Olympics. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired June 04, 2024 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:33]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: It's 8:00 p.m. in London, 12:30 a.m. in New Delhi, 3:00 a.m. in Beijing, 3:00 p.m. here in New York.
I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM and let's get right to the news.
Starting at midnight, President Joe Biden severely restricts the process of seeking asylum at the U.S. southern border. Flanked by border mayors and congressman as well, the president announced executive actions he billed as essential to address an issue Congress has for decades failed to act on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've come here today to do and Republican Congress refused to do, take the necessary steps to secure our border.
Today, I'm announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: The order bars migrants from seeking asylum when they cross illegally. And during periods when the border is overwhelmed, the administration defines that as when illegal encounters between ports of entry exceed 2,500 per day. Those migrants would be subject to expedited removal the order we should note exempts, unaccompanied children, as well as victims of sex trafficking.
The administration points to the same federal statutes that Trump administration used in its actions on immigration. Like those, however, this order will almost certainly face challenges in court. With me now for more, CNN senior White House reported Kevin Liptak.
Kevin, this is a remarkable change from Democrats in particular on the immigration issue. It shows how much views in this country among both parties has changed on the issue. Tell us how the Biden administration landed on these executive actions to well, replace what Congress was not able to do earlier this year. KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, the biggest
shift is probably from candidate Biden to President Biden. You'll remember, Jim, he railed against former President Trump's policies when he was running against him in 2020. Now he is using those very same authorities to try and get a handle on the migrant situation on the southern border.
And I think it does tell you how much of a political vulnerability this is for President Biden heading into November that he really does want to demonstrate that he has a plan and is willing to take executive action to try and curb some of that flow.
Now, in his speech today, the president did try and delineate between what he is, his plan is, and what Trump's plan is. He talked about how he wasn't in favor of separating families. He talked about how he wouldn't demonize migrants. Listen to a little bit of how he characterized that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: So I will never demonize immigrants. I'll never refer to immigrants as poisoning the blood of a country and further, I'll never separate children from their families at the border. I don't want to ban people from this country because of their religious beliefs. I will not use the U.S. military to go into neighborhoods all across the country to pull millions of people out of their homes and away from their families to put detention camps, while awaiting deportation, as my predecessor says he will do if he occupies this office again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LIPTAK: So you see in his rhetoric here, the president really kind of caught in a bind. He does want to show that he is strong on the border and forceful. He called the new executive action a ban, and he was very specific that illegal crossings wouldn't be tolerated. But on the flip side, he does want to show to progressive Democrats, to his own supporters who are worried that he's using Trump's own policies, that it is not an exact replica, and that he is approaching this with more of a humanitarian point of view.
And certainly when you talk to administration officials, that is what they're trying to emphasize that this is more nuanced, more strategic than what Trump implemented when he was an office. But certainly, they are prepared for legal challenges. Of course, this is something that could have been passed by Congress as part of that bipartisan legislation that was eventually torpedoed by Republicans and by Trump who wanted to use this as a political cudgel against Biden.
Ultimately, executive actions are always on shakier legal ground than something that is passed by lawmakers. And so even though the administration says this is going into effect at midnight tonight, it is certain that it will be tied up in courts sooner rather than later, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Kevin Liptak, thanks so much.
[15:05:01]
Of course, we'll see how quickly that court challenge comes.
The president's move today marks a dramatic shift from his rhetoric on the campaign trail four years ago as Kevin was noting there, where he promised to usher in a more humane and welcoming immigration system, contrasting his policy from Donald Trump's. There's a 2020 Trump-Biden debate in just three weeks.
Listen to what Biden said at one of their debates four years ago on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: This is the first president in history of the United States America, there's anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country. That's never happened before in America. That's never happened before in America. You come to the United States and you make your case that I seek asylum based on the following -- on the following premise, why I deserve it under American law. They're sitting in squalor on the other side of the river.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: The circumstances at the border have, of course, changed since then, as have the politics. Poll after poll shows voters are unhappy with President Biden's policies at the southern border.
So, is this shift good presidential politics? Will it make a difference?
Here to discuss are two campaign experts. Doug Heye, former communications director for the RNC, and Karen Finney, a former senior advisor to the Clinton campaign.
Good to have you both on.
Karen, you're as aware as anyone of the dramatic shift in four years in the president, it's not just his tone, but his position on this issue. He is basically following the Trump playbook here. Is that the right move politically six months to the election, or five months?
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I think he needed -- he knew that he needed to do something. I mean, let's remember that this is a president who first de, in office actually did put forward a package around immigration reform that would have not only dealt with the situation at the border, but also dealt with other needed reforms in the system. And so, I think the president felt couple of things and I think politically he was right about.
Number one, once the deal with Republicans collapse after Donald Trump and that they had had a -- Trump said, you know, don't do the deal. I need it, the president had a couple of options. Do nothing or try to figure out what could be done via executive action. And that's what you're seeing today. But the second piece I think is important, which is, and I think we'll hear this in the debate, how you talk about people who are here illegally actually matters. When you talk about people coming from until institutions and demonizing the blood -- I mean, we don't need that kind of talk in order to say, you know what, I'm going to deal with a legal migration at the border. I'm going to make sure we're cracking down on the drugs, the flow of drugs coming through. And I'm going to make sure that we treat people who are here humanely including our DACA kids.
SCIUTTO: Doug Heye. I mean, I get that the rhetoric is different, but the substance is quite similar, in some respects identical. Biden, he sat down last week, "Time Magazine", he stood by his original positions. They asked in retrospect, do you think those humanitarian moves early in the administration when he and undid some of Trump's policies, helped drive that big jump in illegal border crossings.
Biden said no, and he said, as you can see there on the screen, if I was wrong, it's because I took too long. Do you agree with his self- criticism there?
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I do. And certainly when we saw the surge, what we're hearing from the people that were coming, that were coming in droves, video that we all saw was they felt that the door was wide open and that's the message that they received. And as Karen knows, in politics. What people here is more important than what you say, they're both important. But what people hear tends to be more important and that's what fed that surge.
And, ultimately, Jim, I've worked on very six unsuccessfully, I should say immigration legislation in the House of Representatives. I supported the compromise with Senator Lankford. I thought it was a good deal, but it didn't happen.
So we're in a new reality and politicians often talk about what they're going to do on day one. We're in day 1,200 here, and this is why I think Biden had to act.
And to ultimately your first question in this segment, will it matter? I don't think we know yet, but very clearly, Joe Biden sees the polling that shows that he is underwater massively on that issue -- on this issue, it's a huge advantage for Trump and Republicans. It's why they're campaigning and they're going to campaign hard for Hispanic votes specifically on this issue. They're going to put resources on Hispanic television on this as well.
That's a smart move for them to make because Joe Biden is so underwater on this issue, he needed to do something. Well see if it's effective or not.
SCIUTTO: He's underwater on the issue and recent polling has shown, Karen Finney, that Americans generally support restricting asylum. Fifty-three percent saying the U.S. should limit the number of migrants, 61 percent say asylum seekers should remain in Mexico, right, Trump era policy there that President Biden has criticized. I suppose the difficulty for Biden here, right, is that okay, he's
trying to get independence on board. He's trying to improve that -- those numbers in terms of approval on handling of immigration.
[15:10:07]
But he risks losing some folks in his own party who will find this draconian. I mean, what's the winning strategy for the president here is there? Is there one?
FINNEY: Wow, look, this is a tough issue. No question. And particularly when you don't have political partners willing to work with you on it.
And a couple of things I just think we should remember. The other part of this is the strain on those communities that are taking in this influx of migrants also was at a breaking point. And I think that was also part of the political calculation because again, the legislation would have surged resources to those communities.
So I think what the president has to do, again, he had to take action. But the second part of it and, look, it's not going to make my colleagues in the far progressive movement happy, but he is going to try to combine this with some more humanitarian and humane efforts around, how do we make sure that people who are already here who have done everything right -- how do we help make sure they're able to get asylum? What do we do about our DACA kids? How do we also help communities that are dealing with the influx?
So I think you're going to -- he mentioned that in his remarks today. I think we're going to hear more about that and that's going to be important.
SCIUTTO: Well, Doug, as you know, Republicans, as you mentioned, killed the bipartisan border deal negotiated by one of their own, Senator Lankford. They then called on Biden to enact reform by the stroke of a pen, which he's doing now. But here was the reaction from the Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Whatever little short measure that he's going to do here is not going to solve the problem. In fact, by some estimates, it might make it worse.
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Why didn't you do this in 2021? Why didn't you do this in 2022? Why didn't you do this in 2023? Why don't you do this last month or the month before or the month before? How many dead bodies is enough?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: I mean, one could argue there that why didn't Republicans take up quite, quite restrictive policy from that bipartisan plan. But I wonder, from a Republican perspective here, I imagine there's nothing that President Biden could or would do that they would welcome, at least in public.
HEYE: Most likely not, welcome to the politics of 2024, and really the politics that have gone on for a long time. I would have loved to have been able to pass in the House, much less than the Senate immigration reform in 2012 through '14, when I was working in House leadership.
But two things have really changed and put us in the moment that we're at. One, it's the video that we've all seen over and over again of what looks like just people crossing the border whenever they want to, however they want to.
And we talk about Mexico, because that's the border. These are people who could come from anywhere. We know quite often these are Chinese nationals as well.
The other are the decisions that were made by governors to send a lot of these illegal immigrants and/or migrants to very progressive liberal cities. When we started hearing from New York City that this was a problem, that changed the conversation overnight.
SCIUTTO: People see it.
Doug Heye, Karen Finney, thanks so much to both of you.
HEYE: Thank you.
FINNEY: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So let's dive a little deeper into the legal, the policy questions of today's announcement with Todd Schulte. He's the president of Forward U.S. It's an immigration reform advocacy organization. He's also a longtime policy adviser on immigration.
Todd, thanks so much for joining.
TODD SCHULTE, PRESIDENT, FWD.US: Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: You know this issue very well. You know, the mechanics of how things work at the border. Do these executive orders solve any of the existing problems here in your view?
SCHULTE: So they don't. So I think it's really important to take a step back and understand what actually is worked, which is here when you first heard about potential executive order six months ago, you had about 10,000 apprehensions at the border every day. You had about 8,000, 9,000 people go in between ports of entry.
You know, six months later, you have almost two thirds fewer people going to the border and crossing between ports of entry and the big change that's happened is over the last year, the Biden administration has actually built legal pathways for key countries where people can come. There's this idea that if you are tough at the border, you say no to, and you put these asylum restrictions in place, maybe it's mean, but it's somehow effective. The evidence is actually quite the opposite. Biden administration has
done a lot of really important things here. And unfortunately today is, is a step in the wrong direction, both in terms of upholding our nation's promise, the most vulnerable and in terms of having an orderly and secure border.
SCIUTTO: On the legal side, when the Trump administration attempted similar policies, of course, immediately challenged in court, rejected in court, and we should know what the Biden administration is pointing to the same provision of the immigration and nationality act, I believe is the Trump administration did, which states: Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation suspend the entry of all aliens or imposed on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.
[15:15:03]
Do you expect his executive orders, Biden's executive orders to be blocked in court as Trump's were?
SCHULTE: I don't want to guess what's going to happen in court. I will repeat that when President Trump was president, many people in the Biden administration, including then candidate Biden who said his actions were unlawful. There'll be a lawsuit.
What happens I think is an open question. We believe they are unlawful and this is the right approach, but I think the more important thing is, are you willing to take the former administrator -- when the administration was not in a power, their word for it, and they did say this sort of authority unlawful.
So I think that is also really important to keep in mind because it's just going to start chaos and confusion.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. So let's talk about addressing the issues that pretty much everyone agrees are there, right? Well, I was going to say, most people. There are some people who would like to just stop asylum. So you can bet that that is the law of the land, and short of congressional action, that's going to remain the law of the land.
But in terms of the standard, right? And this was in the bipartisan of proposal, was to raise the standard by which asylum claims can be -- can be claimed in effect and considered. Is that affects that you think is at least necessary to address some beyond the fixes you're talking about, including creating legal pathways outside the country?
SCHULTE: So, yeah, first, as I said, let's take pressure off the border by building other pathways. So it's not just saying come to the border and present for asylum.
In terms of what an appropriate asylum process looks like. Again, we should have one where there's a timely process, people get access to a lawyer. Now because so many people have gone through the asylum process, you are seeing folks were often waiting 5, 6, 7 years you can get in front of a judge. That's not the right approach, right? We can all agree on that, but
we're not talking about how do we have more lawyers and more processing today. We're just talking about its more restrictions that are just going to spur more chaos.
And look, ultimately, we need an immigration system that expands legal pathways, but also deals fairly certainly with the people who are here in this country. And we really hope the president will, we disagree with what he did today, take bold and clear action to help people who've been here a long time as well.
SCIUTTO: Just very quickly. Does this executive order ever really see the light of day or is it most likely that this was an election proclamation to some degree? And even the Biden administration seems to expect a court challenge?
SCHULTE: You know, Jim, I hear a lot of the same things that probably the people who were on before hear whispers that, oh, this is going to get blocked in court. Look, ultimately at the end of the day, the law is what five Supreme Court justices say it is.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SCHULTE: I don't think could you do this unless you think you're going to use this power and we are, you know, what is used today to restrict asylum between ports of entry can be used tomorrow, potentially to go after every aspect of the immigration system.
So again, we should be modernizing and expanding immigration and helping people who've been here a long time. That's the key to a secure border and a fair system.
SCIUTTO: That's a good point. It's a precedent-setting.
Todd Schulte, thanks so much.
SCHULTE: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Still come to this hour, the world's largest democracy has now voted, returning India's prime minister Modi to power for a third term, not quite by the margin he wanted. We'll have that story next story.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:21:31]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
The results from the world's largest election are in with some surprising results. Indian election authorities confirmed victory for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, giving him a third term in power. Modi has just passed the 272 seats required to form a majority, but fell significantly short of the 400 seat supermajority he had hoped for. His party also lost one of its most strategic strongholds in India's most populist state. The opposition are calling this a major setback.
(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 run this country. We do not appreciate the way they have attacked the constitution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Here's CNN's Ivan Watson with more on this historic election.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Jim, the vote counting is still underway here in India. After all, more than 640 million people cast ballots here. That's nearly twice the population of the entire U.S., the world's largest election.
Already, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has declared victory. He's called this a glorious day, a victory for all of India's 1.4 billion people as he put it, the worlds largest democracy.
But it isn't quite the victory he had been hoping for and promising. He thought there was going to be a landslide for his BJP, that's the ruling party in this election. But the preliminary results suggest in fact, that the electoral margins, the wide margins that he has enjoyed in the past, have shrunk considerably.
Meanwhile, the opposition has grown apparently, its number of seats in the parliament and opposition leaders are arguing that this is a major setback for Narendra Modi. They are arguing that his the erosion of democratic freedoms after ten years of Modi as prime minister, that has helped push them to new success at the polls.
So the long and the short of it is Modi, the man whose dominated politics here for a decade, likely to have one another the term in office, but will have to learn to govern in a new way, making compromises with partners and other parties in the parliament -- Jim.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Our thanks to Ivan Watson for that report.
Also overseas, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is under mounting pressure from both sides of his government since U.S. President Joe Biden announced a three phase ceasefire plan proposed by Israel on Friday. Conservative hardliners have threatened to pull out of the unity government formed in the wake of October 7, if Netanyahu agrees to the deal. While today, his biggest coalition partner announced, it is supporting the proposal.
Qatar, a key mediator between Israel and Hamas, said these contradictory statements were not giving them confidence in the ongoing negotiations, but they were optimistic there is some momentum building. The U.S. and Qatar have not yet seen a response though from Hamas.
Joining me now to discuss, former editor in chief of "The Jerusalem Post", Avi Mayer.
Good to have you on. Thanks for joining.
AVI MAYER, FORMER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, JERUSALEM POST: Thank you, Jim.
[15:25:00]
SCIUTTO: Give us our best sense of where this negotiation stance. Because it's been stop and start to say the least for weeks, really months now. Is there actually momentum towards agreement?
MAYER: Well, Jim, I think there is. There's certainly a great readiness on the part of Israel as expressed by that proposal outlined by the president on Friday, to go quite far further perhaps, and Israel has ever gone before in an effort to bring about a ceasefire deal that would bring those remaining hostages home.
However, as was noted, we don't yet know whether Hamas will agree to that ceasefire proposal. We know at the time and time again, it's been Hamas that has stood in the way of ceasefire proposal, including far- reaching ones. That seems to be the most far-reaching that Israel has made and is waiting Hamas's answer at this time.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this because in some of the reporting and framing in this country, particularly following President Biden announcing the details of this deal, there's been some disagreement as to who's plan it actually is. That three-phase plan as outlined by President Biden, that is Israel's offer to Hamas?
MAYER: Well, President Biden asserts that it is, and we understand that behind the scenes, the prime minister is working very hard to convince the far-right members of his governing coalition to accept it. He's telling them that, in fact, this proposal will allow Israel to pursue its ultimate war goal of ensuring that Hamas is decimated and does not have the capacity to carry out a mass or like October the 7th ever again. That is work that he has to do in order to ensure that his coalition remains intact and he remains in power.
But we understand that he is doing that, which indicates that in fact, this may be his proposal. Maybe he didn't share all the elements of that proposal with his governing coalition before he shared it with the Americans. But it looks like that is indeed Israel's position at this time.
SCIUTTO: You mentioned his staying in power. Some have argued that perhaps Netanyahu is so focused on staying in power that he might be willing to prolong the conflict.
President Biden, in fact, was asked about that in just the last hour. Here was his answer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT: Is Prime Minister Netanyahu playing politics with the war?
BIDEN: I don't think so. He's trying to work out a serious problem he has.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: In an earlier interview, he seemed to say, well, he seemed to give a different answer to that question. I wonder, what do Israelis believe? Do they believe that Netanyahu wants to make an agreement, that he's prioritizing in particular, getting the hostages out?
MAYER: Look, there are some in Israel who have insinuated that perhaps the prime minister is trying to prolong this war due to narrow political interests. I don't think that is the prevailing view here in Israel, and in fact, I don't believe the president believes that either. As he said, in that press briefing earlier, and as he said in the full transcript of the interview he conducted with "Time Magazine", he believes that Netanyahu is doing whatever he can, anything it takes to bring those hostages home.
That, of course, is the imperative at this time. The overwhelming majority of Israelis want to see those hostages brought home, dead or alive, preferably alive, as soon as humanly possible. I think that is the order of the day. And the prime minister sees that as well.
SCIUTTO: I wonder where Netanyahu's standing is in Israel today because as you know, there was a time in recent weeks and months went when folks both inside Israel and outside said Netanyahu's days are numbered, just politically, he was losing support but a recent survey for the Israeli channel, Channel 12, for the first time this year, Netanyahu actually edged out his chief political rival, Benny Gantz, 36 to 30. Has he resurrected his political fortunes in that country?
MAYER: Look, it's certainly true that the prime ministers pulling numbers had not been doing particularly well before or after October the 7th, before its over seventh was due to the internal chaos related to the government's traditional form since October 7. Of course, had to deal with the failures of that de and his failure to take responsibility for them.
But it does look as though his Likud Party is inching up in the polls and his personal approval ratings are as well.
At the moment, his governing coalition, the members of his coalition do not have an interest in bringing him down. I think that's an important point to remember here. They may threaten that they are going to bolt and bring him down if he advances the ceasefire proposal. They don't actually have that interest because they he realized that if that happens in all likelihood, they will not be empowered. They'll end up in the opposition. And that's not something they want.
So I actually think he remains fairly stable at this time, at least until this war comes to an end.
SCIUTTO: Well, we get one more remarkable political comeback by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Avi Mayer, thanks so much for joining.
MAYER: Thank you for having me.
SCIUTTO: When we come back, Hunter Biden, President Biden's son is now on trial. We're going to be live from the courthouse, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:33:13]
SCIUTTO: Welcome back.
The trial of Hunter Biden, the president's son, on felony gun charges in Wilmington, Delaware, is now underway. This is the first time in U.S. history that the child of a sitting president is on criminal trial. The president's son has pleaded not guilty to charges that he bought a firearm at a Delaware gun shop in 2018 while he was an active drug user.
CNN's Marshall Cohen is following this from just outside the court in Delaware.
Marshall, as you know, prosecutors now questioning their first witness, an FBI agent. Tell us what we're learning, what details we're learning from this testimony.
MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Hey, Jim. The first witness for the prosecutors a FBI agent that has been a part of this investigation.
They are using her time on the stand to bring in a ton of the digital evidence in this case, messages and photos from Hunter Biden's laptop, from his iCloud backups, photos that show him buying drugs. According to the prosecutors here, we've seen images in the court of crack cocaine that he was buying from dealers in Los Angeles, and also text messages that the prosecutors say show him trying to connect with dealers in 2018.
Why are they getting into this stuff? Well, it is a critical part of the charges in this case. The allegations here, as you know, Jim, are that Hunter Biden was a user of or addict of to -- addicted to illegal drugs into it? 2018 when he bought a gun. It's against the law to do that. And so, the prosecutors are using this FBI agent to bring in a lot of that evidence.
And also, I should point out earlier before the lunch break, they introduced some very long passages of Hunter Biden's memoir, where he was very forthcoming about his plunge to the depths of addiction while he was living in L.A., in the same year that he bought that gun.
[15:35:09] He described in his own words in his audiobook, which was played, how he would go into homeless encampments in L.A. to try to find drugs to feed his addiction.
Of course, the jury in this case told the judge yesterday as they were being questioned during the voir dire process, that many of them have personal connections to people who had similar struggles, and that at moments, one of the jurors, our colleague Evan Perez spotted one of the jurors dabbing her eye during some of the more emotional periods of the presentation earlier today -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: We saw there in the court, sketches that Jill Biden was there in the courtroom as well to show support.
Marshall Cohen, thanks so much.
So for legal analysis, I'm joined now by Jeff Swartz. He's a former Florida judge and professor of law at Cooley Law School.
Geoff, good to have you back.
JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER FLORIDA JUDGE: Good to be here. Nice to see you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Before I asked you how usual it is for a charge like this to be prosecuted and just want to ask you based on the facts of the case and the law, is it an open and shut case for prosecutors here?
SWARTZ: Well, it is and it isn't. It is in the context that they will establish their problem. They'll establish a prima facie case. And when you look at it on its raw facts, yeah, it seems to be.
The issue for that's going to be presented by the defense is number one, the argument that's been made many times. Can an addict really know that they're an addict? And, of course, that's why they brought in his book to show that he really knew that he was addicted.
Number two, can an addict formulate the necessary specific intent to commit the crime if, in fact, they are high at the time or they are addicted and they're acting upon their addiction? That's basically looking for the jury to acquit him by giving him -- by letting him off the hook. Basically a nullification case is what he's looking for. I think that's what he's looking for.
SCIUTTO: Do prosecutors often charge for gang possession while being a drug addict? Is this an outlier case or is it -- is it run of the mill?
SWARTZ: If it's attached to another crime, they'll charge it. If it's standing on its own, they usually don't. There is a deferral program where the person who's charged goes to into a program for treatment and things like that, in order in less than being convicted of a crime. That's the plea agreement that was made with Hunter Biden before.
The problem with it was that there was a disagreement between Mr. Weiss and Mr. Lowell over whether in fact this included all of the offenses that Mr. Weiss was investigating, which includes the IRS issues that are now pending in front of a court out in Los Angeles.
And because of that, the judge throughout the plea agreement and without the plea agreement, the government decides when Mr. Weiss that they were going to move forward against Mr. Biden, and they are prosecuting him for this. It is hard to imagine in my mind, not that he won't be convicted because probably will be, but that he would be punished so severely as to put him in jail for this charge.
I just have a problem with that, but it may happen.
SCIUTTO: As Marshall noted, several of the jury members shared their own family members' experiences with drug addiction during the jury selection process, which, of course, is not an uncommon American experience today. I wonder what that means for the defense, and do you see that as a path towards well, possible acquittal?
SWARTZ: It's a path towards jury nullification, and the idea that the jury decides, we don't like this charge. We don't like it being enforced this way. There has to be a better way.
There was one juror who apparently was in tears during opening statement by Abbe Lowell, apparently left visibly upset about what Mr. Lowell was talking about and the nature and the extent of Mr. Biden's addiction at a time this all took place. In other words, it may be that Mr. Lowell is just looking as Mr. Trump did last week for that one juror who will hang the jury.
SCIUTTO: It's good point. All you need is one.
Jeff Swartz, always good to have you.
SWARTZ: Nice to see you, Jim. Have a good day.
SCIUTTO: Still to come this hour, the cyber threat targeting the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. How Russia is using artificial intelligence and the new effort to tarnish the Paris games. We're going to have new CNN reporting next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:43:07]
SCIUTTO: Kind of like a scene out of "Mission Impossible". Pro Russia propagandists are pushing an effort to undermine next month's Paris Olympics with the help of an A.I.-generated Tom Cruise, not the real one, it's A.I.
Cybersecurity experts say the Russian operatives used artificial intelligence to impersonate Cruise's voice to then narrate a fake documentary attacking the International Olympic Committee, as well as Western support for Ukraine amid the ongoing war.
The documentary as part of a recent uptick in Russian propaganda, attempting to tarnish the Paris Olympics. CNN cybersecurity reporter Sean Lyngaas has been following the story
closely.
Sean, the IOC, of course, prohibits athletes from competing under the Russian flag in this year's Olympics because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, also pass doping scandals. I wonder is that part of the motivation for this, or is it largely finding an opportunity or Russia trying to tarnish rusted Western support for Ukraine?
SEAN LYNGAAS, CNN CYBERSECURITY REPORTER: Jim, I think it's a little of both. The Olympics is one of the biggest international stages this year. And they're really zeroing in according to all available evidence on the Olympic Games, and just a month or so from now, they are just pelting the internet with disinformation and seeing what can stick.
You know, this Microsoft report that came out recently documents as you mentioned, this fake documentary and I listened to some of the sound. It sounds a bit like Tom Cruise's voice, but a little strain. It's like the A.I. is working somewhat but not perfectly. But they don't actually have any footage of him saying things. So it's not a video deepfake, but it just -- it describes a sinister world in which the IOC is full of corruption and all that. And obviously it's fake.
[15:45:01]
And it also came with a Netflix logo and fake reviews from -- purporting to be from "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post".
So, this was really a sustained effort to try to convince Western viewers that Tom Cruise is behind this, and obviously, he wasn't. But it shows you that the depths they're going to try to tarnish the games.
I mean, as you mentioned, the IOC has been in the Russian government's crosshairs for a long time because as imposed sanctions on Russian athletes. And in past Olympics, for example, in the 2018 Olympics in South Korea, according to U.S. officials and private experts, the Russian military intelligence agency conducted a destructive cyber attack on the opening game ceremony. So there's a lot of sort of spite that we've seen over the years from the Russians on this.
Now, I should say that the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, in a rejected the allegations in the Microsoft report about the fete document and all that. But we have seen a lot of compelling evidence that this is happening, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. And they rarely cop to activities that the West is quite confident that they're up to.
Sean Lyngaas, thanks so much.
Joining me now to discuss more broadly, CNN national security analyst and former deputy director of national intelligence, Beth Sanner.
Beth, good to have you on. BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Hi, Jim. How are you?
SCIUTTO: So Russia, listen, it's flooding the zone with this information in a whole host of ways from election interference to something like this. I wonder an attack like this on the Paris Summer Olympics is this -- does it have a strategic intent for Russia or is it more just an effort to stir things up?
SANNER: I mean, I think as part of a broader gate plan that always has, right? So I mean, the context of this is that disinformation from Russia has continued across all vectors for years. And we see upticks, we see focus campaigns on whatever they're interested in.
And so, Sean mentioned the fact that that Russia athletes are banned from attending under the Russian flag, we also have the Putin dispute with French President Macron and his threat to send French troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian fighters.
So there's also that personal aspect to it as well.
SCIUTTO: So often these attacks, they're personal, there's personality behind it. As you know, U.S. weapons now going back to Ukraine and President Biden has given permission for Ukrainian forces to fire inside Russian territory around the Kharkiv region when they're targeting Ukrainian forces.
And yesterday, Ukraine claimed that it hit a missile system inside Russian territory using Western weapons, doesn't say yes, but Western weapons.
I wonder, do you expect Russia to retaliate in any way against the U.S. or NATO because of this change in U.S. restrictions on the use of those weapons?
SANNER: I think as long as these strikes are confined to the border areas that Russia is not going to respond to toward the United States or allies. I mean, today, they also -- Peskov, the spokesman, also warned that any trainers from the West that are inside Ukraine would not be off-limits, but it is a war zone. So, you know, what's different about that?
So I don't think it will really change Russia's game plan on the ground. But there are limits and I do think when I talked to people who are very expert in this, and I think that kind of an unlimited use of weapons western weapons, for example, the radars that Ukraine just hit recently that targeted that was involved with protecting nuclear facilities and the nuclear arsenal. Sorry. So I think that, you know, if it went that far, we could start seeing some real risks escalating.
But at this point, I don't -- I don't think that were there.
SCIUTTO: What would the Russian escalation look like? Would it be a direct attack on U.S. forces outside of Ukraine or NATO forces outside of Ukraine? Because that -- I mean, that puts you on a path to major escalation? SANNER: Exactly. And I think that all of us and look at Russia say, you know, the quip is, and I think it's true that Putin is not suicidal. Any understands more than many liters what the implications of an escalation would be. So he's not going to do an all out attack on NATO territory unless it is some kind of huge dire, what, I don't know, it's very hard to imagine.
But I think that, you know, the whole idea of escalation is it doesn't necessarily start at the top. You work your way up in a tit for tat, and that is kind of what people worry about, and then miscalculations, misunderstandings along the way.
[15:50:10]
And so I think that we would see something much more tactical on the ground, isolated into Ukraine, as well as maybe some asymmetric attack against U.S. or NATO forces that wouldn't be kinetic. You know, some kind of like major cyber disruption or something like that.
SCIUTTO: Which, of course, Russia has done before, for instance, big cyber attack on Estonia.
Before we go over the weekend, Presidential Zelenskyy said that China's support to Russia will extend in the war in Ukraine, as you know, China has claimed neutrality in the conflict, but the U.S. has watched quite closely Chinese -- not just Chinese purchases, say, of Russian oil, but also shipment of high technology that could have uses with weapons, et cetera.
Do you see China as expanding that support? As you know, the British said recently that they believe China is now sending lethal aid to Russia for use in Ukraine?
SANNER: Yeah, I didn't see the UK walk that back, but national security adviser Jake Sullivan did say he didn't really understand what they were talking about. Maybe it's about dual use systems that are confusing.
Are they stepping it up? I don't know if they're stepping it up but they're certainly doing a lot. And it is extending the war. It is enabling Russia in ways that, you know, artillery from North Korea cannot do. You know, Russia's now spending so much money on their military industrial complex and they're able to produce now all these missiles that they were running short on. And we're seeing an uptick in the use of those missiles as they're coming off the production lines. That's the sort of thing that's enabled by chips and metals and other kinds of components by China.
So, absolutely, a huge factor and I think at the G7, we're going to see another shot across the bow with some sanctions may be aiming at some symbolic Chinese banks or something engaged in this trade.
So we'll have to watch the case.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, and we'll see if they have an effect.
Beth Sanner, thanks so much.
SANNER: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: After the break, history-making moon samples collected by China are now on their way back to earth. What this means for the country's plan to put actual boots on the moon this decade.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:55:12]
SCIUTTO: A Chinese lunar lander is on its way back a Chinese lunar lander is on its way back to earth after a successful mission to the far side of the moon. The Chinese space agency says the Chang'e-6 probe collected soil and rocks from a vast crater near the moons south pole, something think that's never been done before.
CNN's Marc Stewart has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This lunar landing and the sample collection is certainly a big deal for the Chinese space program on a scientific front but it is also rich in symbolism and political importance.
We've been looking at images from this far side of the moon, the South Pole, the Aitken Basin, where for the first time, China unfurled a Chinese flag on that lunar surface. It is certainly an ego boost to China.
Take a listen to what one Chinese scientist had to say.
ZHOU CHANGYI, CHIEF DESIGNER AND RESEARCHER, NSSC-CAS (through translator): The national flag should be able to inspire patriotic enthusiasm among Chinese people around the world. I think people across the country should be looking forward to this picture and be proud of our great motherland.
STEWART: We certainly don't want to dismiss the scientific aspect of all of this. These samples will be brought back to Earth. It will take about month there'll be studied to learn more about the lunar surface and the solar system, but also play a key role in the development of the Chinese space program as it looks to build a research base on the moon and land astronauts on the lunar surface by 2030.
Marc Stewart, CNN, Beijing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Pretty incredible moon mission.
Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Jim Sciutto, in New York.
"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
