Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
First "Harry & Meghan" Episodes Released As Palace Braces; IRS: Americans Must Report Cash App, Venmo, PayPal Earnings Over $600; Supreme Court Justices Split Over Case That Could Reshape Elections. Aired 7:30-8a ET
Aired December 08, 2022 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[07:30:00]
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Touching in parts, and the early stages of the engagement, and Meghan's initial reception here in the United Kingdom.
Naturally, the second half is going to be the reasons behind why they felt they had to leave. Why it wasn't safe for the family and they felt they couldn't live in these circumstances any longer.
What struck me is the intimacy of the portrayal. There are scenes where Meghan Markle is in her bathrobe and a turban with no makeup on, clearly emotional, in her own bedroom recording herself and how she's feeling.
They talk about their first date, their first kiss, sharing a tent together. It's an insight we've never had into figures in the royal family before.
It also works on numerous levels. There's clearly the family element -- the impact that this documentary and the revelations within it will have on the relationship between Prince Harry and his brother, Meghan and the rest of the royal family, and the situation for their children.
But also, on a royal international level because there are several references to Britain's history of slavery and the part that plays into racial discourse. And also the fact that Brexit was going on when Meghan became engaged to Harry, and the fact that historians suggest that may have added to the discourse around her race and the possible resentment of having somebody from her background marry into the royal family.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: This is fascinating because it is such an inside look at this and their life. Some people may say we've already seen enough. There's already been so much about this and it's oversaturated.
I wonder how differently, though, it's viewed in the United States versus how it's viewed --
TRISHA GODDARD, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, HOST, "THIS WEEK WITH TRISHA GODDARD": In the U.K. COLLINS: -- in the U.K. by British media. The two different approaches that we've seen to how candidly they speak.
GODDARD: I think that the U.K. is going to find it more difficult because this is very Hollywood. It's very produced and what have you. And British documentaries tend to be a lot more raw.
But I actually liked it. I actually don't see anything wrong. I don't see -- you know, yesterday, I was asked do you think the royal family will be nervous about this? I think the British media will be more nervous.
COLLINS: Why?
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: They'll be more critical, yes.
GODDARD: More critical and more nervous. And they've been -- I thought that because of the buildup -- the buildup. And in that first episode, you see a mention of that (almost) straight outta Compton, which was one of the first headlines that one of the newspapers came out with. And that newspaper has been relentlessly attacking.
And as we know, there is a lawsuit against that newspaper from several very high-profile people, including Harry.
LEMON: It exposes them. Is that what you're saying?
GODDARD: Well, yes. I think it exposes them and it links them back to the days of Diana. It links them back to days of tabloids like the Daily Mail when they were phone tapping. I mean, I have to say the Daily Mail has refuted that but there's still a lawsuit there.
So I think the British media will see that as more of an attack than the royal family would.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Let's listen to a little bit more of this. This is about -- with Meghan talking about, sort of, it's not comfortable to do this but why they felt they had to do this. Here she was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEGHAN, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX: I'm not going to say that it's comfortable but when you feel like people haven't gotten any sense of who you are for so long it's really nice to just be able to have the opportunity to let people have a bit more of a glimpse into what's happened and also who we are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: What do you think?
ERIN VANDERHOOF, STAFF WRITER, VANITY FAIR: Well, I think watching -- having watched all three episodes now, I think that you see what really was motivating Meghan to do this in her conversations about the Markle family. You realize that you have heard five of Meghan's anonymous friends talk about the relationship. You've heard Meghan's lawyers talk about her relationship with her dad. But you've never heard her talk about it.
And I think that there is a sense where you can tell she started to really resent how much -- you know, courtiers were telling her how to deal with her own family and how much it was about optics and not about the fact that she had a difficult childhood growing up. She -- her parents divorced when she was really young. And I think that there is a lot of trauma around that for her, and I think this is her taking the opportunity to finally clear that up.
So the first three episodes -- I don't know about what's going to happen next but definitely, the first three episodes -- they are about Meghan Markle's relationship with her family and the way that the media interfered in that, and Harry's relationship with the media.
LEMON: And listen, I want to -- I've got to ask this question. So, this is -- I don't know how -- any other way to ask it but ask it. Because you know you and I --
GODDARD: Oh, go ahead, yes.
LEMON: OK, so here is the thing. You can -- look, you can say the most supportive things about Meghan and Harry and they'll take the one thing where you sort of go well, you know, this sort of struck me differently, and then they make a headline out of that.
GODDARD: Yes.
LEMON: That has happened to me before.
GODDARD: Yes.
LEMON: So one can certainly be supportive of Meghan's story, especially as a Black woman and what she faced there. But also, analyze and actually criticize how it is happening -- the approach. This new thing that they're doing. As we said earlier, the sort of Karadashification of the royal family.
[07:35:04]
COLLINS: Yes.
GODDARD: Yes.
LEMON: Some people are uncomfortable with that. It is certainly their truth and it's their right to be able to do it. But do you understand there is --
GODDARD: But I think -- I think young people -- I mean, their --
LEMON: Yes.
GODDARD: -- fanbase -- if you look at it --
LEMON: Young people. GODDARD: -- are young people.
LEMON: Right.
GODDARD: And young people are cool with this because --
LEMON: Right.
GODDARD: -- they've been Kardashianized --
LEMON: Right.
GODDARD: -- and they like the talking. It's cool for young guys to talk about their relationship and that they met somebody on Instagram, you know, and they went to Africa. It's cool for men -- young men to talk about that.
So I think it's going to endear them to that younger audience, and that's what they're looking at. They're not --
LEMON: Is that --
GODDARD: -- at the old guy.
LEMON: Is that a lesson then for William and Kate, and even the king?
GODDARD: No, I don't think -- I think -- no.
LEMON: Because they're saying -- remember, they're saying they want to modernize the modern family. Is this the --
GODDARD: Yes, but let --
LEMON: -- way to do it?
GODDARD: No, no, no. They --
LEMON: The monarchy, I should say.
GODDARD: No, but there's a modernization in a nice middle-class way, which is William and Catherine --
LEMON: OK.
GODDARD: -- and the establishment way. And then there's who Harry has always been, and I think we saw that in the first episode. He's always been the rebel. He's always been -- you know, Harry was loved for being a rebel and he's just continuing that.
It does feel a little bit uncomfortable now and again but I'm sure a lot of young people would say yeah, that's cool, you know.
COLLINS: That's a really important point.
GODDARD: It's not made for us.
LEMON: Yes.
COLLINS: Yes, it's a different generation --
GODDARD: A different generation.
COLLINS: -- of who they're trying to appeal to and how people take it.
LEMON: I kind of -- I got to see them -- sorry -- I'm sorry. I got to see them the other night at --
GODDARD: You did, at the Ripple awards.
LEMON: -- at the Ripple awards. And just watching people flock to them. I liked them. I think they're --
GODDARD: You didn't flock?
LEMON: No, I -- no, no, no. I'm not going to run over -- I didn't run over. We sat --
HARLOW: He was at their table.
LEMON: We were at the table.
HARLOW: He didn't have to flock.
GODDARD: What?
LEMON: Yes, but I didn't have to, like, run. But I liked watching people. I'm more of an observer than --
GODDARD: Yes, yes.
LEMON: I like watching how people reacted to them.
GODDARD: And how did they?
LEMON: And it was very much in the same vein as they did with mom -- his mother --
GODDARD: Diana.
LEMON: -- Diana. I remember covering Diana -- and this was years ago -- I'm old -- in the '90s -- for the CFDA awards.
GODDARD: Right.
LEMON: And when she walked into this fashion thing -- I think it was at the museum of -- I think the Museum of Natural History or whatever -- into this event and everyone was like oh! And it was young people.
GODDARD: Yes.
LEMON: And I remember this one -- you know, I remember this one woman who was covering it for us for our style thing. And our photographer stumbled and only got her foot as she was walking in and they had to adjust or whatever. And she goes how do I start this story? And she said --
HARLOW: So she had great shoes.
LEMON: She said one small step for something --
HARLOW: Oh.
LEMON: -- and one giant leap for the fashion industry, right? So they like had to fix the thing. And so, I just remember watching the ascent of Diana and this is very much in that vein.
GODDARD: Wow.
COLLINS: Which rankled the royal family, though.
HARLOW: So much.
LEMON: It was rankled.
COLLINS: Princess Diana got so much more attention than the other royals --
LEMON: Right.
COLLINS: -- in the family and that was a huge point of dispute with the queen.
GODDARD: Well, Charles --
LEMON: That's what's happening with Kate today.
GODDARD: But here's the thing now with Charles. We saw a different -- very different Charles since the queen died. You know, far more sociable, far more touchy-feely. But they're catching up. William and Catherine are catching up. But these guys, for youngsters, are way ahead.
LEMON: Yes. Interesting. Now there's the conversation about the royal family.
GODDARD: We're too old.
LEMON: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you, guys.
LEMON: Bianca Nobilo, thank you. Thank you, Trisha. Thank you, Erin. Appreciate it.
COLLINS: Thank you all.
LEMON: Do you get paid through PayPal or other third-party apps? The IRS has some news for you. Rachel (sic) Solomon is here with what you need to know. HARLOW: And some major health --
LEMON: Rahel, Rahel. Sorry, Rahel.
RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Rahel!
LEMON: I know, I'm sorry. I'm ready it off a teleprompter. I'm not such a good reader sometimes. Sorry about that.
HARLOW: You're a great reader.
All right, some major health news though for a legend, Celine Dion. What she is revealing this morning.
(COMMERCIAL)
[07:42:40]
COLLINS: All right. Welcome back to CNN THIS MORNING.
Coming up, we have a lot of news for you, starting with a significant easing of the COVID controls and the Chinese government saying that people no longer need to show a negative test or health code in order to travel between different parts of the country. That's a major change as we've seen those protests that were happening last week.
And a CNN exclusive. Also the morning, the Biden administration is now considering giving Ukraine weapons that are banned in 100 countries. We'll see if they ultimately do.
And also, is Elon Musk on the verge of losing the title of the world's richest person? We'll tell you.
HARLOW: All right. If you have a small business or a side hustle and get paid through Venmo, which I'm sure Elon Musk does not -- maybe PayPal, since he helped found it -- or Cash App, the IRS now wants to know. You will now have to report any payment of $600 or more.
Our business correspondent Rahel Solomon joins us now. I have so many questions on this, including what if you're paying your -- someone -- like you're splitting the cost of a trip with someone, you're paying a friend back. Does that then become taxable income?
SOLOMON: No, not necessarily.
HARLOW: OK.
SOLOMON: So this is a pretty big deal and will impact a lot of people. And essentially, what it means is that if you provide some service, if you have some sort of side hustle or some sort of side gig and you receive more than $600 in payments over a year or one transaction that is more than $600, you are likely going to get a tax form.
To put this in perspective, the threshold -- the bar used to be $20,000. So that's why this is going to impact a lot more people. And this will likely create a bit of confusion because folks who --
and to be fair, we were all supposed to be reporting all of our income --
HARLOW: All of it.
SOLOMON: -- to begin with. But now, the IRS knows if you make money on these third-party platforms.
And we can show you an example of some of them. It's Venmo, it's PayPal, it's Zelle, eBay, Amazon, Marketplace. So say, for example, if you sell a couch for $600 -- well, you're probably going to get a 1099-K for this.
So I talked to a tax advisor yesterday night to understand sort of how this will work. And he says this is probably the biggest deal that many taxpayers who self-prepare their tax returns could look at this and say I have income and not realize they also have expenses. Unfortunately, the people that this will hurt will be the people that some of these bills recently passed have been designed to help.
So, the takeaway for people at home is if you get a 1099 form this year -- and most probably will, right, if you've had any sort of extra income -- don't panic. But also think about do you have any expenses that you could sort of write off against that. So, if you're unsure, consult a tax professional. But it's a pretty big deal.
[07:45:10]
COLLINS: But this is -- this is incredibly significant because of exactly who it will impact. And I guess that's the question here, is what are the implications with the criticism that we've seen over it unfairly targeting certain people -- certain groups of people?
SOLOMON: Well, I think the reality is this will impact small business owners, right -- plumbers. If you have a service business -- if you have a hairstylist -- if you have a type of business or you are getting paid via PayPal, via Venmo, via these things, you are likely going to get a tax form when you may not have gotten it in the past.
Again, the bar before was $20,000. Now it's $600. So, I mean, there's a lot that could sort of spark that.
COLLINS: Will you get a tax form for different -- like, one for Venmo, one for PayPal, one for Cash App, or is it going to be one for all of them.
SOLOMON: It's a great question. So, each third-party platform is now required to report this, right? So if you sell something on eBay and if you sell something on Amazon, you're likely going to get a 1099 from eBay --
COLLINS: From both.
SOLOMON: -- and from Amazon.
LEMON: Thank you, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Oh, thanks, Don. You know my name.
LEMON: Of course, I know your name. It's just sometimes -- it's early. You know.
COLLINS: Thanks, Rahel.
LEMON: So, a bungled cue attempt -- coup attempt, excuse me, and a fall from power. How Peru's president went from addressing Congress to handcuffs in just a matter of hours. Plus, a major story impacting elections to tell you about.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Don. A Supreme Court case now before the justices that could really change the way elections are run and some say even imperil democracy. I'll tell you how the justices seem to be leaning after yesterday's arguments.
(COMMERCIAL)
[07:50:58]
LEMON: So, this morning, the Supreme Court grappling with a historic case over whether to allow state legislatures to draw congressional maps and set federal voting rules without any oversight from state courts. After three hours of debate, the justices seem divided in three different directions.
CNN's Jessica Schneider joins us now this morning. Jessica, good morning to you. What are some of the sticking points in the justice's decisions?
SCHNEIDER: Yes, good morning, Don.
The court really did seem to be leaning toward accepting some iteration of this independent state legislature theory. If that is accepted, it would give broad power to state lawmakers to control elections. Because of that, critics are warning that even if this court approves a narrow version of that power, it could lead to a lot more court fights and even greater restrictions on voting access.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Who controls U.S. elections? That's the central question before the Supreme Court in a case that revolves around an obscure legal theory that says state legislatures should have the final say on election procedures and redistricting, not state courts.
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL: The blast radius from their theory would sow elections chaos forcing a confusing two-track system with one set of rules for federal elections and another for state ones.
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): North Carolina Republicans who lead the state legislature are challenging a ruling from their state Supreme Court, striking down a redistricting map they drew. They're relying on the independent state legislature theory -- the idea that state legislatures should have unchecked power to control election procedures and that state courts and state constitutions have no role in checking that power.
It's a concept that was first raised by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in the Bush v. Gore decision.
And while four conservatives on the court have previously expressed interest in the issue, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to push back on it as too broad of an expansion of state legislative power.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Your position seems to go further than Chief Justice Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore where he seemed to acknowledge that state courts would have a role interpreting state law.
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Some Trump supporters seized on the theory in 2020 to argue state lawmakers in battleground states had the power to override the will of voters and choose presidential electors who favored Trump.
The Supreme Court's ruling likely would not extend the issue of electors, but some are warning it could be a slippery slope if the court finds in favor of the Republicans here.
ELI SAVIT, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI: It would make the election-related decision of legislators effectively unreviewable by state court judges, cutting neutral arbiters out of the process. And it would allow politically motivated legislators to engage in extreme disenfranchisement of voters.
SCHNEIDER: The hour's long debate centered around what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution and the meaning of the elections clause that says, "The times, places and manner of holding elections are for the legislature to determine."
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I think what might strike a person is that this is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances. Legislators, we all know, have their own self-interest. They want to get reelected. And so, there are countless times when they have incentives to suppress votes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: And Justice Kagan wasn't the only one expressing some skepticism here. The Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett on the conservative side -- they all pushed back on a really broad reading of this independent state legislature theory.
And, Don, it really suggests that this court here -- it might accept it, in some sense, but it also might try to find some middle ground if they do, in fact, embrace this very broad and perhaps drastic theory -- Don. LEMON: Very active court session this time around.
Jessica Schneider, thank you so much -- appreciate it.
HARLOW: All right, let's discuss more with CNN senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic. And Ben Ginsberg. He's a CNN legal analyst and also a Republican election lawyer. And he filed an amicus brief in this case arguing against this independent state legislature theory. Good morning, guys. Thanks so much for being here.
I listened to the oral arguments yesterday. It was a completely riveting three hours, right -- double the time it was supposed to be.
[07:55:02]
Joan, what I'm struck by is this is anathema to many big-name conservative lawyers, but it seems like the most conservative justices on this court see some sort of path for it.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Definitely. It was interesting, Poppy. You say how riveting it was. And in the courtroom itself, it was even more so with the tension emanating from the bench and the room just filled -- every seat.
And this is something that Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito have been pushing for. They take a very limited restrictive reading of the elections clause. And they've been laying groundwork since 2020, as Jessica mentioned in the opening piece about some of the lawyers from former President Donald Trump's campaign pushing it back in 2020.
And those justices at the far right of this bench raising questions about state courts, essentially going rogue in their mind and second- guessing what the legislatures are doing.
So it would be radical and I know that Justice Kagan touched on that in some of her other comments, too.
HARLOW: She certainly did, and she laid out a lot of, actually, Ben, what you laid out in your amicus brief in this case. Because the reality is you've got 30 state legislatures in America now controlled by Republicans, 17 by Democrats.
Can you explain for people, as Kagan did, in the simplest terms, what this would upend if adopted in any form?
BEN GINSBERG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, REPUBLICAN ELECTION LAWYER: State legislatures, the most representative part of our government, would basically have unchecked powers. They would not be subject to gubernatorial vetoes, not to popular referendums. It would give them the ability not only to perpetuate themselves in power but also to form all the rules under federal elections not subject to review.
So while there may have been some state courts that went rogue, there is a middle ground that the justices were all prodding at that would allow some review of what state legislatures did by state courts as long as the state courts didn't go too crazy. HARLOW: Well, you just said legislatures -- state legislatures are the most representative, right?
GINSBERG: Closest to the people.
HARLOW: So what do you -- so what do you say to people who say well then, why shouldn't they have this unchecked power?
GINSBERG: Because the system of our government for 233 years has always been based on checks and balances --
HARLOW: Right.
GINSBERG: -- and this could take away that basic protection.
HARLOW: And because of that point, Joan, conservative legal luminary, like Ben, is conservative former Judge Michael Luttig --
BISKUPIC: Yes.
HARLOW: -- who called it -- who not only -- and he was so passionate about this and was co-counsel on this case. And who said this is the whole ballgame. Is it really? Is it that big?
BISKUPIC: Well if they -- yes. I would say if they rule to the extreme that was presented by North Carolina legislatures -- the legislature position yesterday -- yes, it would be the whole ballgame because it could.
And I do have to say not only could it affect election practices and redistricting if it were then accepted -- extended to the electors clause of the Constitution, which is related in some way -- it's distinct now but it could go further because it was the electors clause that was at issue in the case of Bush v. Gore -- this could -- this could actually affect the certification of elections.
HARLOW: Yes.
BISKUPIC: And again, at its most extreme, it could -- it could upend federal elections all the way up to the presidency.
HARLOW: Wow.
Ben, very quickly, you worked on Bush v. Gore. How shocked are you that we're at this moment with this court at this moment in this country when so many people are questioning elections and trying to overturn them?
GINSBERG: Yes. I mean, Bush versus Gore in the election of 2000 was a very, very extraordinarily tight election, but both sides recognized that there would be one winner.
HARLOW: Yes.
GINSBERG: And so, the situation we find ourselves in now with the questioning of elections is really harmful. And in a way, the Supreme Court now has a huge burden on it in deciding this case as to whether there will be sufficient faith in the reliability of our elections or not.
HARLOW: Incredibly important decision ahead for the justices.
Ben Ginsberg, thank you. Joan Biskupic, thanks so much.
And CNN THIS MORNING continues right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CELINE DION, SINGER-SONGWRITER: Singing "My Heart Will Go On."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: That voice.
LEMON: Oh, that voice.
[08:00:00]
