Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

A Year of U.S. Contributions to War in Ukraine; Today, Justices Consider Whether Twitter is Liable in ISIS Terror Attack; Jury Foreperson Calls for Decisive Action in Georgia Trump Probe. Aired 7- 7:30a ET

Aired February 22, 2023 - 07:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Our support for Ukraine will not waver. NATO will not be divided and we will not tire. President Putin's craven lust for land and power will fail. And the Ukrainian people's love for their country will prevail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: A pretty powerful speech and I would say historic from the president. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us.

President Biden making a solemn vow on the world stage, Russia will lose and Ukraine will win with America's help. We are live in Warsaw where Biden is about to meet with leaders from NATO's eastern flank. And in just a moment, we are going to break down the millions in weapons and aid that the U.S. delivering to Ukraine.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, and a new half a billion dollars that President Biden just announced. There is also skepticism growing back at home. The Republican Party is becoming bitterly divided over sending more support to the Ukrainians. While some GOP lawmakers are in Ukraine visiting with President Zelenskyy, others are back in Washington criticizing President Biden's visit. We have new CNN reporting ahead.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, the head of the EPA drinking a glass of tap water, obviously very significant, near the site of that toxic train wreck in Ohio. Is that enough though to assure families that they are safe? The EPA administrator will join us live on the program.

LEMON: But let's talk about this. One year ago, President Biden pledged to support Ukraine after Russia's invasion. This was then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: My message to the people in Ukraine is a message I deliver to Ukraine's foreign minister and defense minister, who I believe are here tonight. We stand with you, period.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: And this is now, one year later, he has a similar message.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: That dark night one year ago, the world was literally at the time bracing for the fall of Kyiv.

One year later Kyiv stands and Ukraine stands. Democracy stands. The Americans stand with you and the world stands with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, President Biden announcing an extra half billion dollars in aid while on the ground at the start of this week.

Let's walk you through exactly what the U.S. has provided up to this point, okay? So, here we go. This is what we have provided up to this point. Over the last year, the U.S. has sent nearly 30 billion in aid to Ukraine. To put that in perspective, Walmart's revenue in 2022 was $573 billion.

This is what is included in that. Included in the aid, over 100 million in artillery rounds, also 56,000 missiles and rockets and drones, over 2,500 of them, plus, there is what the U.S. will provide Ukraine in the coming weeks and months, okay?

This is what we're going to provide them in the coming weeks and months. Ukraine is set to receive the Patriot missile defense system, which the U.S. agreed to send late last year. Like a lot of military equipment we're talking about, it is something that President Zelensky pleaded for, for months, and just last month, okay?

President Biden's pledge to Ukraine expanded to include Abrams tanks, a move that added the U.S. to a list of allies donating tanks to the war effort.

Now, take a look at the battlefield equipment delivered are pledged to Ukraine. I remember at the start of the war talking with CNN military analysts about what was needed. They needed those Howitzers on the ground. Those are like cannons. Like I said, massive tanks are now on the way, all of this is necessary to keep Ukraine in the fight. Kaitlan?

COLLINS: Yes. And certainly still big questions about what could potentially come next to Ukraine. They don't have everything they have been asking for lately.

Let's bring in CNN's White House Correspondent Jeremy Diamond. Jeremy, we have been talking about President Biden's steadfast pledge to support Ukraine for as long it takes, but there are real challenges that the White House recognizes behind the scenes. There are concerns of it becoming a stalemate essentially on the ground. How is the White House navigating this? What does it look like a year in for them? [07:05:00]

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, first, Kaitlan, when you look back to the year of the U.S. providing security assistance to Ukraine, it's a story that has really been defined by the U.S. providing increasingly sophisticated, more powerful weaponry to Ukraine over time, even when it has previously denied Ukraine's requests for some of that very same types of weaponry.

And it's often taken a dramatic shift in battlefield conditions to get the U.S. to that point. Think back to last October when a week-long Russian barrage destroyed nearly a third of Ukraine's power station plunging millions of Ukrainians into the darkness right ahead winter.

Back in Washington, that was a game-changer. I am told by a senior administration official that President Biden was outraged by Russia's deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure. He was concerned that Ukraine's air defenses would be spread too thin. And, therefore, he directed the Pentagon to look for a way to get a patriot missile defense system, the U.S.'s most advanced defense system, to Ukraine.

And until that point, U.S. officials had called that Patriot defense system too complex and too scarce to provide it but all of that changed with the president's directive following those Russian attacks.

COLLINS: Yes. And, Jeremy, what about the next year ahead? What is the White House's sense of how aid will continue to evolve since there are some Republicans who say no more aid should go to Ukraine?

DIAMOND: Well, there are domestic political concerns, as you just lined out, but there are also just broader concerns about how much ammunition and weaponry there actually is still to provide to Ukraine. U.S. officials are under new illusion that this is going to be a very tough year ahead.

There are dwindling western defense stockpiles, including in particular one of the concerns is artillery. Ukraine has really been fighting this high-expenditure artillery-based warfare. The U.S. officials are now trying to get Ukraine to start shifting to a more maneuver modern warfare style that would use less artillery ammunition, for example, and also U.S. officials believe gives them a tactical advantage.

And, of course, there is the question of what is it next for the United States? We have seen them already go back on the Patriot system, we've seen them go back on tanks and decided to provide those. Now, Ukrainian officials, of course, are trying to get F-16s, for example. We'll see if that next or perhaps the HIMARS, that long-range missile system which Ukrainian officials have been asking for. Kaitlan?

COLLINS: Yes, we'll wait to see. Jeremy Diamond, thank you.

And we should note, the broader context of what is happening today as President Biden is preparing to wrap up his final day, you are seeing China's top diplomat in Russia today meeting with President Putin. This is Wang Yi, who is just a few days ago face-to-face, having a tense meeting with Secretary of State Blinken. Now, he is there inside the Kremlin, across the table from President Putin.

All of this comes as we are now learning the Chinese president himself may be preparing to visit Russia. And this comes as the U.S. is warning they believe China might be preparing, Don, to then deliver lethal assistance to Russia, which, of course, would be a major help to them as they are having their own issues with weaponry and ammunition in Ukraine.

LEMON: And we will be watching.

New CNN reporting this morning to tell you about, the GOP remains bitterly divided over whether the U.S. should continue sending aid to Ukraine. Some House Republicans led a congressional delegation to Ukraine to reaffirm U.S. support. Meanwhile here at home, firebrand Republicans criticized Biden for visiting Ukraine and call for an end to Ukraine funding.

CNN's Melanie Zanona live on Capitol Hill with us this morning. Good morning to you, Melanie. How is the House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, handling the divide in his party?

MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, no doubt, this is a real challenge for Republican leaders on Capitol Hill and it's a fight that is only going to intensify in the months ahead, especially with the war continue to drag on, in which Republicans looking to rein in federal spending.

In one corner of the party, you do have a large block of Republicans who are committed to reaffirming the United States' commitment to Ukraine. You had people making that pitch over the weekend at the Global Security Conference. You had a delegation of Republicans in Ukraine yesterday following President Biden's surprise visit there.

But in the other corner of the party, you do have a small but very vocal and influential block of Republicans who are calling to end all aid, financially and militarily, to Ukraine. They also were criticizing President Joe Biden's trip there publically making for quite the dramatic split screen moment in the Republican Party.

But this is a dynamic that Kevin McCarthy is very, very carefully navigating because he knows he needs those firebrand Republicans, he needs their support to do anything around here on Capitol Hill. And I was recently with him at the border, and I asked him about a resolution from Congressman Matt Gaetz that would express a desire to end all military and financial aid to Ukraine. McCarthy told me he does not support that resolution but he did say the Republicans are not just going to rubber stamp whatever the administration requests. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): I support Ukraine. I don't support a blank check, though. We've spent $100 billion here. We want to win. I think the actions that President Biden has taken have been too late.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:10:00]

ZANONA: So, this is something that Kevin McCarthy is going to have to deal with as well as Mitch McConnell. They could pass Ukraine funding with the support of Democrats, of course, to get it over the finish line, but that would risk alienating the right flank. And it's unclear if that is a risk McCarthy is willing to take. Don?

LEMON: All right. Melanie Zanona on Capitol Hill, thank you.

HARLOW: Also quite a day for the stock market yesterday. Wow, quite a decline right now. Stock futures are up this morning after the market had its worst day yesterday since December.

Our Chief Business Correspondent Christine Romans back with us to help us understand why. This was about big box retailers.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: And markets go up and down. And I don't really care unless it's a 2 percent move, and that was a 2 percent move yesterday across the board, 2.5 percent for the Nasdaq. So, it shows you there were some concerns here. You had a couple of big box stores that are signaling caution on the consumer.

Now, let me clear here, Walmart had a great quarter, 8.3 percent sales increase for stores open a year or longer. That is good. Anybody would like that. Retail sales continue to be strong, but they are looking out in the future. And the strength in the economy could mean more interest rate hikes and that could put more pressure on the economy and they're starting to see some weakness in their low income consumers in particular and a shift toward services from goods as we continue this post-COVID transition. So, some caution from those big box retailers really kind of struck a nerve yesterday.

HARLOW: I was really struck by this from the Walmart's chief financial officer, saying on the call yesterday, the consumer is still very pressured. If you look at economic indicators, balance sheets are running thinner, savings rates are declining, they are really worried. Them, there is Home Depot news also.

ROMANS: So, they are worried about the future and they're worried about as time goes by, this extra cash cushion that so many families have built up from COVID is going to start to wind down and they are going to rely on their credit cards more and they might change their spending. So, they're worried about that.

But I'll tell you what is interesting. Things are resilient in the economy. The consumer has been doing fine. We saw the retail sales numbers that were just blockbuster. So, we know the consumer is still spending. They are worried about the future.

And one of the reason they are also worried it's this, what's good news for Main Street is bad news for Wall Street, right? The Fed is going to probably have to try to continue to raise the interest rates for longer and can do it because the consumer strong, which means that it is more pressure on the consumer. So, we are in this very funny, confusing moment, I think.

HARLOW: Home Depot raising pay.

ROMANS: And it just highlights the very tight labor market. Home Depot raising pay for its frontliners, they already started at $15 an hour. They're trying to keep people. They don't want to lose people. We've told you how many times, the biggest fear among many corporate executives is not what is down the pike but it's keeping on to workers they have right now, because workers have a lot of choices, they have higher wages jobs they can go to, and they will job hop. So, they're raising salaries so that they can keep people.

LEMON: And hanging on to the profits, which is a whole another show (ph). I mean, when you think about it, if we are struggling in a struggling economy and we're coming out of COVID, then there should be some sort of realization from these companies. Well, maybe our profits won't be as big. That's not going to be the end of our company.

ROMANS: That's what they're saying. This is one of the reasons why Wall Street was worried yesterday, because both those companies signal more caution ahead about profit.

HARLOW: Thank you.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

HARLOW: Thank you.

Okay. A huge cleanup still underway after that toxic that -- train loaded with toxic chemicals derailed in Ohio. Now, federal government wants the train company to foot the bill. Coming up, we'll be joined by the head of the EPA as he tries to assure residents the drinking water is safe.

LEMON: Plus, we are now hearing from the foreperson of the grand jury investigating Donald Trump in Georgia, and she just dropped a bombshell.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

HARLOW: Welcome back. This morning, the Supreme Court is hearing another really significant case that could reshape the internet and social media as we know it. The question is this, should Twitter and social media giants be held responsible when ISIS and other terror groups use their platform to spread dangerous content.

Well, today's case revolves around a man who was killed in a terror attack in a night club in Istanbul in 2017. His family accuses Twitter, Facebook and Google, which, of course, is a parent of YouTube, of helping ISIS grow.

Let's bring in our Supreme Court Reporter Ariane de Vogue. I am so fascinated by this and where the justices are going to fall on it. It comes after yesterday's big case.

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right, the justices are really struggling here. And as you said, this is really the first time that they are looking about when to hold these tech companies responsible for the content.

And yesterday in court, the justices, they heard a case from a family of a woman that was killed by ISIS. And the family turned around and said, look, we want to sue Google, which owns YouTube, and they said that they felt like Google has these algorithms that promote these videos, these terrorist videos, and they should be held accountable. And Google, Poppy, comes back and says, look, we are totally protected by this 1996 law, it was put in place to give us broad immunity from these kinds of lawsuits.

And in court, you had justices, like Clarence Thomas, a conservative, no friend of these tech companies, really struggling though. He wanted to know where you could draw a line. And Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, she had sort of the same kind of argument. And at one point, she was sort of joking, but she said, really, shouldn't Congress handle this? Maybe not us. Listen to what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I mean, we are a court. We really don't know about these things. These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DE VOGUE: Right, she said that. But let me tell you the tech companies, they are worried. They are worried because they feel like if the court rules against it, then it will lead to more lawsuits, a deluge of lawsuits. They're worried that then these companies will want to put out less content, chill speech, because they are afraid of the repercussions. But, finally, they are also worried maybe there will be less moderation. So, a lot more of the dangerous content out there, but the companies will be too scared to step forward and try to moderate it.

[07:20:04]

So, it's a big issue just starting out at the Supreme Court.

HARLOW: And to see the alignment, though, between the liberal justices and the conservative justices in oral argument was really fascinating. And it seemed to bode well for Google at least on that front. We'll see and we'll watch today. Ariane, thank you.

DE VOGUE: Thanks, Poppy.

LEMON: The EPA administrator was back in East Palestine, Ohio, assuring residents the water they are drinking is safe. But they are not so sure. We're going to speak with the EPA administrator, Michael Regan, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: We are now hearing from the person responsible for speaking on behalf of the Atlanta-based grand jury that investigated former President Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election. That is the jury forewoman confirming that multiple indictments have been recommended, saying it's not a short list.

The grand jury met about seven months and heard from witnesses, testimony from 75 witnesses, including some of Trump's closest advisers. Fulton County District Fani Willis is now reviewing those recommendations and weighing charging decisions.

[07:25:01]

Emily Kohrs, that's the name of the jury forewoman, says she wants to see some level of accountability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMILY KOHRS, FOREPERSON, GEORGIA SPECIAL GRAND JURY IN TRUMP PROBE: I will be sad if nothing happens. Like that is about my only request there is for something to happen. I don't necessarily know what it is. I am not the legal expert, I'm not the judge, I'm not the lawyers, but I will be frustrated in nothing happens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Wow. Okay. So, joining us now CNN Political Analyst and New York Times Senior Political Correspondent Maggie Haberman.

So, it's interesting to hear a foreperson say that and said she'd be surprised if nothing happens. Let me just ask you. I think it's important to hear from her to set this up, what happened. Poppy mentioned seven months hearing testimony from 75 witnesses who made their recommendations regarding the indictment. And then Fani Willis, who is the Fulton County district attorney, she made the recommendations.

The foreperson in this grand jury said this, where she is sort of seemingly saying that there might be an indictment for the former president. I want to hear what you think. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KOHRS: We definitely heard a lot about former President Trump and we definitely discussed him a lot in the room. And I will say that when this list comes out, you wouldn't -- there are no major plot twists waiting for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So, will he or won't he?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Maybe, perhaps. I mean, look, she certainly seems like she is teasing, stay tuned, that's something is coming related to him, but she does not go further than that, I assume, because she got some instructions on what she could actually say.

LEMON: It's unusual to hear.

HABERMAN: I have never heard -- I have covered courts on and off for the last 20 years, more than that. I've never heard of a grand jury foreperson speaking this way.

Now, this is a fact-finding grand jury. This is not a charging grand jury. But even still, I have never seen anything like it. If I am the prosecutor, I am not sure that I want this media tour taking place because I am confident that Donald Trump's lawyers are going to use this, just based on what I was hearing last night from people to try to argue that this is prejudicial in terms of what she's saying.

HARLOW: It was interesting, to Don's point, about what Trump came out and said on social media on Truth Social, thanking the special grand jury, saying total exoneration. I cannot imagine being Fani Willis, like you have got your foreperson as you're trying to make this decision.

LEMON: Didn't she say like did he actually read the documents when he said that?

HABERMAN: Right. And this was not a total exoneration, frankly, anymore than the Mueller report was a total exoneration, which he said about that too.

But that's I think a separate issue from what the jury forewoman is saying. I mean, she's given this extensive media tour. I saw some quotes that I think she gave to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, where she was asked about that quote, where Trump said this is an exoneration and she started laughing and said, oh, that's fantastic, I love that.

I don't see how that's helpful if you're a prosecutor because Fani Willis still has -- it's not automatic that charges get filed now. That seems like that's the likeliest thing to do. Fani Willis is a very aggressive prosecutor, but this is just, at least in my experience covering courts, not helpful to a district attorney when they are trying to put their case together.

LEMON: Let me read you the first line from your reporting. You say, former President Donald Trump, who, throughout his business career, had a reputation for not paying lawyers, spent nearly $10 million in this political action committee on his own legal fees last year, federal elections filings show. So, him running for president, does that help to pay for his legal fees, if he wasn't during, he'd have to pay it himself and this whole idea about it, well, if I'm being investigated, if he's being investigated, then perhaps there won't be an indictment?

HABERMAN: So, there's a gray area as to what happens with his -- this is from his PAC. And this was the PAC that had all of this money raised into it initially at the end of 2022, I think -- excuse me, 2020, early 2021, on claims of investigating widespread fraud. They did spend some of the money for that. They obviously did not confirm there was widespread fraud but started -- this turned into a wide, broad use PAC. He was able to use that money to pay his personal legal fees.

Now that he is a candidate, there are some experts on campaign finance who actually think he cannot use it anymore. Not being able to have other people pay for him has always been a disincentive to Donald Trump. So, I don't know how that looks like going forward as he is facing at the moment two trials in April related E. Jean Carroll, the woman who has accused him of rape. He is facing an intensified Georgia investigation, intensified New York investigation and intensified Justice Department investigations.

This is, again, a guy who is facing enormous legal issues and the potential of paying for this himself, which he never likes.

HARLOW: Let's switch gears here, because former President Trump is going to Ohio today, East Palestine, to be specific, the site of the toxic train wreck, in a county where he won more than 70 percent of the vote in 2020. And as Nikki Haley is criticizing Biden for not going, the transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, has not been yet, Trump capitalizing on that.

[07:30:03]

HABERMAN: Yes. I mean, if this was not Trump plus 20 district, as you just said, I don't think you would be seeing him there.