Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

"Everything Everywhere All at Once" Wins 7 Oscars Including Best Picture; Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) On White House Meeting Over SVB Failure; New York Prosecutors Invite Trump To Testify In Hush Money Investigation. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired March 13, 2023 - 07:30   ET





UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the Oscar goes to Ke Huy Quan.


HARRISON FORD, ACTOR: And the Oscar goes to "Everything Everywhere All at Once."


POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: It really was everywhere last night -- "Everything Everywhere All at Once" dominating the Oscars last night with the eccentric science-fiction concept taking home seven Oscars, including best picture, best director, original screenplay, lead actress, supporting actress and supporter actor, and editing.

It was a largely drama-free night following last year's explosive slapping incident.

For more, let's bring in Brittany Spanos, senior writer for Rolling Stone, and Brent Lang, Variety executive editor. Hey, guys -- good morning. Great, great, great to have you --


HARLOW: -- both very, very much.

What a night --


HARLOW: -- and what a night to finally showcase and honor the diversity that we've been waiting for so long at these awards.

SPANOS: Yes. I mean, I think everyone was really rooting for "Everything Everywhere All at Once." It was so wonderful to see them take home so many awards. To see three acting awards and also for actors who have never been nominated before across the big four. It's really incredible to see what happened last night.



KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: What stood out to you? I mean, as you were watching it, it definitely did not have the same drama as last year but I think that was kind of welcomed -- the fact that the spotlight was on something like all of these Asian actors and actresses and Asian-Americans and putting that in the spotlight instead of what we were talking about a year ago.

BRENT LANG, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, VARIETY: I mean, absolutely. They cleared the very low bar of no guests got assaulted so I think that's a sign of progress.

But what really stood out to me was the number of comebacks and kind of reassessments when it came to a lot of the major winners.

I mean, you had people like Michelle Yeoh who at 60 has been seen as kind of a martial arts star -- you know, earning this kind of acknowledgment. Somebody like Ke Huy Quan who had actually because of a lack of career opportunities been kind of out of the industry for a number of years. He came back. Brendan Fraser -- someone who had been on the A list for many years and then had all these personal health struggles and he came back and won the Oscar.

So think there was a lot to sort of feel good about, which was a really nice thing, particularly in contrast to last year's ceremony.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Were you surprised that Brendan Fraser was a little bit -- I thought "Elvis -- you know, that it would -- it would be. But I was kind of hoping for Brendan Fraser because I thought it was such an important role that he played.

LANG: I think some of it is just the enormous amount of goodwill that people have towards Brendan Fraser. And if you look at all the different Oscar events this man is just so nice, so generous, and so genuine, and I think that's what people really responded to.

COLLINS: How was Jimmy Kimmel as the host? Was he pretty good?

SPANOS: You know, he wasn't -- I feel like he wasn't really around too much. Like, I feel like it was a very straightforward show, right? Like, it was like very -- you know, there was not a lot of excess fat on it. Like they didn't do a lot of bits.

LEMON: It's a lot of "Cocaine Bear."

SPANOS: Yes, it was a lot of "Cocaine Bear."

LEMON: It was a little much. "Cocaine Bear" --

COLLINS: That's who we see him joke about.

LEMON: Yes. "Cocaine Bear" needed to ease off the cocaine last night. SPANOS: Yes. Yes, it definitely was a lot of that. I mean, maybe we'll see "Cocaine Bear" like sweep next year at the Oscars or something.

But yes, he was not -- he didn't do too much so that was -- that was fine. It was kind of like a little bit of a dry show but I feel like that's how the Oscars usually function.

LEMON: Can we talk about this, though? I mean, wow -- look at her.

LANG: So many --


COLLINS: Well -- and speaking of people getting recognized that deserved recognition and had for so long not been afforded that recognition.


LANG: Absolutely.


LEMON: She's gorgeous. Angela Bassett, we're talking about, and she was up for best supporting actress, right?

SPANOS: Yes. I mean, I feel like everyone was sort of shocked that she didn't take it home last night, too. I think there is a lot -- it was a really tough best supporting actress category and I think everyone sort of was -- had their -- had their winner in mind, and so it could have really been anyone for that.

LEMON: Yes. Were you surprised by the best supporting role? Did you think it was going to be Angela Bassett?

LANG: I thought it was between here and Jamie Lee Curtis.

LEMON: Jamie Lee.

LANG: But I think it's a lot like the Brendan Fraser thing. I mean, Jamie Lee Curtis has been in the industry for decades. She's worked with a lot of people. There are a lot of friends who are among on voting bloc who I think probably put her over the top. And I think Angela Bassett will be back --


LANG: -- and I think she'll win at some point.

COLLINS: But Poppy, you loved that acceptance speech moment from Ke Huy Quan from "Everything Everywhere All at Once." You were talking about that.

LEMON: I -- yes.


LEMON: Me -- was it me? Oh, I was.

COLLINS: Was it you?

LEMON: Were you as well? Yes, when --

COLLINS: I thought it was Poppy.

LEMON: -- he said my 84- or 83-year-old mother is at home right now -- look, mom, I won an Oscar. And I so related to that. It was -- made me cry. I think that's as far as I got. I think I fell asleep after that.

SPANOS: It was also really special when Harrison Ford presented best picture and they had a very special hug to kind of have this Indiana Jones reunion in this moment. That was his first role and I mean he just had a really tough time over the years since he was a child actor.


And to have this moment where Steven Spielberg is rooting for him in the audience. To have Harrison Ford present him the award --


SPANOS: -- and, you know -- I think that was just like such a highlight for me to see them kind of have that little moment on the stage.

LEMON: And Halle Berry -- my goodness.


LEMON: She gets more beautiful every year -- stunning.

HARLOW: No truer words than that.

LEMON: Yes, stunning.

HARLOW: Guys, thank you so much. And I loved what you wrote about it being a night of comebacks and reassessments, so thank you very much, Brittany and Brent.

LANG: Thank you.

HARLOW: Really exciting news for us, too, at CNN. CNN Films taking home best documentary with "NAVALNY." At 8:30 a.m. eastern time we're going to be joined by the CNN Film "NAVALNY's" director, Daniel Roher.

LEMON: Here's a look at the stock futures this morning. The White House keeping a close eye on how the markets will react to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank -- SVB as it's been shorthanded. Signature Bank being shut down as well. The president is going to speak next hour. But first, we're going to be joined by Sen. Tammy Baldwin. She was on a call with the Biden administration last night.



COLLINS: All right, an update for you on the news that everyone has been watching all weekend. This morning, we are seeing regional banks getting hammered two hours before the markets are set to open.

First Republican (sic) Bank shares -- they are plunging down more than 60 percent after what we saw happen on Friday and yesterday. Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank both closing their doors as President Biden is set to speak about the sustainability of the U.S. economy and the banking system and these failures that we've seen playing out soon.

CNN's Christine Romans is here now. OK, so First Republic Bank has shed half of its value --


COLLINS: -- before the markets even opened.

ROMANS: Yes. Look, these regional banks are really getting hammered here today. And look, investors are looking for anything that looks even remotely like SVB, and so they looked at some of the west coast regional banks and they're hammering those.

First Republic down sharply there. That number is not correct. And PacWest is down this morning as well. Charles Schwab, which is also a west coast money manager, down eight percent.

So we're watching these very closely. Other banks are down. The big national banks are also down one percent and two percent this morning so you're going to see a lot of unease in the banking sector.

It's not necessarily concerns about their balance sheets; it's concerns about profitability. And what do I mean by that? Well, these banks are going to have to start paying more interest for depositors to keep depositors happy and to keep the deposits in their banks, and that means that they're going to make less profit. So that's one of the things you're seeing in the banking sector.

But overall, I can tell you that stock index futures are just barely mixed here. So this could have been a very different-looking day here today if the Fed, and the FDIC, and the Treasury hadn't stepped in. So you've got some stability overall in the stock market, but in the banking sector we'll be watching very, very closely because there is still some unease there.

COLLINS: And overall -- I mean, it's hard to know right now but if you're a midsized bank or if you're banking with a midsized bank is this going to hurt them? Are people going to be less -- ROMANS: So --

COLLINS: -- likely to go to something like that?

ROMANS: I think the first thing to tell people is that your money is insured up to $250,000. And after what happened this weekend, it looks like the government is going to make sure that you're money is insured on top of that. So for regular people you don't need to be moving your money around in different banks unless you want to get higher interest on your deposits, and that's something the banks will be facing here.

So I think that the federal backstop means the balance sheets are not the issue for these banks; it's their profitability that will be in question going forward here.

COLLINS: OK, that's good advice. Everyone is searching for advice right now.


COLLINS: We'll check back in with you at the top --


COLLINS: -- of the 8:00 a.m. hour.

LEMON: We're waiting for the president to speak in just moments.

In the meantime, joining us is Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin. She was on the call with the president -- with the Biden administration, I should say, about their Silicon Valley Bank decision. Thank you so much for joining us. A lot to discuss but, of course, this is top of mind this morning.

What happened on the Biden administration call with members of Congress about the banking fail? What happened last night?

SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Well, we learned about the Signature Bank failure also, added to the Silicon Valley Bank.

And assurances were made, obviously, for FDIC -- $250,000 secured for everyone. That's already a given. But the administration indicated that beyond that those who had deposits beyond the $250,000 would also be -- kept whole, but not at taxpayers' expense. But this was urgent from the perspective of small businesses, for example, that need to make payroll, et cetera.

The message I think is no widespread panic necessary. But I do --

LEMON: So they're not worried about other banks?

BALDWIN: I think that there might be a handful of other banks out there, but I don't know for sure. But I think the issue is that there should be no widespread panic.

And I think for us in Congress, we need to revisit some of the regulation that was loosened on these regional midsized banks not so long ago. I certainly opposed that loosening at the time.


HARLOW: You're talking about the bill 2155 in 2018 that was -- it really loosened parts of Dodd-Frank for any bank that had less than $250 billion in assets. Seventeen Democrats voted in support of that. One of them was your colleague, Sen. Mark Warner. He was asked yesterday on ABC if he regrets that vote. Listen to what he said. I wonder what you think.


SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): No matter what the capital had been in this bank, if you don't get banking 101 straight, if you don't manage your interest rate risk, if you've then got to run at $42 billion in a single day, unprecedented. Management didn't get this right. Banking 101, managing interest rate risk -- that is something that --


WARNER: -- an asset to somebody's --

RADDATZ: -- you don't regret that vote?

WARNER: Listen, I think it was called the 2155 bill. I think it put in place an appropriate level of regulation on midsized banks.


HARLOW: Looking at it now is there the appropriate amount of regulation on these banks or would you be in favor of voting to reinstitute things like the stress test for banks like this?

BALDWIN: I certainly think moving forward that we need to come back to those questions. Time changes circumstances and I think it's appropriate for us to reexamine that.

HARLOW: You voted -- why did you vote against that legislation in 2018? Were you worried about something like this?

BALDWIN: You know, I think that an appropriate amount of capitalization and regulation should be required, especially -- you know, there was a big lobby to get the community banks out from under the regulation of Dodd-Frank, especially the very small ones, but I didn't think that the regional medium-sized banks should really have been a part of that.

COLLINS: On the White House's response, is it sufficient so far?

BALDWIN: I think so. The call we had last night involved Treasury, it involved the Fed, it involved FDIC. All hands on deck clearly working all weekend long. And we'll hear from the president shortly, but I think they've been dealing with this in a very expeditious manner.

COLLINS: The Treasury Department says it's not a bailout, but it is insulating affluent tech investors. Is it a bailout in your view?

BALDWIN: Well, I think the question is will there ever be taxpayer dollars on the line and so far, we've been told that that's not going to be the case. That they'll figure out within the federal government a response that won't require taxpayer contribution. We'll keep a strong eye on that, I promise you.


HARLOW: One of the other things that we wanted to talk to you about is this legislation that you've put forward once again. You're hoping you can get enough votes. You need Republicans on board. But this on trying to ensure the right to an abortion for women in every state --

BALDWIN: That's right.

HARLOW: -- after the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

You've got 47 Democrats supporting it. Joe Manchin and Bob Casey haven't said they are supporting it. You don't know yet how they would vote?

BALDWIN: So, 49 of us -- this is the largest number we've ever had on the Women's Health Protection Act when we introduced it last week -- and so we're showing that the support is growing. We're still talking to other members of the Senate to grow that support.

But I think what's really key is after Roe versus Wade was overturned, half of America lost freedoms and rights. And in my home state of Wisconsin where there is a near-absolute ban on abortion, and 13 other states like Wisconsin, we're talking about a crisis situation right now. And we've got to advance not only the Women's Health Protection Act but we've got to be working on all fronts to assure that women have the rights and freedoms and not fewer than their mothers and grandmothers in America.

LEMON: How is Walgreen's decision -- does Walgreen's -- is Walgreen's decision not to sell medication in certain states -- is that playing a role in the legislation that you --

BALDWIN: Well certainly, the passage of the legislation would address that so that you didn't have to worry about what zip code or what state you were in order to access a proven effective, safe medication for abortions at a certain point in -- up to a certain point of pregnancy.

I think Walgreens messed up in announcing how they were going to distribute mifepristone and I think what they really owe the American public and their customers is clarity. They received a sort of threatening letter from a variety of Republican state attorneys general and kind of bowed to that pressure. They really need to look at the law of each state and be able to make -- give a clear message to their customers and the American public of where people will be able to access that medication.

[07:50:00] LEMON: We aren't always as fortunate as we are now to have you in studio --

BALDWIN: Thank you.

LEMON: -- and we enjoy having you here. Please come back.

BALDWIN: Thank you very much.

HARLOW: Thank you, Senator.

LEMON: Thank you very much, Senator.

COLLINS: Yes, and we'll continue to track --

LEMON: Appreciate it.

COLLINS: -- how this SVB collapse is handled and how Congress is responding to it as well.

LEMON: All right. Speaking of that, President Biden expected to address the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and the government's response. He'll do that shortly.

We're going to speak to Jack Singh, the founder of the tech startup company that primarily used that bank.

HARLOW: And what the Manhattan district attorney is saying about his probe into former President Trump's alleged hush money payments. That is all ahead.


COLLINS: All right, we have new reporting this morning that former President Trump's fixer -- his old fixer, Michael Cohen, is going to be meeting with prosecutors in Manhattan today. They are finalizing their investigation into hush money payments that were made to the adult film star actress Stormy Daniels. That was in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Trump reportedly -- did huddle with his legal team at Mar-a-Lago over this weekend after the Manhattan district attorney's office invited him to come and testify before the grand jury on his involvement in the matter.

Here's how the Manhattan D.A. -- over the weekend -- Alvin Bragg, described his motivations.


ALVIN BRAGG, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We're looking at the facts and the law. We follow the facts, it doesn't matter what party you are, it doesn't matter what your background is. What did you do and what does the law say?

(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Joining us now with his perspective on this is one of Trump's attorneys during his second impeachment trial. You'll recognize him -- David Schoen. David, thank you for being here this morning.


And we just heard from Trump's attorney who is handling this case here in New York. He was on "GOOD MORNING AMERICA." I want to show you what he said and have you respond to it.


JOE TACOPINA, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: He made this with personal funds to prevent something coming out false but embarrassing to himself, his family, and his young son. That's not a campaign finance violation, not by any stretch. So personal funds and personal use of funds -- spending to fulfill a commitment and obligation or an expense of a person that would be existing irrespective of a campaign is not a violation --


TACOPINA: -- and that's what you have here.


COLLINS: David, do you agree with him?

DAVID SCHOEN, TRUMP'S DEFENSE LAWYER DURING SECOND IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Well, that's what Michael Cohen said originally, you know.

Listen, the New York law is a bit convoluted and I think the biggest problem here is the acceptance of the idea of indicting a former president -- unprecedented move -- with a law that's sort of a couple of steps removed. In other words, the law here makes it a misdemeanor to falsify business records with the intent to defraud. So the idea there would be that payments were falsified that were made to Michael Cohen to reimburse him for payments to Stormy Daniels -- Ms. Daniels.

And then it becomes a felony under 175.10 under New York law if there was the intent to defraud, to commit, or conceal another crime. And so we're a couple of steps removed here.

It's a fundamental assumption or principle of prosecution, both federally and in New York State, that we don't prosecute unless the prosecutor is convinced that you would get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a very dubious theory of prosecution here. It's not the kind of case in which to indict a former President of the United States.

And by the way, I think the political fallout plays both ways. There's an election blog piece by Rick Hasen, who is not a Trump lover, who says this is not a prosecution to bring. You risk making President Trump a martyr by doing this kind of thing.

And the public is already so skeptical of these kinds of things. I think it's a big mistake to handle -- to bring this prosecution.

COLLINS: Do you think he is going to be indicted, though?

SCHOEN: I've said all along -- again, I'm a worst-case scenario person. I think right now we're seeing politically, a rush to be the first prosecutor to indict a former president, so I worry about that. The political considerations play into it which, again, is fundamentally against the ABA standards for federal prosecutions or any kind of prosecution, including state prosecutions.

I worry though. There's a race now between New York and Georgia to be the first one. I think it sets a terrible, terrible, dangerous --


SCHOEN: -- precedent. Sorry, go ahead.

COLLINS: David, is that a longer way of saying yes, you do think he will be indicted?

SCHOEN: I -- you know, look, I don't have a crystal ball. I worry that he will be indicted and I think that's bad for the country. If I were a betting person I would say I think yes, for political reasons and not consistent with the law.

COLLINS: One thing that we've reported on is that the D.A.'s office offered Trump to come in and testify himself -- to speak to the grand jury. That was how it signaled that an indictment was likely. He huddled with his team over the weekend. If you had been in that room would you advised -- have advised him to go before them?

SCHOEN: Ha, ha. I would not, frankly. I'm not sure, by the way. I saw Mr. Tacopina in the piece. I'm not sure he'll handle it if it goes forward but he's certainly representing the president now. He's representing him in another matter in New York -- former president -- in another matter in New York. But listen, lawyers can differ over this kind of thing.

New York -- this is part of their system. They offer the subject of the grand jury investigation an opportunity to testify and then there's certain immunity factors that play into it.

I would not because I think there's an agenda here and I think there's a great risk of sort of perverting anything that he says in there --


SCHOEN: -- to maybe come up with another crime.

COLLINS: Even -- Trump seems to have this idea sometimes -- and I've been hearing from some people around him that he -- maybe he can go in there and change their mind. Do you think that's unlikely?

SCHOEN: I think that's unlikely. I know what you're talking about. He's a very persuasive speaker and I know that sometimes there is this thinking about changing people's minds. But if there's a political agenda at work here, and I believe there is, then I don't think that's very likely. I don't think, frankly, that the facts matter.

And again, you have to think about all of these considerations, including the level of evidence here and the source of the evidence. The case starts and stops with Michael Cohen.

COLLINS: Michael Cohen, yes. And I'm assuming you don't think he's a very good star witness for them.

SCHOEN: Well, he's got problems. I mean, listen, every criminal case, generally, the government witness has a problem. But here, he's on record with the Federal Election Commission, The New York Times, and elsewhere saying that this absolutely was not any kind of hush money, that the -- President Trump didn't know about the payments that he made, and so on. I understand he changed his position and people do that, but that's not the kind of witness that we indict a former president behind.

COLLINS: We'll find out.

David Schoen, thank you so much for that analysis.

SCHOEN: Thank you.

COLLINS: And CNN THIS MORNING continues right now.

HARLOW: Good morning, everyone -- top of the hour. We're glad you're with us this Monday.

Wow, what a weekend it was. Two different banks failing back-to-back.