Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Supreme Court Ends College Affirmative Action; Sources Say, Grand Jury Still Probing Trump Documents. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired June 30, 2023 - 07:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Closest campaign advisers was shown a classified map by the former president.

[07:00:04]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Susie Siles, we know she was interviewed multiple times by the special counsel.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: A man was arrested in former President Barack Obama's Washington neighborhood with multiple firearms and materials to make a Molotov cocktail.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Secret Service in the area around the Obamas' residence observed him, acting suspiciously.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Taylor Taranto is on the radar first from the January 6th case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defendant is not guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Peterson was charged with 11 counts for his alleged inaction to stop the shooter in Parkland, Florida, in 2018.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got our life back. It's been an emotional roller coaster for so long.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's no doubt that he's morally responsible. He stood there for 40 minutes doing nothing. If he diverted him for ten seconds, my son would have been able to close the door.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was just a mess. We literally got on the flight. We taxied for like six hours and they told us we couldn't take off.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today is expected to be the busiest day for the 4th of July holiday weekend.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fingers crossed that everything is on time.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. It's the top of the hour, 7:00 A.M. here on the east coast. We're glad you're with us. We have a lot to get to, as you saw, really focusing this morning on just the consequential decision out of the high court that has really reshaped America for so many students.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: And I think how that decision paints a broader picture of what's happened with a 6-3 conservative majority. A great point was made --

HARLOW: Super majority.

MATTINGLY: -- last hour -- supermajority -- about if you want to know the legacy of the Trump administration --

HARLOW: It's the court.

MATTINGLY: -- this is it. This is it. And you're seeing the rulings reflect that.

And we want to talk about those rulings, because you think first it was abortion rights last year. It was also gun laws to some degree and now the Supreme Court has gutted affirmative action in college admissions declaring race cannot be an express factor in picking students.

It's the latest sweeping change ushered in by a conservative supermajority, as Poppy was noting, over the past year, that is reshaping America as we know it, very in line with what conservative legal scholars have been pushing for, for years.

The historic landmark ruling could have lasting effects on the diversity campuses across the nation. The class entering college this fall will be the last affirmative action class.

HARLOW: It was this time last year that the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus. Wade. Now, one year later, most abortions are banned in 14 states. Several of those states don't allow any exceptions for rape or incest. Also last June, the Supreme Court with a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment and guns, which is a huge victory for gun right advocates. It led to judges across the country, federal judges, state judges, tossing out and blocking some gun safety laws.

Joining us now to talk about all of this is former Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama Jeh Johnson. He also chairs the New York State Bar Association Task Force aimed at maintaining diversity. He is also an attorney and partner at the Paul Weiss law firm. It's great to have you. Good morning.

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

HARLOW: So, for you, this is about students, this is about what happens with their careers, becoming future lawyers, but it's also personal for you. Can you share your personal experience and then reaction to what the court has done here?

JOHNSON: In addition to everything you mentioned, I'm also a trustee of Columbia University. And just a month ago, in anticipation of this decision, I was recalling to Lee Bollinger, the outgoing president of Columbia, December of 1978, 45 years ago. I was in the midst of applying to law school, anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in Bakke.

The Bakke decision in 1978 permitted higher education universities, colleges to consider diversity in enrolling students. I said to Lee then, were it not for the Bakke decision, I was admitted to Columbia Law School, I would not be sitting in the room as a trustee of Columbia 45 years later.

Poppy, in this society in America, it is still in 2023, in my judgment, the impulse of many to self-segregate where we live, who we socialize, even where we work. Diversity in higher education has been, for Americans, the first opportunity they have to live, to learn in a diverse society, geographically diverse, culturally diverse and racially diverse.

That's been the virtue of higher ed, one of the many virtues of higher ed over the last generation or two, whether it's Harvard, whether it's Columbia or whether it's Montclair State. And so we have to figure out where do we go from here in light of this decision.

One very crucial paragraph, sentence from that majority opinion of Chief Justice Roberts is this.

[07:05:00]

As we all agree, and nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise. So, the court is leaving the door open a crack to allow admissions officers to consider an applicant's personal situation, including an applicant's personal situation grappling with the issue of race.

MATTINGLY: So, I'm thrilled that you actually pulled that out because that was literally what I wanted to pull out and ask you about -- because, I think, look, fascinating reading in 240-plus pages of the opinion, concurrences, dissents, you learn a ton about the personal views, the legal opinions. I think they're visceral, they're unvarnished to some degree, given where the nine justices are on this issue.

But on that point, I don't think -- and you may disagree. Obviously, you're involved in higher education. The affirmative action, the process that was in place, the university wasn't necessarily perfect. There were certainly holes in it, there were certainly problems with it. You saw Asian-Americans, in particular, who kind of led on bringing this case, raising very specific and pointed concerns.

Why, given what you've just read, is it not possible for universities to implement a system that addresses this just without perhaps the affirmative action as it was known being what kind of drives it?

JOHNSON: Well, that's going to be the issue and the challenge going forward. Many colleges and universities already consider personal factors such as the ones I read, in reviewing an applicant's application to get into school. Now, this Supreme Court has taken away the ability to achieve diversity for the sake of achieving diversity and looking at an overall pool of what an incoming class looks like.

I'm confident that a lot of thinking is going to go into this in the days ahead, and I hope that it will be the case that universities find a way to achieve a diverse class, whether it's race, culture, geography, economic circumstances, by allowing us to all consider an applicant's personal challenges in life, whether it's because of where you grew up, how you grew up, where you went to school for high school, and how you grappled with being the victim of discrimination in this country.

From where I sit in the legal profession, we want to be able to look to law schools with diverse student bodies, because we've all seen the advantage of diversity in the legal profession. We've seen the advantage of diversity in the judiciary.

Ironically, this Supreme Court is the most diverse Supreme Court ever. A minority of the nine are white men for the first time in history. And so those of us in the legal profession are going to continue to look to law schools, colleges and universities to produce diverse classes because it benefits us in the profession and in the business world.

MATTINGLY: I noted your work in the Obama administration and I was struck by the former president's statement yesterday, in which he said, now it is up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives. What does that look like, for example, as a partner and a big, powerful law firm like you are, as a trustee of Columbia University in making these decisions? The Biden administration says they are going to make changes, do everything they can, but the court restricts what they can effectively do that would pass muster with a court challenge.

JOHNSON: Yes, it has. And what President Obama is saying is what many of us believe, that achieving a diverse situation, whether it's in a law school class, whether it's in the situation room, or whether it's on the Supreme Court, works to the benefit of and contributes to a healthy educational and decision-making environment.

When you have people who come from South Carolina, New York City, federal defenders, law school professors in the room together, out of that environment comes healthy decision-making. When you have 9 people or 12 people or 20 people all from the same background, all from the same social situation, all from the same geography, that is the environment for unhealthy decision-making.

And that virtue must flow through the entirety of life, whether it's colleges, whether it's law schools, whether it's law firms, whether it's the executive branch of the U.S. government, whether it's the White House, the west wing, those of us of my generation certainly know the virtue of diversity, and we have to continue on that path.

[07:10:12] I think it's vital to who we are as a nation, who we are as a people, that we continue to try to struggle along this path.

MATTINGLY: Real quick before I let you go. President Biden calling the court not normal. I think he went on to explain what he meant in terms of overturning precedent and their willingness to move as fast as they have on some issues. Former President Obama was not subtle, and I think his view of the Supreme Court as well. Do you feel like the Supreme Court is not normal or are they just following what conservatives have kind of laid out as what they want to do for years now?

JOHNSON: The latter. Like the issue of abortion, this decision has been in the making now for years with an increasingly conservative Supreme Court. I think we all pretty much saw this coming. Many predicted that Chief Justice Roberts would be the one to write this opinion. And we've anticipated this now for some time. And it's up to those of us who care about the issue to chart the road ahead.

MATTINGLY: All right. Jeh Johnson, thanks so much for your time, I appreciate it, sir.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: All right. Well, President Biden, as noted, denounced the Supreme Court's decision in a fiery speech to the nation from the Roosevelt Room of the White House. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: We cannot let this decision be the last word. We cannot let this decision be the last word. While the court can render a decision, it cannot change what America stands for. America is an idea, an idea unique in the world, an idea of hope, of opportunity, of possibilities, of giving everyone a fair shot.

We should never allow the country to walk away from the dream upon which it was founded. That opportunity is for everyone, not just a few. Discrimination still exists in America. Discrimination still exists in America. Today's decision does not change that.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Biden, the Congressional Black Caucus said the Supreme Court has thrown into questions its own legitimacy. Is this a rogue court?

BIDEN: This is not a normal court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That's our White House Correspondent Arlette Saenz with a very good question to force the president to stop and, exactly, it's a key question, it's a key sound. The president went on to elaborate on that a little bit more.

We want to get into that and much more with CNN Legal Analyst, former Federal Prosecutor and former Deputy Assistant General for Legislative Affairs at DOJ Elliot Williams, the author of the Very Serious newsletter on Substack, Josh Barro, and CNN Political Commentator and New York Magazine Columnist and host of the You Decide Podcast Errol Louis.

Josh, I want to start with you on that idea, President Biden saying this is not a normal court. I just asked Secretary Johnson about that issue of, to some degree, if you read what they've done, if you look at what they've done, it follows what conservative kind of legal scholars have been laying out aspirationally for decades, now they're doing it. Why does that make it not normal?

JOSH BARRO, AUTHOR, VERY SERIOUS NEWSLETTER ON SUBSTACK: I mean, I think that the last term of the court, you know, leading up to the Dobbs decision, I think that you could say that that was abnormal in a lot of ways, including that they made this very high-profile decision that went very much against public opinion.

This term, the court has charted a much more moderate course. You've seen a lot of splits there, not the typical 6-3 that you would see. And in this decision, it's similar to Dobbs and there is a significant shift in the court's jurisprudence. It is not similar to Dobbs and that this decision is in line with public opinion.

HARLOW: It is. We can show the polling here because it's Pew. In just last few months, 50 percent of Americans now disapprove of affirmative action, 33 percent approve. There is a split, though, along racial lines, I should note.

BARRO: Sure. But, I mean, even in California, the voters have twice rejected at the ballot box racial preference in college admissions.

HARLOW: Nine states actually.

BARRO: Right. And so I think Democrats need to be a little bit careful on the political side in terms of saying this is an extension of the Dobbs decision.

I think, as a political matter, the court is not out on a limb at all in the way that it was the last time around. And I think that to the extent that you have Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett sort of toward the middle of the court trying to chart a course that is going to be less politically contentious than then one that they did with Dobbs, I think this decision fits perfectly well within that. This is an area where the court can shift policy without running afoul of public opinion.

HARLOW: Errol, I think that's an important point. I also, in reading reaction and speaking to people over the last 24 hours, the question is -- well, I'll use myself as an example. I know that one of the reasons I got into Columbia University was also the fact that my father went there, was also the fact that I'm from Minnesota, right? So, the question is can those things be considered in a way that race can't or are they now on equal ground, because Roberts in his opinion said students can still express how diversity has impacted their lives?

[07:15:09]

That's a big question, because that's a big sticking point for many people thinking, why can legacy, which largely benefits affluent white people, can that be considered now more than race?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure. Well, I mean, in fact, that's in Sotomayor's dissent. She points out that at Harvard, for example, if you're a legacy, you're an athletic recruit, if you're the son of a faculty member or a daughter of a faculty member, that's about 5 percent of the applicant pool but they end up being 30 percent of the class.

And so all of those categories, plus race, and the court sort of identifies race and say, well, no, you can't consider that, but all of the rest of this is all good and never really quite explains why. And they are, therefore, in the majority accused by Sotomayor just acting basically as an admissions group, just sort of like setting admissions policy for the country according to their own personal whims. I mean, in the case of Justice Thomas, sort of personal damage he experienced when he was a law student. Not a sound way to make constitutional policy.

I think we're going to find a lot of people using the loophole that you just alluded, sort of saying, okay, we're not going to take race into account but we're going to ask to you write an essay about any adversity you might have experienced in your life because of race or ethnicity. And the admissions officers will figure it out and the students will figure it out. And the push toward diversity that is basically inevitable despite the court's ruling, I think, is going to remain a part of how institutions that are creating future leaders are going to really select those leaders.

MATTINGLY: Well, I think institutions have incentive to try and create that because I think they want diverse student bodies, I think students want diverse student bodies as well. But from a federal level, I mean, you worked at DOJ, what can they do? President Biden saying we're going to do X, Y and Z, listing a couple of things that kind of track with I think what we saw in like the Cal system to some degree. Is there anything the federal government --

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: To some extent, look, the president can always enter executive orders on virtually any subject directing the federal government to take actions or strive to promote diversity in its efforts. The problem with executive action is sort of twofold. One, they can be undone with the stroke of a pen by a future president. So, there's sort of a temporary band-aid on a problem that a president is identifying. But, two, more importantly, they invite more litigation.

I can assure you that the moment Joe Biden puts in place any sort of executive order on any of this. All of the interest groups that have been behind legislation like this and other litigants will certainly challenge them in court.

MATTINGLY: Yes, they're not reluctant.

WILLIAMS: Not reluctant.

MATTINGLY: Which is, to some degree, why they've built to this point.

HARLOW: You're going to speak to the education secretary, Miguel Cardona, later in the show, and that's the right key thing is what can, what will the administration do now.

MATTINGLY: Because I feel like we've gone through this cycle with the Supreme Court repeatedly where the administration is furious after a ruling and then comes out and says, we're going to do X, Y and Z. And then six to eight months later, you have a couple of executive actions, not even executive orders. And it's just the reality, there's not a lot that they can do but they feel like they have to say they can do stuff. And then advocates are frustrated and I feel like we're going to go through that process again to some degree. But we'll ask the secretary of education shortly.

HARLOW: Stay with us, everyone. Also this news, a top Trump campaign aide meeting numerous times with investigators as part of the special counsel's classified documents probe, details on the top secret document the former president allegedly showed her.

MATTINGLY: And right now, luggage is piling up at the baggage claim at Dulles International Airport. I'm not laughing at that, just the absurdity of the last several weeks on this front. Millions of Americans are set to head out today for the holiday weekend. The record-breaking numbers expected this year, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:20:00]

MATTINGLY: There are new developments this morning on multiple fronts when it comes to Donald Trump's legal troubles. First, the classified documents case, multiple sources are now telling CNN the Florida grand jury that indicted Trump just three weeks ago is actually still in the process of investigations. What they're looking into, that's actually unclear. But we do know they are continuing to question witnesses. One of the people they're talking to, a very significant top Trump aide, Susie Wiles.

Now, according to a source familiar with the matter, Trump allegedly showed Wiles a classified map of a military site at his Bedminster Golf Club in 2021.

HARLOW: Meantime, in the 2020 election probe, a former Trump 2020 campaign official, Mike Roman, is, we've learned, cooperating with the special counsel in the inquiry of efforts to overturn that election.

Our experts are back with us. Let me start with you, Elliot, and let's start where we ended there on Mike Roman and the fact that he's cooperating with the special counsel, because many have pointed to this other investigation by Jack Smith as harder for him to successfully prosecute than the Mar-a-Lago documents case. How does someone like Mike Roman play into that? WILLIAMS: Other people, including me as well, it is a harder case by any stretch of the imagination. Look at the documents case. It's really just a matter of proving, number one, that someone knew they had documents in their house, that the documents themselves were of a sensitive nature, and then, separately, that he tried to obstruct the investigation into it, sort of very straightforward.

When you start getting into overturning elections and candidates for office giving speeches that step up to the line and raising -- it's just more legally complex. What someone like Mike Roman can do is bring you inside the campaign and the efforts and conversations had either between Trump and Roman, Trump and other people, because he can testify to that, and maybe even Roman himself.

Now, the agreement that he's speaking under is called a proffer agreement --

HARLOW: Right, but this is key?

WILLIAMS: Yes. It could be. It could be. But, again, it's key in a matter that could actually be quite challenging --

HARLOW: No. I mean, key that he got that agreement, a proffer agreement.

WILLIAMS: Pardon me, yes. So, just real quick, a proffer agreement is literally called a queen for the day agreement, in which you -- prosecutors informally agree to sort of give you a benefit if everything you say to them off the record, in effect, is truthful and honest and it can lead to either the implication of someone else to provide more evidence in the case.

[07:25:12]

So, it's sort of you're trusting prosecutors to give you something good, but they are trusting you to actually tell them the truth.

MATTINGLY: We're going to say the thing where like the three lawyers all get together and say, queen for a day, at the same time --

HARLOW: I'm not a lawyer.

MATTINGLY: -- like flagging for me, so I don't feel super left out.

There is a line of thinking, Josh, that while, to Elliot's point, the documents case is the -- I don't want to say easier -- it's is the more likely to be successful at from a prosecutor's perspective, figuring out a way to bring charges or hold somebody responsible for, I don't know, overturning an election or attempting to do so is critically important for the long-term.

BARRO: Well, It's the more serious wrongdoing in some abstract sense. The question is whether it's more serious legal wrongdoing. I mean, there is a political remedy, which is impeachment, and, indeed, the former president was already impeached for conduct closely related to what they're looking at with regard to the post-election activities. I think in terms of whether there can be an indictment there, there's a few different angles that prosecutors may be looking at. One has to do with the riots and the events that actually occurred on January 6th. Another has to do with events prior to that, closer to the election, where you had pressure brought on officials and even on the vice president trying to interfere with the election results.

MATTINGLY: Do you view these as separate --

BARRO: They're not separate but they're sort of different. They're different possible legal theories about exactly what crime people committed in this process.

And then the third one has to do with fundraising, and the idea that some of the fundraising solicitations that were sent out in the aftermath of the election were frauds on the donors, that people were misled about what their money was going to be used for, or even that they were misled about the fact that there was an election theft that Donald Trump needed your money to his campaign in order to wage a legal fight against, and so all of those are more complicated legal matters to bring a case about.

One weird thing about them looking at that fundraising matter is that that, again, sort of like the documents case, moves off the really core wrongdoing. That is not about the riot. I don't think we would normally say that the big victims in the whole thing were people who gave money to the Donald Trump campaign, but that is another possibility for a legal avenue that they could attach to in order to have a legal revenue.

WILLIAMS: A very quick point response to that, I couldn't agree more with this idea of when we think of what is serious and what isn't, and something might have undermined democracy or been unsavory or unbecoming of a candidate for office, just not good conduct for a president of the United States, but that doesn't mean you are going to be able to prove it as a crime in court. And there's a big distinction, and I'm glad you touched on that, Josh.

HARLOW: On the other aspect of what we learned overnight, Susie Wiles cooperating. Why does that matter? I don't think she's necessarily a household name.

LOUIS: Not a household name but somebody very close to the former president. And it's critically important because it suggests that there may be further wrongdoing that the prosecutor is going to either uncover or allege. And so in the case where we already heard the great reporting by CNN, where we hear papers rustling and so forth and the former president been coming up with some excuse, when I said plans, I didn't mean military plans. They were plans for some architecture project or something like that, some completely implausible scheme.

What we're going to find out is whether or not there were other instances where a military map or something else that a potential future trial jury could easily understand. There are some things about this whole question of documents that are hard to understand. I think everybody knows that you're not supposed to show military maps to people who don't have clearance for it.

HARLOW: Just to be clear, I was wrong, she's not cooperating. She met with prosecutors. There's a big difference there. Stay with us, everyone.

MATTINGLY: All right. Look at this, a Southwest plane landing with a crushed nose after an apparent bird strike. We have the details.

HARLOW: And transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney speaking out about the Bud Light controversy and saying the company didn't reach out to her after the backlash, also talking about how lonely these months have been.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DYLAN MULVANEY, SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCER: For a company to hire a trans person and not publicly stand by them is worse, in my opinion, than not hiring a trans person at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]