Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Defense Bill in Peril after House Wedges in Divisive Amendments; Hollywood Production Grinds to Halt Due to Strikes; Jared Kushner Testifies Before January 6th Grand Jury. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired July 14, 2023 - 06:00   ET

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

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR/CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, everyone. It's D.C. It's Friday. We made it to Friday.

[06:00:42]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Poppy's off this week. Pamela Brown is here with me once again. Let's go ahead and get started. "Five Things to Know" for this Friday, July 14, 2023.

MATTINGLY: New overnight, culture war fights take center stage in a House vote for normally a bipartisan policy bill. House Republican leaders furious, trying to line up the votes late into the night after Republican hardliners attacked several controversial amendments, including some that would end diversity initiatives at the Pentagon and restrict abortion options.

BROWN: Jared Kushner and Hope Hicks have testified in the special counsel's January 6th investigations. Sources telling CNN Hicks and Kushner were questioned before a grand jury.

MATTINGLY: Lights, camera, strike. Hollywood actors joining writers on the picket line today. It's the first joint strike since 1960.

BROWN: Tens of millions of Americans under heat alerts from coast to coast. Some areas could see records following this weekend, with temperatures reaching 120 degrees in some spots.

MATTINGLY: And the World Health Organization warning that the widely- used artificial sweetener Aspartame could possibly cause cancer. It's a lot.

CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

Good morning, everyone. I kind of froze when we started the show, because I was, like, oh, it's Friday.

BROWN: I know, right?

MATTINGLY: This week has flown by.

BROWN: I can't believe I made it this week on the show. I never -- I haven't woken up this early for an entire week in many years. MATTINGLY: But also, there's a ton of news, and the best part about

this morning is once again, there is a ton of news, including last night late into the night on Capitol Hill.

House Republicans scrambling to try to get the votes together on a bill that serves as the cornerstone of U.S. defense policy. For decades, it's been a pillar of bipartisan agreement. Now, it's firmly at the center of America's culture wars.

The annual Defense Authorization Bill has become the latest battleground after Republicans narrowly passed a series of amendments late last night, including one that would eliminate all Pentagon diversity and inclusion programs.

Hardliners also made changes to the bill that include restricting abortion access in the military, and ending health coverage for transition surgeries and hormone treatments for transgender troops. The controversial measures went through a long night of heated debate on the floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LAUREN BOEBERT (R-CO): I don't send my boys to school to receive indoctrination from the woke mob or to be sexualized by groomers. And the same can be said for our service members, who are also parents sending their children to DODEA schools.

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): You are completely eliminating any consideration of this nation's history and how we're going to recruit and retain members of the military. These amendments are terrible ideas for the national security of this country.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): We have spent more time ensuring that we can protect the homeland and less time on pronoun training and the rest of this nonsense.

REP. STEVEN HORSFORD (D-NV): What are you so afraid of? Why do you keep bringing these divisive issues to the body of this floor? You are out of order. You are exhausting this.

REP. RALPH NORMAN (R-SC): A woke military is a weak military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: This morning, House lawmakers are set to return just a few hours from now to consider more amendments as those GOP leaders continue to try and get the bill across the finish line.

I want to start with CNN congressional correspondent Lauren Fox. And Lauren, look, I feel like we've spent the last six years texting and emailing back and forth at moments like this, really trying to break down the policy of the amendments themselves. There's 1,500 of them. I have no doubt you've probably read all of them and understand them.

But I don't think it's about the individual amendments here. Tell people, based on your reporting and what you've seen, kind of the bigger picture of what this bill is, and what last night represents.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, this is a bill that has passed for more than 60 years with bipartisan support, because at its core, it is about making sure the military, men and women in service, have everything they need to be successful on the battlefield to defend this country.

And for a long time, Republicans and Democrats put aside their partisan bickering on these topics, because they knew that this was essential. And you never wanted to take a vote against the military, right? So you sort of just nodded and kept your head down, did the work, and made sure that all these controversial amendments and issues didn't become part of the debate.

Because everybody understood at the end of the day, they were standing up for something bigger than politics.

That has all changed this week. And we should note that this bill passed out of committee with bipartisan support. This was a bipartisan bill.

[06:05:08]

And over the course of the last week, over the course of the last 24 hours, that has completely changed, because McCarthy had a calculation to make. He needed his right flank to be on his side for a myriad of reasons.

MATTINGLY: Right. It's clear Kevin McCarthy's calculation has made throughout the period of his speakership up to this point.

What is -- what strikes me about this, the policy issues, the issues themselves are not new. Culture wars are very clear. They moved center stage for a certain segment of the Republican Party now for a couple of years, more so with House Republicans since they have been in the majority.

But when you connect this to what Tommy Tuberville is doing on abortion, holding up hundreds of promotions, just for normal flag officers, regular flag officers on account of an executive branch Pentagon policy decision.

I guess my question is, defense policy was always kind of a third rail, to some degree. It's entitlement programs and defense. You don't mess around with defense. You don't bring this type of stuff and create these types of issues on defense policy. Why is it changing?

FOX: I think that it's changing for a couple of reasons. There's a very small number of House Republicans pushing to have these fights.

We're talking 20 Republicans probably at this point. It is not the majority of the Republican conference. And if you talk to people privately, they will tell you, this is not the kind of thing that they want to be taking votes on on the House floor.

And this is certainly not the kind of issue that they really want to alienate their Democratic colleagues on. And I think what's changing is the fact that you have a group of people who have been told no, no, and then yes multiple times.

And they've learned that, if they throw a fit, they get their way. And we're going to see this play out over the entire course of the spending fight that is coming up this fall.

MATTINGLY: Such a good point. Stay with us. We've got a lot more to talk about here.

BROWN: It really is just a preview, right? So let's bring in CNN anchor and chief legal analyst, Laura Coates; and CNN anchor Audie Cornish.

So Laura, to kick it off with you, what do you make of Republicans' push here to attach these amendments?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR/CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's very stunning to think about the idea of our military being used as a military -- or a political pawn, and knowing the preparedness that's required to have this sentiment, the morale that must be impacted. knowing that when you hear from Secretary Lloyd Austin and the ranks of the military suggest that diversity actually helps to prepare the military. It actually is beneficial.

The notion that culture wars would infuse this conversation is really telling, but also, it's a notion of how powerful these issues really have become across the country.

It would not be the sort of buy-in for the political officials and members of Congress to try to do this, for the reason you're talking about, the third rail.

This would not have been politically palatable for many years ago. It is now front and center into the wee small hours of the morning trying to get this done, and it's successful.

And so I wonder what impact it will have on the party more broadly, as we're talking about what their platform will be and attach to the military.

BROWN: And let's talk about what the Democrats were arguing, Audie, that particularly with one of the most controversial amendments stripping the D.O.D. policy from reimbursing members of the military from getting abortions, who may have to go to a different state because of Dobbs.

You know, Democrats argue this is really going to hurt -- it's going to service members. This is going to hurt recruitment. Fewer women are going to want to join the military. What do you think about that argument?

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: I think that there's a broader conversation going on in which the military is a proxy, and which is you hear a lot on the right about the woke military. You know, the assistant secretary for defense readiness is the highest ranking trans official kind of in the Pentagon. We know that they've been very upset in general about diversity initiatives.

So I think it's part of this, like, broader push to exert control in an area where they have control, which is the power of the purse and spending.

They can't complain to businesses about what they're doing when it comes to diversity. They can't stop businesses from maybe, in the future, carrying over-the-counter prescription birth control pill. What they can do is tell the military what to do through its spending.

MATTINGLY: I think it's a good point, and I want to ask you about this, because that's a critical point here. They're not doing anything wrong. They're not doing anything out of the realm of what's in their authority right now.

Nor is Tommy Tuberville. This is always power that a senator has had, that members of the House have had. It's less kind of the legality of it. There's no issues about it and more the strategic decision to move to this place and the why to some degree. I have a question about that for --

CORNISH: Phil, for a second, just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

MATTINGLY: No, no, no. That's my point.

CORNISH: It makes me think back to the conversations in the '40s about the integration of the military, the racial integration of the military and how that was going to harm readiness, according to the people who were opposed.

So there's always this way that the U.S. government and particularly lawmakers can kind of make hay of any conversation around defense.

MATTINGLY: But I think what's interesting about that, and I completely agree with the point that you're making, is that Lauren's point is so critical here and, I think, underappreciated in the sense that this isn't representative of the vast majority of House Republicans when you talk to them privately.

[06:10:12]

And yet, they won't talk about it publicly, that they have objectives to the fact that this has become a front and center issue, that this has become a defining issue on the policy bill that's passed on a bipartisan basis for 60 years because of the 20 members and the power they have and the platform they have within this conference at this point. Is that a fair statement?

BROWN: Remember, Matt Gaetz got up and said that -- he was one of the people, the clips you played, right? He also pushed an amendment to strip Ukraine of security assistance. Seventy Republicans went on the record to vote for that.

COATES: The frustration, of course, is -- and I know from -- I'm not in the military. I'm not a member of Congress, surprise, surprise. However, this idea that there's a personal viewpoint and then a

political front that is portrayed to people a tension we keep seeing time and time again, whether it's about an elected official and your alliance to that person or what you believe privately, there's a frustration among the electorate.

We talk about the institutions and our government being -- having less credibility, being viewed more skeptically. One of the reasons for that is because I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do, right?

This notion that there is going to be all this attention. But again, it's the power of the few who were able to be the most vocal, like, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? And that is an example of this, and if it's not something that everyone buys into. I mean, Lauren, the notion that it's able to pass nonetheless is stunning.

FOX: Yes. And we should note that this is going to be a really tough vote for some Democrats. Phil, there's probably going to be a handful of Democrats who still support this, even though they are appalled by some of the amendments that were added.

MATTINGLY: It's a paradox, because it's STILL a defense bill --

FOX: Exactly.

MATTINGLY: -- they don't want to vote against.

FOX: How do you say to your constituents -- I was talking to Jared Connelly about this last night. He said, Look, I have 25 percent of my economy that is based on the military infrastructure in this country in my district. And I am having a hard time squaring how am I going to actually vote against this bill, despite the fact I'm appalled by a lot of the amendments that were added to it? It just shows you the tension that some Democrats are feeling about how to deal with this.

BROWN: And it includes that 5 percent pay raises for military members.

COATES: Yes.

BROWN: Some have to be on food stamps. They can't afford rent. I mean, this is really critical.

MATTINGLY: Yes. No question about it. Would note, we got to go, but the Senate is going to have a say here and, likely, the final say which is I think a critical piece of this.

All right. Lauren Fox, thank you very much. Laura and Audie, stay with us.

For the first time in more than 60 years, two Hollywood unions are striking at the same time, bringing the TV and film industry to a grinding halt. SAG-AFTRA, the union that represents actors, officially went on strike just hours ago.

BROWN: So that means that new movies and TV shows will likely be delayed even more than they already were due to the writers' strike. That's in theaters on both big networks and streaming services.

So networks will likely run more reality shows, game shows, and re- runs this fall unless they're able to reach a deal. And according to union rules, members will also not be able to promote current work.

CNN entertainment reporter Chloe Melas is live in New York. So Chloe, what are the sticking points in negotiations?

CHLOE MELAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: One of the sticking points is artificial intelligence. And many, you know, the writers have been on strike for two months, and that has been something that they have taken issue with, and they have been holding out.

Now the actors are talking about A.I., residuals and streaming. So a lot of issues on the table.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MELAS (voice-over): The actors of Hollywood are on strike --

FRAN DRESCHER, PRESIDENT, SAG-AFTRA: This is a moment of history that is a moment of truth.

MELAS (voice-over): -- disrupting the industry in the midst of its critical summer movie season. The actors of the forthcoming movie "Oppenheimer" walking out of their premiere Thursday.

FLORENCE PUGH, ACTOR: It's been a really, really tense few days for a lot of people. Not just actors, but everybody in the industry who are going to be affected by this decision, but affected by a decision that is necessary.

KENNETH BRANAGH, ACTOR: We know it's a critical time at this point in the industry, and the issues that are involved need to be addressed. It's a difficult conversation, and everybody is trying to get a fair deal. That's what's going on. So we'll support that.

MELAS (voice-over): And the actors from the highly-anticipated "Barbie" movie voicing their support for their union amidst their global promotional tour.

MARGO ROBBIE, ACTOR: Ya, absolutely. I'm very much in support of all the unions. And I'm a part of SAG, so I would absolutely support that.

RYAN GOSLING, ACTOR: I would support the actors. Yes.

GRETA GERWIG, "BARBIE" DIRECTOR: I love the unions. They've always protected all of the artists I know, and I really want them to stand strong and win their fight.

MELAS (voice-over): The union is fed up over compensation in the streaming era, enough to walk the line.

DRESCHER: We are being victimized by a very greedy entity. I am shocked by the way the people that we have been in business with are treating us. MELAS (voice-over): The strike crippling the TV and movie business,

already limping during the Writers Guild of America strike. SAG-AFTRA reps around 160,000 entertainment professionals of all kinds.

[06:15:12]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And action.

MELAS (voice-over): Along with better pay, actors say residuals for past work have dried up in the streaming era. Add to that artificial intelligence. Actors say A.I. threatens their future, the guild claiming that studios want to use A.I. to replace background actors.

DUNCAN CRABTREE-IRELAND, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAG-AFTRA: They propose that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get paid for one day's pay, and their company should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity in any project they want with no consent and no compensation.

MELAS (voice-over): Studios say they've offered the highest percent increase in minimum pay in 35 years, and that the actors aren't seeing reality.

BOB IGER, DISNEY CEO: This is the worst time in the world to add to that disruption.

MELAS (voice-over): Disney CEO Bob Iger notes the decline in revenue from traditional platforms and the industry-wide struggle to make streaming a viable alternative.

IGER: There's a level of expectation that they have that is just not realistic. And they are adding to a set of challenges that this business is already facing that is, quite frankly, very disruptive.

DRESCHER: How they plead poverty, that they're losing money left and right, when giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their CEOs. It is disgusting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MELAS (on camera): In just a few hours, you are going to see writers and actors both picketing together, both in Los Angeles in front of the big studios and streaming giants, and also here in New York. You might also see some famous faces taking to the front lines with them.

MATTINGLY: All right. We'll be watching. Thanks so much.

BROWN: Jared Kushner testifying before the grand jury investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. We're going to tell you the key question that prosecutors are honing in on.

MATTINGLY: And in a separate case, the special counsel tearing into the former president's team and its push to seek an indefinite delay in the classified documents trial. That's all coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:20:46]

BROWN: Well, this morning, former President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, becoming the latest person in Trump's inner circle to testify before the grand jury investigating Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Sources tell CNN some of the questions were about whether Trump was told he lost the election.

Former Trump White House aide Hope Hicks also testified early last month. CNN's Katelyn Polantz joins us now.

So how significant is this that both Kushner and Hicks testified we know this comes after a long list of important testimony, right? Mark Meadows, Mike Pence. This is just adding.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, there's two ways to look at it. It's more names that people recognize. Jared Kushner, Hope Hicks.

People that are very close to Donald Trump going in and testifying, just showing how far-reaching this probe has gone, and that they're bringing these people not just in to talk to them, not just to look at their House testimony, but to bring them into the grand jury.

But then, on top of that, if you look a little bit closer, you know, Jared Kushner, he was a person after the election who had -- he was involved in a lot of different things, right? He was talking to the campaign. He was in the White House.

But Hope Hicks is actually a really interesting person, because she wanted nothing to do what was happening by the time January 6th rolled around, and she was also very one-on-one with Trump in hearing him say, We won the election. I don't care what else.

And her response to him was, I don't see any fraud. No one sees any fraud. This is not what the facts are on the ground.

And so her testimony would not necessarily be about all of these various tentacles that the investigation is looking at. Her testimony would be about Donald Trump himself and what the messages were going to him directly.

BROWN: I remember she told the January 6th committee that he said to her, Look, people won't care about my legacy if I lose. I have to win. So presumably, that was part of this.

POLANTZ: Yes. We'll say we won, was one of the things that she heard him say right after the election when it was quite clear that he hadn't won.

BROWN: Right.

MATTINGLY: All right. We'll bring back Audie and Laura. I have 150 legal questions for you.

COATES: OK. Let's go. Rapid fire. Rapid fire. Rapid fire.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: I want to start with Audie so she doesn't attack me during the break again.

BROWN: I saw it, America.

MATTINGLY: Nobody believes that.

BROWN: America's little brother right here.

MATTINGLY: The idea -- wow. The idea that we -- we've seen all these names. We know these investigations. They seem to be mushrooming to some degree as we get some idea of visibility into them. He's still the leading presidential candidate in the Republican Party by 30-plus points.

Do these things matter politically for the former president? I ask you this every time we talk.

CORNISH: I know.

MATTINGLY: And every time you get really angry at me.

CORNISH: I don't. I don't. In my mind, I go to another place.

No, it is basically too early. A lot can happen between now and election day, even for Donald Trump, who to be honest, like, hasn't won recent elections so to speak. He didn't show his influence in the midterms was, like, so outstanding.

So it's not clear yet what his power is and where it stands.

I have one other quick question, because the thing I don't understand is what they will say different from what we heard in January 6th.

POLANTZ: That's a great question, and also the question about why do you need them in the grand jury? Their testimony is under oath. Jared Kushner, Hope Hicks, they weren't declining to answer questions.

If prosecutors are looking at a case right now, they have all of the facts already. This is not a fact-finding mission with Jared Kushner and Hope Hicks.

CORNISH: Yes. I understand it's Dante (ph) runs closer to, you know, the center of the story. So maybe that's you. Why do they need that? Will they hear anything different than the January 6th probe?

COATES: Well, first of all, it comes down to due diligence, right? And also, there's a proprietary interest. I don't know that you asked all the questions I need answered unless I ask them myself.

And also, people can change. They can change their tune. They can change their memory. They can change their intention to be truthful. And they might have a shift and change of heart.

So I don't know if I interview you on day one and day 180, you feel differently about the person you were once loyal to. And now on 181, you want to tell me everything.

So I have all these different factors going on, but also remember, it has to be credible to a jury that you don't believe that you won the election. It just doesn't come down to me being able to have to go in, do a pseudo-lobotomy of sorts and dissect your brain and say, aha, here's the lie that I can identify. It has to be reasonable to a jury to suggest, with all of the evidence out there, with everything that was told, all the contextual clues, you're telling me that the ostrich's head was remaining in a sand in a reasonable way.

And so --

CORNISH: Does it matter? Is it about whether the person believes it or whether what they know? Meaning, if this long parade of people have told you over and over again the same thing, you lost, does a jury actually need to think that, well, because you believed you won, nothing else matters?

COATES: Ask yourself if you were a juror, right? We're all contextual jurors in public opinion, and journalists. But also the notion, if you think about it, if I said to you, All right, hey. I am on the stand, a very crass example, I think it's appropriate to give drugs to a toddler. I believe that's the case.

And everyone says, Are you insane? Everybody knows it's not the case. It's not supposed to be done. But I tell you, this is what I believe, there's not credibility in that, and you can't be -- you cannot escape this sort of liability you'd have.

But in the end, it's not -- it's more than just the semantics believe and no. It has to come down to what can I prove from the contextual clues and the comprehensive evidence about what you intended to do if we know what the case is?

BROWN: Something really quick, though. We're focusing on this, because this is core to the case, right? They have to prove that he knew he lost, and this is why he was taking these actions.

POLANTZ: Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if that's the case.

BROWN: This is what I'm going to say. What makes this complicated and why I think that they are so focused on asking these witnesses and focusing on these questions about him acknowledging he lost is because there are also other witnesses who we know have said they've told Donald Trump, right, that he won the election. That, no. This election was stolen from you.

Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell. The list goes on.

MITCHELL: Yes.

BROWN: And so I think that also adds another element to this.

COATES: That list you gave, so important. We have a tendency to focus and assume that all the investigation is targeting one person. There are a lot of players, and you named just but a few of them who were so intimately involved in all of this. We don't yet know what Jack Schmidt's full, wide dragnet might be. It might include Trump, but it might not.

BROWN: That's true.

MATTINGLY: All right. Kaitlan, Laura, Audie, I kind of want to just hang out.

BROWN: I know. Can we keep going?

MATTINGLY: All right, guys. Thanks. Stick around.

Diet soda drinkers, you're going to want to watch this next story. The World Health Organization just issued a potentially concerning update about the artificial sweetener Aspartame that's found in those drinks. We'll tell you why. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)