Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Jared Kushner Testifies Before January 6 Grand Jury; Today, SAG-AFTRA Actors Join Writers on Picket Lines; Critical Defense Bill in Peril After House GOP Wedges in Abortion, Transgender Care, Diversity Amendments. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired July 14, 2023 - 07:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Before the grand jury, Hope Hicks before the grand jury.

[07:00:03]

The New York Times reports Jared Kushner was asked if he ever heard Trump acknowledge he lost the election.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: They're trying to establish intent. That's, by the way, the hardest thing for a prosecutor to do.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: House Republicans add restrictions on abortion access but must pass a defense bill if.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If we want to show America that we can come together and that we care about women, we got to stop being (INAUBLE) women.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This bill does not support our troops. It's making women into political pawns so that Republicans can advance their extremist agenda.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I cannot believe how far apart we are on so many things.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hollywood essentially came to a complete halt when SAG-AFTRA announced that they were going to go on strike.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The first major walkout in more than 40 years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're making it more and more difficult to just make a living.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a level of expectation that they have that is just not realistic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Record-high temperatures, dangerous scorching heat and no sign of relief.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a very dangerous heat wave. It is fatal. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since we've been reporting heat related deaths back in 2006, this is the highest number we've seen.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Over the next week, nearly 70 percent of all Americans will see temperatures at or above 90 degrees.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the women's final at Wimbledon is now set.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congratulations to Marketa Vondrousova.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, Marketa is a great, great player, and I've already lost two times to her this year. So, I'm going for my revenge again, I guess, is working.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: A good Friday morning, everyone. Pamela Brown back with me in Washington, D.C.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Great to be here.

MATTINGLY: We have a number of major stories, including that strike, that is now composed not just of the writers but also the actors, directors as well. What's going to happen there going forward? Huge news for what's going to be on your T.V.

But we want to start this hour with the latest member of former President Trump's inner circle to testify before the grand jury investigating his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, Trump's very own son in law, Jared Kushner. Sources say some of the questions federal prosecutors asked Kushner were about whether Trump was told he lost the election.

Several key Trump White House officials, from low level aides to former Vice President Mike Pence, have testified before the grand jury already.

BROWN: Former Trump White House Aide Hope Hicks also testified early last month. Any possible indictments from the probe will likely rely at least partly on what these individuals have said under oath and behind closed doors.

So, let's get straight to CNN's Katelyn Polantz with more. She's been following all these developments. So, what are we learning about this testimony, Katelyn?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, this testimony didn't take place that long ago, which is notable in and of itself, because this investigation has been going on for some time, and there have been a lot of witnesses. And then they bring Jared Kushner, Hope Hicks into the grand jury in June, two people who told their stories already under oath to the House select committee, and so their testimony and what they would say was already out there.

Now the prosecutors are replicating it. And this crucial piece of it is that the people that are very close to Trump were being told by sources like Kushner, like Hicks, they are being asked about how Trump was being told he lost the election. So, that piece is something that, for some reason, the prosecutors really want the grand jury to hear that.

MATTINGLY: Okay. So, Katelyn, while this is happening, we also had the special counsel respond to Trump's legal team's request to delay the other major investigation that has led to indictments related to the classified documents case. What did they say?

POLANTZ: Well, right now, in that case, there's a big fight brewing over the trial date. So, the Justice Department wants a trial date in December. That might be a little early. That's just the end of this year. Trump's team wants the case to be postponed indefinitely because he's running for president. And they have a couple of other reasons there. They want time to go through things.

But the Justice Department came back swinging pretty hard at Trump's defense team, saying that there's no basis in law or fact to postpone this case indefinitely. They want to get to trial very quickly here or as quickly as they can.

And there's a hearing on Tuesday when the judge is going to see both of the parties for the very first time. There is a possibility she could want to address this at that time. And a big question that she's going to have to determine is how do you seat a jury for a man who's running for president? Trump's team says, you just can't while he's running for president. There's no way to do it. The Justice Department says, no, we have mechanisms in the system to make sure that a fair jury is chosen for anyone who's on trial.

BROWN: All right. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much.

Well, joining us now is the former deputy attorney general under President. George H. W. Bush, Donald Ayer. He is among a group of legal experts that recently published at Just Security, a model prosecution memo which lays out a path to indicting former President Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.

[07:05:00]

All right, thanks so much for coming to talk with us, Donald.

I'm curious. Katelyn made the point that these interviews with Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, the former president's son-in-law, just happened in June. What does that tell you about where this investigation stands and what Jack Smith might be thinking, especially when it comes to that key question of Trump acknowledging he lost?

DONALD AYER, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: Well think I think it's hard, first of all, to you want to be careful in speculating about that, but what seems to me to be likely is that he is getting pretty near the end of what he needs to do to feel he's got the case pulled together and ready to go. And so they're already, as you all have said already, there are good, strong pieces of evidence that indicate that Trump actually did know. And so here are people, members of his family, people very close to him, who probably have insights into that as well. And so I think what Jack Smith is doing probably here is trying to complete the record before the grand jury with sworn testimony that can be added to the extent it's necessary, the showing that's already there that Trump knew that he had lost the election.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask, because we're talking about this last hour, it's a question we're all trying to figure out? How much does intent actually matter here?

AYER: Well, I think the memo that we've written is a memo that is trying to come forward with a fairly concise and straightforward and simple way that the case could move quickly. And, actually, the charges, as a formal matter, the charges that we're suggesting, bringing, and focusing on don't literally, as a matter of legal requirement, demand that he knew he had lost.

I think, as a practical matter, however, to bring a criminal case for January 6th against Trump, the practical reality is you're going to have to be able to show that Trump knew he lost. He has to fundamentally know that what he's doing is something that was completely wrong and completely improper at that fundamental level. So, I think Jack Smith must be thinking that even though it may not be technically, legally required to show Trump knew he lost, practically speaking, it is necessary.

BROWN: It's interesting, just reading this memo, you talk about how the statute of inciting an insurrection is implicated here, but you note that DOJ would use that only with extreme caution. Why is that?

AYER: Well, I think the reason mainly is it's a statute that's pretty clear on its face what's required but it's not been used since the civil war. And so it's a new thing. And we make the argument that it fits like a glove what Trump did. And it also makes it possible to make that allegation of insurrection against him in a way that you could actually make the case without getting caught up in the First Amendment issues, which we think righteously the government would prevail on related to the speech that he gave on the mall.

You can tell this story in terms of Trump summoning the people to Washington, then his conduct during the day, leaving out the specific words he used on the mall. But the tweet that he sent out that had to do with Pence's and doing his job and then sitting there for 187 minutes and doing nothing and really lending support, he participated in an insurrection and supported it. And I think that's kind of the idea that we're suggesting in the memo.

MATTINGLY: I want to go through kind of the three pillars to some degree of the memo in terms of fake electoral scheme, Trump tried to stop Pence from certifying the election, obstruction of official proceeding, and citing the Insurrection, giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists. The first is, how did you kind of come up with those three? And I think, more broadly, what was the genesis of putting this together? Are you trying to make sure that Jack Smith sees this? Are you trying to inform the public? AYER: I think it's mainly -- I don't think we think we can tell Jack Smith how to prosecute a case. I think this is one of a number of efforts. You've seen a number of these, Barbara McQuade did one a while ago. Some of the same members, including Norm Eisen and myself and Noah Bookbinder were involved in one a year or so ago, actually, back before the hearing -- more than a year ago, back before the hearings. I think the goal mainly is focused on the public. I think there's a lot of feeling that of overwhelming -- the overwhelming nature of the evidence. How in the world can you bring a case like this?

And so this is an effort to say you can do it when you break it into bite-size piece, when you sort of recognize the phases of what Trump was involved in, and you prove that case. And then there are specific acts. We're focusing significantly on the phony elector schemes in seven states, and the people involved in those, and Trump's key role in all of that.

[07:10:04]

And that becomes the basis for false claim allegations.

BROWN: Right. And let me just ask you on that in particular, and on the mens rea question, the state of mind, because just trying to channel what his lawyers would argue, they would argue that, no, actually my client did believe that the election was stolen from him. Now, of course, there's plenty of evidence that he did acknowledge he lost, but there's also plenty of evidence that advisers were telling him that he did not lose, and that the false certification push to have these fake electors was in case it fell through and he actually did win and they would need these electors to come forward if, in fact, it was proven that the election was stolen. Couldn't they make that argument?

AYER: Well, I think Trump is probably likely to make that argument. But I think when you look at the record, and we've laid it out a pretty good summary of what that evidence is, the evidence really is overwhelming that Trump knew he had lost. He said it to a bunch of people. He may have said it to his family members. And so he knew he had lost and he went ahead and did these things.

And the thing that's so I think significant here is he didn't just do something once. He acted repeatedly, extensively, in multiple settings.

And part of what's involved here, I think, is background evidence, is he calls these people in the states. He calls Raffensperger, he calls people in Arizona, he calls people to try to get them to not do their jobs. Well, that's part of phase one, or act one, as we call it, of basically trying to do things to overturn the election.

And the key thing is how can Jack Smith and the prosecutors put together a story that involves the true facts, that has specific allegations that are provable and not too complicated? It can't be too complicated, or we're all going to be overwhelmed and maybe it never gets to trial. So, that's the challenge that Jack Smith has. It's like drinking out of a fire hose. There's just too much evidence to easily be able to streamline and simplify, and that's what needs to be done here.

BROWN: I'm thinking back to that January 6 committee, that huge report they released of everything that they collected.

AYER: They did such a good job. They did such a good job of telling the story and boiling it down for the public. And I think they are a good guide and a lead in how to do this. And now our memo is an effort to kind of take that a step further and say, look, this can be done in a trial that could be done within a year.

BROWN: All right. Former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, thank you so much for offering your perspective.

MATTINGLY: Well, also happening this morning, T.V. and movie production brought to a grinding halt, as SAG-AFTRA, the union representing 160,000 actors, goes on strike. Members joining picket lines alongside writers who walked off the job in May. The issues, they center around pay, streaming service residuals, but also things like technology, especially artificial intelligence.

CNN Contributor Sara Fischer joins us live now. And, Sara, that's the thing that of all the elements here, and they're all critical to the negotiations that are ongoing, to the extent they are at this point, it's the A.I. issue and I think the central nature of it. What exactly are actors concerned about and how do they actually want it addressed?

SARA FISCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's a huge issue, Phil. So, essentially, what the studios are trying to say is that an actor or somebody who's working in the background think about a stunt double, et cetera, could have their image be screened and then anytime it's used after that, the studio would maintain the name, image and likeness, meaning that they could benefit and monetize that person's image, but the person who is getting actually their image scanned would only get paid for that one day. So, that's the big sticking point that the actors are very frustrated about.

It's a huge issue, though, because A.I. is taking over every single industry, not just Hollywood, but the news media, all sorts of things. But within Hollywood itself, it's coming at a time where a lot of people feel as though they are not getting paid enough already. So, the fact that they are not going to be able to make money off of their name, image and likeness only after they do the scan is what's really this big sticking point is coming down to.

BROWN: So, if nobody is working, what happens to the movies in production? What happens to our favorite shows? That's what we're all wondering.

FISCHER: It's not looking pretty, Pam. So, before when we had the writer strike, that basically canceled out most of the fall T.V. programming. A lot of consumers can expect their favorite shows to be off air this fall. But what the actor strike does is it really takes a hit at the movie industry. The big concern is that with this proposal, the actors are not going to be able to necessarily promote a lot of their new films if they're on strike. That means they can't attend red carpet events, they can't attend press tours. And so if you're one of the big movie studios, you have to be wondering, do I want to push my movies out further along the schedule that are supposed to debut later this year, because I'm not going to be able to do any big motion around them.

[07:15:08]

That's probably one of the big concerns right now.

MATTINGLY: And that was actually what I wanted to ask you, because we do have two movies in particular that are about to come out that are two of the highest profile movies of the summer, Oppenheimer and the Barbie movie.

And the Oppenheimer cast, I think, walked out of the London premiere before the actual screening started. Tell us about that.

FISCHER: Yes, they had a plan, Phil, which I thought was super interesting. Matt Damon telling Variety that they had discussed it as a cast, because, remember, they were a few hours ahead of time so that they kind of were able to plan this out, what they were going to do if the strike was authorized while they were on that red carpet. And, essentially, they said, look, we're going to walk out in solidarity, we will not attend the screenings, and that's exactly what they did.

Now, the big thing to remember here is that Oppenheimer and Barbie, both of those two major hits expected this weekend, have had months to promote that film. You've seen Margot Robbie everywhere in her Barbie outfits. Can you imagine a film coming up where you don't have actors that are able to promote it? That's why this is going to be a very big deal for Hollywood.

MATTINGLY: Absolutely. Sara Fischer, great reporting. Thank you.

BROWN: Yes. It's interesting. It's not the ones like them. They've already been promoting them, right?

MATTINGLY: That was a message that was sent. But they've already done all the work.

BROWN: Exactly. They've already done all the work. It's the other ones that are coming out where they can't promote it. It's interesting.

New overnight culture war fights take center stage in a House vote for a normally bipartisan defense policy bill. We're going to speak to former Defense Secretary Mark Esper about that, next.

MATTINGLY: And Vladimir Putin speaking out about the Wagner group following its rebellion inside of Russia. We will tell you what he said, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [07:20:00]

MATTINGLY: Welcome back. Happening overnight, a critical defense bill has become the latest battleground in America's culture wars. House Republicans narrowly passed controversial changes to the annual defense authorization bill, which has been a pillar up to this point, nearly six decades of bipartisan agreement and serves as the cornerstone of U.S. defense policy.

The measures included eliminating the Pentagon's diversity programs, restricting abortion access in the military and ending health coverage for transition surgeries and hormone treatments for transgender troops.

It was a long night of heated debate on the House floor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A woke military is a weak military.

REP. ERIC BURLISON (R-MO): Their time is wasted learning whatever new woke ideology comes out of leftist universities.

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

BROWN: Top Democrats in the House, they are furious and vowing to oppose the bill. The House reconvenes in less than two hours from now to consider more amendments as GOP leaders try to get it across the finish line.

And joining us now, former Secretary of Defense under Donald Trump Mark Esper, he serves on the board of the weapons technology company, Epirus. Thank you so much for coming on.

So, your reaction to the House adopting these amendments to the NDAA?

MARK ESPER, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, good morning, folks. Well, first of all, really, in some ways, it's not unusual. I ran the policy shop for the House Armed Services Committee nearly 20 years ago or so, and these things come up at times.

Clearly, the country is wrestling with these cultural issues, both parties are. Both parties are torn within themselves, the Republicans more so. And it tends to come out in these situations where you see policy initiatives, as you discussed in your lead-up, come out in terms of amendments.

Look, I think at the end of the day, the defense policy bill will pass this year. It has to move through the House, the Senate has to do its own work and then the leadership of both sides get together and work it out. But I think this is part of the process and it's the role of the Congress to sort out these types of policy issues for the military when there is divisiveness within the country. MATTINGLY: On that point, though, look, I mean, I covered Congress for 12 years, there are always amendments, most of them are germane, but a lot of them track with whatever political party's kind of ideology is on the issue, whether the left or the right, but there's always a center. And I think that's what has made it different than other pieces of legislation, particularly over the course of the last decade or so, is that the House Armed Services Committee, which you were on, and the Senate Armed Services Committee, always had a bipartisan approach to this when it came out of committee. And then there was always going to be 250 to 300 members across both parties that would get together and get it across the finish line.

What's different now beyond the actual text of the amendments is this is a Republican-only bill at this point. And even if the Senate ends up jamming them kind of on the back end, which I think everybody expects, that's different. It just demonstrably is different than normal.

ESPER: Well, I actually thought that the bill came out of the committee with unanimous or near unanimous support, maybe I'm mistaken.

MATTINGLY: No, that's what I'm saying. The committee process was very much in line with what has been the process for decades. That's what happened since.

ESPER: That reflects that center that you're talking about. I mean, the bill managers are very, and the chairman and ranking members of those committees are very conscious of that. They strategize about what they can get out of their committee, what they can get to the floor, knowing full well that there will be a fight on the floor. And, look, I think we got to see how this plays out.

These are important issues, right? The country is wrestling with these issues right now in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, in the wake of Biden administration policies. And so, like I said, I think the House is acting now. We'll see where they come out today. The Senate will act. I think the temperature will be turned down some in the Senate, but we'll see what happens. These are big issues.

MATTINGLY: I want to ask you, our Wolf Blitzer interviewed the defense secretary, Austin, and he said that Senator Tommy Tuberville needs to lift the holds on hundreds of senior military nominations. You and six other former defense secretaries sent a letter earlier this year to Senate leadership over these military holds. Do you agree that this is a national security issue?

ESPER: Yes. First of all, look, again, I think I said this before. Senator Tuberville has a legitimate policy issue he's concerned about, his constituents are concerned about. But I don't believe that uniform military officers, particularly our most senior ones, should be held hostage, should be used as political pawns.

[07:30:00]

And as we wrote, we being myself and the former secretary's defense, it does have an impact on military readiness and over time could affect national security.

So, my view is don't use the military as political pawns. It just politicizes the uniform. They don't dictate this policy. This comes out of civilian leadership. This comes out of the White House. Find other ways to address these issues.

And my view is give Senator Tuberville a vote in committee, on the Senate floor, whatever it takes, but give him a vote. Let the issue be debated out, but don't take hostages.

MATTINGLY: I want to ask you before we let you go, we've talked over the course of the last couple of weeks often about the mutiny, the Wagner group mutiny and Russia. We haven't heard a lot from President Putin. He told a Russian newspaper today that the military group behind that rebellion doesn't actually exist. I think the quote was, well, Wagner PMC does not exist. We do not have a law for private military organizations. It simply does not exist. What he's saying about the law is factually inaccurate, despite what they say.

But I think my bigger question right now is, what do you make of him saying Wagner doesn't exist? It has been such a critical component, at least implicitly, of Russia's foreign policy influence for years.

ESPER: Yes. Look, they certainly do exist. During my time as secretary of defense, we are very cognizant of their presence in the Middle East, in Africa, of course, several countries there and in other places. And they still are in those places. So, they exist. They've been supported by Putin. They've been funded by Moscow.

Look, I think this continues to be another evolution of how Putin is trying to play this. He needs a Wagner. Maybe he changes the name. Maybe this is rebranding, but he needs that foreign policy tool, if you will, to do what he needs to do in the Middle East and Africa and elsewhere. And, look, they've also been the most effective Russian unit on the battlefield in Ukraine. So, he's still wrestling with this.

And the other interesting part of it is we now know that over two dozen Russian military officers, not Wagner now, two dozen are either suspended, they're being detained, they're being interrogated, they've been fired. There's a lot of turmoil going on within the Russian military, particularly its most senior ranks. And I think this is another interesting aspect that plays into this drama with Wagner and Prigozhin as well.

BROWN: Really interesting to hear your perspective on this as the former secretary of defense. Mark Esper, thank you.

And coming up on this Friday morning --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: it was completely toxic and devastating to my sense of self.

Time and time again, the Academy and the institution don't protect their people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Our investigative team here at CNN discovered a cover up of a damning report into the Coast Guard's mishandling of sexual assault. Now, a top senator is demanding an investigation.

Plus --

MATTINGLY: That is an all out brawl breaking out in Kosovo's parliament, why lawmakers there came to physical blows.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]