Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

North Korea Confirms U.S. Solider in their Country; Trump Indictment Defenses; Arkansas Won't Count African American Course Towards Graduation; Hunter Biden's Plea Deal Invalid. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired August 16, 2023 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: To murdering his wife. The 72-year-old judge, Jeffery Ferguson, is accused of killing his wife at their home earlier this month after an argument at a nearby restaurant. Prosecutors say Ferguson threatened his wife during the dinner, pointing his finger at her mimicking a firearm. When they got home, prosecutors say, his wife said, quote, "why don't you point a real gun at me." That's when, prosecutors say, Ferguson shot her with a pistol.

Now, arrest documents allege that within minutes of the murder, Ferguson sent a text message to his court clerk and bailiff that said, "I just lost it. I just shot my wife. I won't be in tomorrow. I will be in custody. I am so sorry." The couple's son called 911 and Ferguson was arrested that night. Judge Ferguson, who prosecutors say was intoxicated at the time of the shooting, is facing murder charges, but he's out on bail. He's been ordered to wear an ankle monitor and stay away from weapons and alcohol.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Wow.

New this morning, for the first time North Korea confirming publicly that U.S. Army Private Travis King has crossed into its territory and is there voluntarily. That's what they're saying. That is according to state run media in North Korea.

What we know is that King crossed into North Korea last month during a tour of the DMZ.

Our Paula Hancocks has been following this live from Seoul, South Korea, and joins us now.

Paula, first time official confirmation from North Korea. What else do we know?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Poppy, it's important to note that this is North Korea's version of events. We are not hearing directly from Travis King here. But state run media has a very set idea of why King decided to run across the border last month.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HANCOCKS (voice over): North Korea claims racism in the U.S. military was the reason U.S. Private Travis King crossed into its territory, adding he was seeking refuge in North Korea or a third country.

One month ago King ran across the military demarcation line during a civilian tour of the Demilitarized Zone. Nothing had been heard from him since.

Pyongyang finally breaking its silence on the incident, claims King confessed that he, quote, "harbored ill feeling against inhuman maltreatment and racial discrimination within the U.S. Army.

A U.S. defense official said they could not verify King's alleged comments, and the focus remains on bringing him home safely.

King ran across the border at the joint security area, a heavily guarded area. U.S. and South Korean soldiers were unable to stop him. Pyongyang claims King is, quote, "disillusion" at the unequal American society. There are no direct statements from King or details of his whereabouts or condition.

King had faced assault charges in South Korea, serving around 50 days in a detention facility. The Army says he would have faced further charges if he had returned to the U.S. as planned. The day before he crossed into North Korea, King was taken to Incheon Airport by a military escort but did not board the plane, claiming a lost passport to airport officials who escorted him back to departures.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get my son home.

HANCOCKS: King's mother, through a family spokesperson, is asking Pyongyang to treat her son, quote, "humanely," asking for a phone call with him. Contact Pyongyang has not allowed with previous U.S. detainees. King's family has told CNN they feel helpless.

JAQUEDA GATES, TRAVIS KING'S SISTER: Or let me go get him, because I'm his big sister, at this point.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or let me go get him, because I'm his uncle.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HANCOCKS: Now the Biden administration has considered designating Travis King a POW, a Prisoner of War, meaning that he has extra protection under the Geneva Convention. But officials do point out that he appeared to do this voluntarily. He was dressed as a civilian and he was part of a civilian tour group.

Poppy. Phil.

HARLOW: Paula Hancocks, you can see the pain in his family just wanting answers and wanting him home.

We appreciate the reporting. Thank you.

MATTINGLY: So, what's next after former President Trump has been indicted in Georgia? What we're hearing from official officials in Fulton County about the timing and a possible mug shot. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:37:31]

MATTINGLY: Well, just one day after being indicted by a Georgia grand jury, former President Trump posted that he will host a, quote, major news conference next Monday at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. He says he will present a report from his team regarding his false and repeatedly proven to be false claims that presidential election results in Georgia were rife - rife with fraud.

So, what comes next?

Joining us now, former prosecutor at the New York District Attorney's Office, and professor at New York Law School, Rebecca Roiphe, and former U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Georgia, Michael Moore.

Michael, I want to start with some of the defenses that we've heard, not in court, but by Trump supporters, lawyers for some of the other 18 indicted co-conspirators, the idea that this is criminalizing speech, that this is criminalizing the act of being a lawyer or serving a client in law. What's the response to that?

MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, I'm glad to be with you.

I'll tell you that there will be some defenses like that. I mean this will - they'll raise first amendment defenses. They'll raise political speech defenses. There will be some unique immunity defenses that come out. And I think there's a fair argument that we know about some of the legal claims that the lawyers will make.

MATTINGLY: (INAUDIBLE).

MOORE: Well, you know, there's nothing criminal about trying to be creative in a case. There's nothing criminal about trying to strategize and think of ways -- unique ways that you might win. What happens, though, is when you cross the line into some type of criminal pursuit, then that advice or those discussions may become part or -- of an overt act and a potential liability (ph).

MATTINGLY: Is that - is that line clear? For -

MOORE: Um.

MATTINGLY: For somebody who doesn't follow the law. You know, it - as -

HARLOW: For a lawyer.

MOORE: For a - you should be a lawyer (ph).

MATTINGLY: Because this is John - this is at the core of John Eastman's law - legal team's defense, right?

MOORE: Right. MATTINGLY: And I think, to some degree, several of the lawyers involved in this are pointing to this very thing. Is there a bright red line there?

MOORE: Yes, it should - it should be clear. I mean it would be like a lawyer saying, you know, I'll tell you where to bury the body. You can't do that, you know.

HARLOW: Yes.

MOORE: And so those things should be relatively clear. Again, we're a little bit in unchartered waters because this - this is a unique case. And we've - we've not see a situation where you've had lawyers, maybe as deeply involved in some of the conspiracy, some of the efforts, some of the overt and intentional acts to move in the legal process forward.

HARLOW: Making calls and being on calls and ask for illegal things to be done.

MOORE: Well -

HARLOW: I want to get Rebecca in here.

Mark Meadows, Trump's chief of staff, has moved to move this to federal court. You get a more favorable jury pool likely that way, possibly, and you remove the - you know, you add an ability for a president to pardon because then it's not a state charge. Will he be successful?

[06:40:01]

REBECCA ROIPHE, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: I think that there's a good chance he will be successful. He tried the same thing in the Manhattan case, and he lost.

HARLOW: Yes.

ROIPHE: But, of course, the conduct involved in that case was not conduct that occurred while he was president during the course of his presidency. And the question on removal is, was this conduct part of his official duties.

HARLOW: Right.

ROIPHE: Did he have -- does he have a federal defense here.

HARLOW: That's -

ROIPHE: And it's a much stronger claim in this case than it was in Manhattan. And it -- he may, in fact, prevail, as would Mark Meadows. In fact, anybody working under them also could make this claim that they were working under a federal official and therefore can remove.

MATTINGLY: So, why do you think Meadows went, a, first, and, b, by himself? HARLOW: Yes.

MATTINGLY: Should we read anything into that? Is that normal? I mean when I saw that, he wasn't with any of the other 18, he wasn't with the former president perhaps more than -

HARLOW: Or Trump.

MOORE: He had a good lawyer.

ROIPHE: Yes.

MATTINGLY: That's -

MOORE: He had a good lawyer.

MATTINGLY: It seemed that way. Yes. But it -

ROIPHE: Right. I mean -

MATTINGLY: I was wondering if you - if -

ROIPHE: Following the lawyers is a great point. And that is one thing that people who watch these sorts of cases, especially one with so many defendants do is because, you know, who is representing whom is a critical question and does give you some insight that you might not otherwise have. So, you know, I do think that's the - that's the question, maybe he's strategizing her. It's hard to know. But, you know, it is a possibility.

MOORE: They allege 161 acts in this indictment, 154 of those occurred while Trump was president of the United States. That's a pretty strong claim to say -

HARLOW: To move it.

MOORE: Right. If you're the president or the chief of staff.

HARLOW: And Rebecca brought up what Judge Hellerstein ruled here in New York just a couple of weeks ago on the hush money payment case and he eviscerated that argument, saying you can't move it to - you've got to keep it in state court. You can't move it to federal because these things, trying to quiet this person, doesn't relate to your job in office.

This statute, we can pull it back up, 1442, says, "any officer of the United States," "under color of such office."

Is there any chance, though, that he won't be successful in moving it to federal court because you can't say that you were trying to - well, I suppose you can make the argument that you were trying to carry out your duties as president, but can you do that if you are committing these alleged crimes?

MOORE: Well - and, again, they're alleged right now. So, that's the purpose of trying to have the tribunal in the federal court. But if you think about, from a federal standpoint, you're an incumbent president. You're running for re-election in a presidential election. And this case is 100 percent about a presidential election. And so that's a pretty strong claim again to -- to talk about whether or not it should be moved to federal court or whether it should stay in state court.

It -- it -- there's always a chance that they would find that it should stay. But I think then you're going to have a litany of appeals. And there will be, you know, questions from now through 2026 probably about where this case goes.

HARLOW: Well, year 2026 is like two years after the election.

MOORE: Right.

MATTINGLY: Oh, are you saying that something important is coming up, that people should be paying attention? But they do --

HARLOW: I'm saying that this thing that doesn't start in six months.

MATTINGLY: Right. A joke to some degree, but this is a reality here. There's four indictments. He's the leading contender for the Republican nomination by 30 plus points. The legal and the political are intertwined whether we like it or not.

How does that impact or have an effect in any way on what prosecutors are doing, not just in Georgia, but with the special counsel's office up New York as well.

ROIPHE: You know, the prosecutors are trying to keep their head down and do what they always do and ignore the fact that there is this clammer in the background, that there's this deadline in the background, a clicking - a ticking clock. But it's very hard to do that in real life. So, you know, how this is factoring into their decision making, I think it would be naive to say not at all. But I think they are trying to proceed as they would proceed if this weren't happening in the hopes that this appears completely apolitical to the public knowing that that's just never the -- going to be the case.

MATTINGLY: Right.

Rebecca Roiphe, Michael Moore, thank you, guys, very much.

MOORE: (INAUDIBLE).

ROIPHE: Thanks.

HARLOW: Ahead, why the Arkansas Department of Education now says that a new advanced placement African American studies class will not count towards graduation requirements. We'll explain ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:47:59]

HARLOW: Arkansas Public Schools are being told by the Department of Education in the state that a new advanced placement African American studies program, quote, "may not meet graduation requirements." In a series of tweets, a spokeswoman for Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the new course is a pilot and, quote, "not a history course." She also tweeted, quote, "the department encourages the teaching of all American history and supports rigorous courses not based on opinions or indoctrination."

Shortly after taking office earlier this year, Sanders signed an executive order stating that critical race theory, discrimination and indoctrination have no place in Arkansas classrooms.

We should note "The New York Times" is also reporting that Little Rock Central High School, which, of course, was an all-white school that was integrated by the Little Rock Nine in 1957 was one of the schools that had signed up for this African American advanced placement studies course. The Arkansas Legislative Black Caucus expressing outrage over what the Department of Education is deciding here. In a statement they write, "this further perpetuates the marginalization of African Americans and denies all students the opportunity to learn about the unique history and experiences of our community."

Bakari, John, Maura, back at the table.

Bakari, they're saying this is pilot. We teach, you know, a course that covers African American history that you get credit for it. This is not something to be concerned about. What do you say?

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is what structural racism looks like. And I have a fascinating theory about taking books out of schools, not teaching AP U.S. history. And for a long period of time I thought it was that individuals were afraid of black young people having some level of self-empowerment and seeing the struggle, the perseverance, seeing the history that we made in this country. But I've come to realize, it's a lot of white folk not wanting to recognize or deal with what white people did in this country throughout history.

And I think what Sarah Huckabee Sanders is doing is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. It's fear.

[06:50:00]

And I don't like having conversations about CRT because many people don't even know what it is from the - from the beginning. And you have to start with educating the person. And you just kind of get bored and it's a waste of time.

But to be in Arkansas, where you have the history of the Little Rock Nine, and say that we're not going to teach AP African American history is absurd. But here we are in this country having to fight these battles. And as a father of three black children, one into Howard now and two others starting pre-k, that is the - you know, what - what do we do when our kids leave the house and how do we educate them? You have the fear of all these other things, but how do we educate them? And you - you kind of recognize that you now have to teach your kids in the home because of this fear perpetrated by many people on the right to educate your children. And I think it's a fear of recognizing what they actually did throughout history.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST AND ANCHOR: Yes, I think Bakari makes such an important point about - it's the importance of learning the history behind the headlines. You know, if you don't know what happened in Little Rock High School in 1957, that's presumably part of that course.

MATTINGLY: It also feels like, from an optics perspective, if you're in politics, you might want to be cognizant of that reality before you go down (INAUDIBLE).

AVLON: Oh, I think they're acutely aware of the optics and they feel it benefits them with the base. And I think that's part of the problem is politicizing history, it's politicizing books, it's turning American history into a battlefield. What we should be doing is teaching much more civics education. I'm incredibly passionate about that. Much more American history. The good, the bad and the ugly. Embrace all of it. Understand all of it. And we can have a debate about, you know, the outer reaches and sometimes people try to push ideological agendas. But when you start trying to pull books and pull courses, that's just about dumbing down our discourse rather than elevating it up.

MATTINGLY: But how much of this, though, is kind of a strategy, a plan, and how much of this is, you know, you look at the number on, particularly on a state and local level of CRT-related legislation, legislation related to gender ideology. Any of that type of stuff over the course of an 18-month period that just flew out into the public, bills, and trying to push these issues in Republican legislatures in particular. It didn't seem necessarily like this was some grand plan or strategy. They just thought there was political upside to it. Am I minimizing this, Maura? Am I not giving enough credit to some broader effort or plan here, or is this just political points that people feel like they can score?

MAURA GILLESPIE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, FORMER REP. ADAM KINZINGER: I do think it's political points for suburban moms, maybe, looking at that aspect of it. But my take on this is, if we don't teach and learn about ours past, how can we appreciate our progress and where we've come from. You know, we should want our children to learn critical thinking. So, it's not indoctrination. I think that's really misleading, and that's putting it kindly. I think it -- having an education on all of our history, the good, the bad, and the ugly, as John said, is so important to our critical thinking skills as children and as young people.

I know in college I went to a liberal arts school where it was very, you know, focused on the left of things, but I had to think for myself. I had to speak up, raise my hand if I had a question about something. We should want our children to do that.

I think what Sarah Huckabee Sanders is doing is following DeSantis in a lot of ways. And I will point out that she has not made her endorsement for president yet.

SELLERS: I think you are minimalizing it. And I think that it is a part -

MATTINGLY: That's why I ask. I -

SELLERS: Yes, I think it is a part of a larger scheme. I think that any time you can divide people along gender ideology or race or whatever it may be, these are culture wars that Republicans think that they are winning. And so what happens is our children get caught. I mean we're watching - I mean in South Carolina, they actually banned Ta-Nehisi Coates' book. I mean it - this is like patently absurd. And so instead of educating our children, we're making them dumber and Republican voters hope that dumb children vote for them.

MATTINGLY: All right, guys, thank you. That was a good conversation. Bakari Sellers, John Avlon, Maura Gillispie, thanks, guys.

And still ahead, why Hunter Biden's lawyer has just asked to withdraw from his case.

HARLOW: The family made famous by that Oscar-winning movie "The Blind Side" is pushing back against ex-NFL star Michael Oher's claims that they kept millions of dollars from him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:57:58]

MATTINGLY: The special counsel investigating Hunter Biden says the plea deal between the Justice Department and the president's son is now invalid. Hunter Biden's lawyers were hoping the deal might be salvaged this week, but David Weiss says the agreement to resolve a felony gun possession charge was, quote, "never approved" by a probation officer and therefore is non-binding.

CNN's Kara Scannell is joining us now.

Kara, there's a back and forth in court filings yesterday. What should be the takeaway in terms of what this means for Hunter Biden going forward?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, there's one thing they are in agreement on, and that is that there is no plea deal over those tax misdemeanor charges. And so DOJ wanted those charges dismissed from the Delaware court because they say we want to charge him in a different district where these alleged crimes took place, California or Washington, D.C. And Biden's team is not objecting to that because the only reason it was filed in Delaware was because it was negotiated. But they are on polar opposite ends of what happens to this effort to resolve the felony gun possession charge.

And so prosecutors, special counsel David Weiss saying that because the probation officer never signed off on it, it was not a done deal. It is not binding. It's not real. And Biden's team is saying, but DOJ signed it and Hunter Biden signed it, so that alone should be enough because this type of deal is usually one that is worked out between two parties. It's usually just a bilateral agreement.

But the deal, as they put it before the judge, she wasn't too keen on it.

HARLOW: No.

SCANNELL: She raised questions about its constitutionality. And now it's back in her court, literally, to decide where we go from here.

HARLOW: Yes. And this is a federal gun charge that he had this diversion agreement on and now that is nowhere.

Also, his lead attorney, Christopher Clark, withdrawing from the case. Why?

SCANNELL: Yes. So, Christopher Clark has been representing Biden during this whole five-year investigation. And he was the point person dealing with DOJ in negotiating the plea deal. The drafting of the plea agreements. And now they're saying that he needs to withdraw from the case because he could be a witness in this as they're still trying to contest these plea agreements. And, you know, I - even though they've agreed on the tax thing, I don't think they really want to give that up.

HARLOW: Right.

SCANNELL: We've heard some of his other attorneys say they're hoping they end up in the same place that they were once this special counsel investigation concludes.

[07:00:04]

MATTINGLY: All right, Kara Scannell, thanks for staying on top of it.

HARLOW: CNN THIS MORNING continues right now.