Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Orders Biden Impeachment Probe Without Floor Vote; Putin and Kim Jong-un Meet as U.S. Raises Alarm About Arms Deal; Today, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg to Talk A.I. in Senate Forum. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired September 13, 2023 - 07:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'll probably tone it down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:00:01]

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Well, once Rodgers went out on the fourth play, people thought, well, the Bills would win and their tabs were going to be free. They started, you know, getting after it. But that didn't work out well as the Jets won an overtime when that punt returned, and the look on people's faces when they realized they now had to pay their tabs.

It was quite priceless, guys. A free beer definitely tastes better than ones you got to pay for.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Well, at that point you probably don't even know anymore. Andy Scholes, we appreciate it, my friend. Thank you.

SCHOLES: All right.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: CNN This Morning continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ordering an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. No proof of wrongdoing and no House vote.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): We will go wherever the evidence takes us.

REP. KEN BUCK (R-CO): At this point, I have not seen that evidence.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This is a party divided.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un giving new hints about what Russia could swap for weapons from North Korea.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the Russians are worried about being the junior partner in the Beijing-Moscow axis.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The idea that Russia goes to Kim Jong-un is really a telling sign.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Police warn convicted killer is now armed with a stolen rifle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The owner fired several shots at him, but didn't get him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We consider him dangerous. He's desperate enough to use that weapon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: Good morning, everyone. We're so glad you are here. There's major political news in Washington and major geopolitical news overseas in Russia.

MATTINGLY: Yes, there's no question about it. We're going to get to that in a moment. But we want to start with something that is shifting the entire landscape, not just in Washington, but for the electoral map going forward as we head into 2024.

This morning, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Biden, and there will be no formal House vote. This is, of course, the same Speaker Kevin McCarthy when then in 2019 said then-Speaker Pelosi can't decide on impeachment unilaterally. It requires a full vote of the House of Representatives. And the same Kevin McCarthy who said just 12 days ago, if we move forward with an impeachment inquiry, it would occur through a vote on the floor of the People's House and not through a declaration by one person. Now, that's exactly what he's doing, directing committees to open formal impeachment inquiry into the president.

HARLOW: So, what changed from September 1st? Pressure from hard line conservatives, and it's not enough to satisfy some of them, like Congressman Matt Gaetz.

Lauren Fox joins us live on Capitol Hill. Arlette Saenz is at the White House with reaction from the Biden team.

Lauren, let's start with you. The declaration from McCarthy yesterday has changed a lot.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it certainly has, Poppy. But like you noted, the divides within the Republican conference, they remain. There are a number of House conservatives who have been pushing and pressuring Kevin McCarthy to take this step for several months now.

He finally has, but not everyone is on board. And there are some Republicans who are deeply skeptical of the lack of evidence that exists right now, tying President Joe Biden directly to his son, Hunters business dealings abroad.

And that is something that you've heard repeatedly from members like Representative Ken Buck, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUCK: I have not seen any evidence of links President Biden to Hunter Biden's activities at this point. I will be getting a briefing later in the week. I'm looking forward to understanding more of what the Oversight Committee has uncovered. But at this point, I have not seen that evidence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: I also spoke with Representative Don Bacon last night, as he went into House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's office for a meeting on Capitol Hill. And he said he still had concerns. He said he would feel differently if he had seen some direct evidence. But he still has concerns about opening and launching this impeachment inquiry.

Now, the three committees that are going to be taking care of this investigations, Ways and Means, Oversight and Judiciary, they say they are empowered to get more documents, more interviews, more information, where they hope they can find more direct evidence.

But, obviously, there are a lot of questions about what this means for Kevin McCarthy's future and what this means for the future of some of his members in swing districts around the country.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a very narrow majority.

Arlette over the north lawn, how was the White House responding? It seemed that this was heading in this direction, but it happened very fast.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it really did, Phil. And what the White House is trying to do is paint this as a baseless, politically-motivated move.

From the start of McCarthy's flirtation with the possibility of an impeachment inquiry, the White House had been watching to see whether McCarthy would have the votes to launch such an inquiry. But now, what they've been pointing to is that about-face from McCarthy, as he has now called for that inquiry to begin without actually holding a vote with his members.

The White House is ultimately arguing that McCarthy is succumbing to a far right wing part of his party. They've described this as, quote, extreme politics at its worst. The campaign has said Speaker-in-name- only Kevin McCarthy opens this baseless impeachment inquiry at the behest of Donald Trump.

This is all expected to ramp up as they push back on this as these House investigations so far haven't proven any direct evidence time President Biden to his son Hunter Biden's business dealings.

[07:05:10]

Now one tactic that the White House is taking this morning is they're sending a letter to news organizations urging them to increase their scrutiny of the Republican Party as this impeachment inquiry goes on, saying that they have launched this based on lies.

Now, behind the scenes, the team here at the White House has been bracing for the possibility of this moment for quite some time. They've assembled dozens of lawyers, legislative staff and communication aides to craft their strategy and their approach as this is an issue that could head into the 2024 election.

I think one thing to watch also on the campaign side of things is whether a debate starts to play out on whether they will fundraise off of this impeachment inquiry. That is something actually that the DCCC last night did in some emails. And so we will see if that's a tactic that the Biden campaign decides to employ as well, as there are Republicans who have tried to make clear this is an issue they want to stretch well into 2024.

MATTINGLY: Yes, no question about that. It's been an aggressive response so far from the White House and the campaign and I don't think it's going to change anytime soon.

Lauren Fox, Arlette Saenz, thanks guys.

HARLOW: Questions remain about just how much authority Republicans will have since they brought the inquiry forward without a full floor vote.

Let's talk about all of this. CNN legal analyst former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams joins us now. Elliot, good to have you. There's the floor vote issue and the change in the stance that McCarthy has made in just like the matter of two weeks, but also what's really interesting is how DOJ handled this under the Trump White House and what may happen now.

So, in 2020, the DOJ declared that the impeachment against Trump could not proceed. You couldn't legally do this without a full House vote. They were invalid. Let me just read you that memo from the OLC. Quote, we conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct impeachment. investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony.

Is that just a statement with no teeth that doesn't matter here or does it matter here?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, to you know, to the first part statement without teeth, it's merely a memorandum from the Justice Department, and that does not carry the weight of law, even if he's accurate or, you know, Mr. Engel is accurate in that an impeachment is an official act of Congress. It is a statement by Congress accusing a seated official of grave misconduct that might warrant their removal, merely stating so as the leader of the House Republicans simply can't. I doubt it was what the framers intended that that's how you could open an impeachment proceeding.

So, you know, my guess is that that's the legally right position, and that in order to figure out, you got to take it to court, as always seems to happen in these cases, Poppy.

MATTINGLY: Yes, Elliot, that's the part I want to get to here. Because for those who might not be super cognizant of what the Office of Legal Counsel is or what it represents, it's not a super well - known body unless you're kind of following torture memo-type related things in the Bush administration. But it serves as kind of a guiding policy binding for an administration and it carries over, and it's supposed to carry over into a subsequent administration so long as it is not removed or superseded to some degree.

What does this actually mean in practice? Because this will end up in court part, I assume, is the key here.

WILLIAMS: Right, I think that's a really important question. And so, case in point, the idea that you can't prosecute a sitting president, which came up many times in the context of Donald Trump, and I gather it's going to come up in the context of Joe Biden, at least if you believe what House Republicans are saying, that itself just comes from a Justice Department memorandum.

It's not the law of the United States but it's a recommendation from the Office of Legal Counsel, which is, in effect, America's constitutional law firm. It is the body within the Justice Department that says what's right and wrong legally.

So, this is a well-reasoned position of the United States government, but they still -- it doesn't have the weight of law. They have to bring it to a federal court to decide what actually is the weight of an impeachment when just announced by the House majority leader.

HARLOW: How do you think the impeachments of Trump change how this goes forward? John Avlon was, I think, importantly reminding all of us this morning that having this many impeachment or impeachments at all is so rare in American history until the last several years.

WILLIAMS: Well, something is different in the water now when you consider that Barack Obama and George W. Bush both had extremely aggressive opposition from the other party and majorities in the House of Representatives that could have impeached them if they wanted but chose not to because of the fact that neither of them engage in impeachable acts, no matter what people thought of Obama or Bush. Something has happened in the last several years.

Now, I don't think it's entirely fair to sort of compare Trump's impeachments to this, because what we have today appears to be an impeachment in search of facts to support it.

[07:10:07]

There have not been credible allegations brought against Joe Biden, having knowledge of misconduct or bribery or treason or high crimes or misdemeanors, in the sense that when you look at former President Trump's conduct, at least as alleged, he's being prosecuted right now for some of the same acts that he was impeached for at least the second time around. So, it's not merely that we're getting more trigger happy with impeaching presidents. Something happened under Donald Trump. And this here doesn't really seem like it. This seems like outside of the bounds of what a Congress ought to be doing if they really wish to be holding a president accountable.

HARLOW: The bounds are clearly changing and growing. Elliot, thanks very much, helps a lot.

WILLIAMS: Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: Phil?

MATTINGLY: Well, also new this morning, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin meeting face to face in Russia as U.S. officials raise alarm about possible arms deal.

Now, they met at a space rocket launch facility in Russia's Far East. Of course, Putin needs weapons and ammunition for his brutal conflict in Ukraine, and U.S. officials tell CNN North Korea is looking at supplying them in return for things like satellite and nuclear submarine technology. Putin's spokesman says today's negotiations were, quote, very substantive.

Now, with Putin by his side, Kim Jong-un vowed to stand by Russia as the conflict grinds on with no one end sight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIM JONG-UN, NORTH KOREAN LEADER: Russia is engaged in a fight for justice to defend the sovereign right and security interest against the hegemonic forces.

I will always be standing with Russia. I'm using this opportunity to make it clear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: CNN Senior International Correspondent Matthew Chance is live in Moscow. It's so striking, Matthew, to see a leader that has been so isolated over the course of the last 18 or 19 months with a leader that has been so isolated for the entirety of his time leading that country mow joining together, joining forces to some degree.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, if you look at these two figures, Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, and they're two of the world's most sanctioned individuals, or they head two of the world's most sanctioned countries. That's certainly for sure.

And that's going to send very worrying messages around the world, actually, in the Korean Peninsula. Of course, you mentioned the need that North Korea has for Russian know-how, potentially, to improve its missile program and its satellite launch program. It's tried to launch a couple of satellites in the past four months and has failed. And, of course, when it comes to Russia, it's well known that the conflict in Ukraine has become a war of attrition, and it may well be decided by who can sustain the sort of vast amounts of ammunition to lob over to the other side.

And Russia is running short on that ammunition. North Korea is known to have vast stockpiles of the kind of ammunition that would fall fit into the Soviet era sort of equipment that Russia has put out there on the frontlines in Ukraine as well.

So, if there is a deal like that done, then it could dramatically change the calculations both on the Korean Peninsula and on the frontlines in Ukraine.

As far as we know, though, that has not happened -- well, certainly, it hasn't been announced publicly. Whatever was discussed behind the scenes has basically stayed behind closed doors. There's been a shroud of secrecy flung over this whole carefully choreographed visit by Kim Jong-un. He's a very secretive leader, of course, and Vladimir Putin isn't that open either.

And so we don't even know what's going to happen next, where Kim Jong- un might go next, how long he's going to be in the country, there's no joint press conference going to be given and there's not really been any joint statements yet either, if there ever will be.

And so, yes, we're pretty much in the dark but, obviously, the big concern is what goes on behind the scenes. Will something like that, some kind of deal like the one that I just outlined actually be made behind closed doors? And that's the big concern of everybody watching this right now.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Certainly, intelligence agencies around the world will be keeping a close eye on that going forward. Matthew Chance for us in Moscow, thank you.

HARLOW: Just hours from now the biggest names in tech, including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, will meet with lawmakers about the dangers of artificial intelligence. The event, though, being criticized because it's close to the public.

Coming up one of the heads of this event, one of the moderators, Senator Mike Rounds, joins us live.

MATTINGLY: And police say the escape murderer on the loose in the Soviet Union is a very simple and rifle equipped with a scope. We're going to take you there live for the latest on that ongoing manhunt.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

HARLOW: Welcome back. So, this morning, key leaders in the tech world, including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, will attend a highly anticipated artificial intelligence closed door event. It's moderated by bipartisan Senators Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds. And the goal is to help lawmakers understand the industry before they try to create guardrails for A.I. and regulate it.

One of the attendees, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, spoke recently to our Fareed Zakaria about this technology ending up in the wrong hands.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC SCHMIDT, CHAIR, NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: What happens if it can build a pathogen and it ends up in the hands of an Osama bin Laden-type of person and that pathogen can kill a million people? So, you say, no problem, we'll put what are called guardrails or alignment on that. We'll prevent it from being misused.

If you give me all the weights that is Open Source and I'm evil, which hopefully I'm not, I can strip those constraints out and return it back to its bad news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Joining us now, one of the moderators of this A.I. forum today, Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota. Senator, good morning. I'm so glad you're with us. Are you as worried as Eric Schmidt is?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): Eric Schmidt brings up some very important points. These are the downsides to A.I., but recognizing them doesn't stop them. We've got to recognize it and we've got to be able to deal with it. It's both the upside and the downside of A.I. that we want to learn more about.

And we felt that, in a bipartisan way, a group of four of us, including Senator Schumer, Senator Heinrich and Senator Young, we wanted to bring this together and say, look, Republicans and Democrats alike, this isn't going to go away. We needed to do this and it's better if we do it in a bipartisan fashion.

[07:20:02]

Let's go to work, and let's learn about all the different aspects of it as much as we can and bring the Senate together, and then let's find a path forward.

HARLOW: You talk about upsides. For you, those upsides are very personal.

ROUNDS: They are. Look, two parts. First of all, I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and I always want our armed services to have the best of everything, including the A.I. But on another note, and this is the one that I think a lot of people in America will see the benefits of personally, and that is when it comes to fighting cancers, fighting long-term illnesses, and so forth, I think A.I. has real opportunities. And this is the part that we shouldn't forget about.

I lost my wife not quite two years ago and she died of cancer after a long illness. And during that time, we saw some real bright things in terms of some of the developments and capabilities that medicine has, but A.I. is going to play a part in that.

I believe that we really can. I think we can cure cancer. But it means being able to look at lots of different alternatives, lots of different chemical cocktails, as they would say, and A.I. can do that a lot quicker, but it's never going to take a doctor out. It's going to give a doctor more tools, and I want to see that happen as quickly as possible.

HARLOW: You talk about how important it is for Americans to see and understand these things, but you've chosen to hold this behind closed doors. You've got critics, Democratic senators and Republican senators, who don't like that. Elizabeth Warren said these tech billionaires want to lobby Congress behind closed doors with no questions asked. That is plain wrong. And here's what Republican Senator Josh Hawley thinks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I think it's ridiculous that it's closed- press. And I think it's ridiculous that all these monopolists are all here to tell senators how to shape the regulatory framework so they can make the maximum amount of money.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Why not do this in public?

ROUNDS: Well, now let me first clarify that it's not just the tech giants. It's also -- we've got teachers union representatives, we've got AFL-CIO representatives. We've got the Screenwriters Guild represented. So, we've tried to make it as broad as possible to get as many different opinions as possible.

But for members of the Senate to be able to hear from these people firsthand, if we put it on live T.V., first of all, someone probably would simply sit in their offices and watch it. We want them together in the room with these people. And we want the individuals who are sharing this to share it directly with members of the United States Senate and to be very candid with us. And we thought we had a better chance at actually getting them to be able to share that if they weren't simply doing prepared statements prepared by them and their attorneys for national distribution.

HARLOW: Should it be concerning that it sounds like you're saying you don't think that those tech leaders would be candid with the public, the American people, who ultimately this affects?

ROUNDS: We watch individuals in front of cameras every single day, in front of every single committee. And the beginning of it is always a prepared statement, and it's one that's been very carefully crafted. We don't have enough time to go through very carefully crafted opening statements. We're trying to get right to the heart of it.

And we're going to do this with 100 members of the United States Senate available for us. And we wanted them to see personally and we wanted them to feel that it was being personally shared with them. And we wanted to respect the fact that these other tech specialists and the folks that are working with them on the union side, that they could really level and lay this out in front and to do it in a more informal way.

As informal as you can get with 100 members of the Senate and 100 members of their staff and with the logistics of that particular room to try to bring in cameras and everything else, we can do that with later and more info opportunities that we're going to have. But this one, we wanted to start out with having it be face-to-face.

HARLOW: Well, we'll watch to see if there is a public one to follow.

I do want to move to a very critical topic, and that is child poverty in America. We learned from data released yesterday that child poverty in America has doubled in the last year. From the year before to last year, it went from 5.2 percent, almost a record low to 12.4 percent last year. This is largely because Congress did not renew that enhancement to the child tax credit that we had during COVID.

The president is pointing direct blame at congressional Republicans who didn't support that. Looking at your state of South Dakota of America's 15 counties with the highest rate of child poverty between 2017 and 2021, six of them are in South Dakota. Do you believe there needs to be congressional action toward reauthorizing that that made such a difference for child poverty in America? Would you support it, Senator?

ROUNDS: I think there's two parts to this, and I think we have to look at both. First of all, it is true that we went from below the poverty level, or above the poverty level to below the poverty level. And part of it is simply because there's more cash available through government programs and through tax relief.

But there's another piece of this, and it's part that we haven't really talked about. If we're going to talk about the income, we also have to talk about the expenses as well, which is even a bigger part.

[07:25:00]

And I know that it sounds like we're talking about inflation adjusted income coming in but we're not talking about the impact on a household basis of what inflation has done in the last two years.

And we're looking at a 16 percent increase in South Dakota. It means the average household is paying over $917 more per month just in living expenses. Now, if you want to combine that with the fact that income is down, you see the reason why so many of these families are simply saying Bidenomics is not working, but it is a combination of both.

HARLOW: But are you saying -- I hear you, Senator. I hear you on inflation. But are you saying that that enhanced tax credit didn't matter for children, because it was enacted before we had inflation at these levels? And, I mean, the overall poverty rate went up but I'm talking about our kids who don't have any say in this policy. ROUNDS: What I'm saying is it's a combination of both and that poverty level, it went from below the -- or from above the poverty level to below the poverty level. But the impact is even greater when you add in for these families, when you add in the fact that inflation has driven up the costs for them on a household-by-household basis over $900 a month and that those that -- even the income going up at two or three percent can't keep up with the increases in costs. So, it's a double-whammy is what I'm saying.

So, it's a really bigger issue, and it's the reason why when we talk about Bidenomics, and when we're asked about it, the American public is simply saying it's not working. And it's part of it may very well be the fact that you don't have tax credits but inflation has really driven this up a huge amount as well.

HARLOW: Two things can be true at the same time and this data shows us we saw a very direct correlation between a policy enacted in Washington and how kids are surviving and getting by in America so I hope more attention is focused on it, Senator.

ROUNDS: But you got you got to look at both. Look, this is policy- induced inflation as well. You've got to talk about both.

HARLOW: I didn't say you don't.

Final question for you. The House is launching these impeachment inquiries. I know you're not in the House, but I wonder if you agree with Republican Presidential Candidate, former Governor Asa Hutchinson, who told Wolf Blitzer yesterday he thinks that's premature.

ROUNDS: Here's what I -- we were aware that Speaker McCarthy was looking at the possibility of doing an inquiry. I think he's trying to move his entire team forward. He recognizes that the appropriations process is probably the most important part of this. And he wants them to be on board with it.

And the Senate, we're observing what they're doing, what the House is going to do, what the House is going to do. It's their job to get their appropriations out, and however Kevin can do that to move things over, that's what we're watching.

In the meantime, we've already started on the appropriations process in the United States Senate. Our Appropriations Committee has sent all of the bills out. They're ready. They're on the floor. We're starting today, as a matter of fact. And, hopefully, the House will be able to send us more. And perhaps that's part of the plan that Speaker McCarthy has to keep his team together.

HARLOW: Okay. Well, keeping the team together matters a lot. Senator Rounds, I appreciate your time on this. Look forward to hearing what comes out of today's summit. Thanks very much.

ROUNDS: Thank you.

HARLOW: You got it. Phil?

MATTINGLY: The House is going to do what the House is going to do is the most senator like I don't understand what these guys are doing comment ever, and I'm here for it.

All right, when we come back, a new op-ed in The Washington Post argues President Biden should not run again in 2024. Why David Ignatius says running again would risk undoing Biden's biggest achievement.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]