Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Trump Urges Supreme Court To Stay Out Of Immunity Dispute For Now; Warner Bros. Discovery & Paramount CEOs Discuss Possible Merger; FDA Approves First Test To Screen Risk Of Opioid Use Disorder. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired December 21, 2023 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right now Hamas is saying it will not stop. It will not engage in those negotiations until Israel stops its war. What's going to continue is that the carnage in Gaza is very much continuing. We are watching as civilians are continuing to die as part of the fighting in Gaza, and clearly hitting a very, very grave milestone today.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah, absolutely. Jeremy, I also want to ask you more about this video that we've learned about from a military dog, which the video I understand it is five days before those three hostages were accidentally killed by Israeli soldiers. Do we have a better insight into the length of time that it took to analyze that video and also any more information on what was actually said on the recording?

DIAMOND: Well, tragically, this footage was actually captured five days before those three Israeli hostages were mistakenly shot and killed by those Israeli soldiers. It's not exactly clear why this video was only located yesterday. But there is some indication that this military canine was actually killed by Hamas fighters during a firefight between Israeli soldiers and these Hamas fighters who were apparently holding those three Israelis hostage. And there's some indication that perhaps the soldiers didn't go into that building for days to retrieve that canines body as well as this video camera.

But once this footage was actually analyzed, just two days ago, it was clear that you could hear the voices of those three Israeli hostages according to the Israeli military. At the same time, we're also getting reaction from the mother of one of those hostages who was killed by Israeli soldiers. And she actually delivered a voice note to the unit that was involved in this incident and in it, she tells them not to blame themselves. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

IRIS HAIM, MOTHER OF SLAIN HOSTAGE YOTAM HAIM (thought translator): I know that everything that happened is completely not your fault, it's nobody's fault except the mass. May their name and memory be wiped off the face of the earth. We all need you to be safe and sound. Don't hesitate for a single moment. If you see a terrorist, don't think that you have deliberately killed a hostage. You need to protect yourselves because that's the only way you would be able to protect us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: There was a very different reaction from the father of another hostage, Avi Shamriz, whose son was also killed in that same firefight. He said that the shooter should not have opened fire. He also went after the Israeli Prime Minister directly, accusing him effectively of cowardice for not calling or visiting him. Erica?

HILL: Jeremy Diamond. Appreciate it. Thank you.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Well, Donald Trump's legal team is asking the Supreme Court to stay out of one of his cases that they could take up in the New Year. We're going to be joined by former Trump administration official close aide to the Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:36:35]

HILL: A judge has the two Georgia election workers who won a $148 million defamation judgment against Rudy Giuliani can begin trying to collect from him immediately. Now typically, they would have to wait 30 days. Lawyers for Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, however, filed a motion to waive that pause arguing that Giuliani may try to use that time to conceal his assets. Court documents show that the women's attorneys have already identified properties Giuliani has in Florida and in New York, where he's caught apartment has been listed at more than $6 million. The lawyers also noting his new deal for a Newsmax streaming show may indicate some income.

MATTINGLY: Well, Donald Trump's legal team is now urging the Supreme Court to stay out of the immunity disputes surrounding his election subversion case at least for now, the Special Counsel Jack Smith, last week asked the High Courts to fast track his requests to rule on whether Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office. Trump's team argued that a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. should rule first. Now we wait to see what the court will do.

And as we wait, joining us now former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short. Marc, I appreciate your time this morning. There's a lot to get to in terms of where things stand. But I want to start there with the Trump team. This is a dilatory tactic, one that they're well within their rights to make, but they have been quite clear that they're trying to push these cases off, particularly the Jack Smith cases until after the election. I know the Vice President and you repeatedly said while you guys were campaigning, that this should be up to the American voters, not the justice system. Do you still maintain that?

MARC SHORT, SENIOR ADVISOR TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Absolutely. Absolutely, I feel like it should be left to the American voters, particularly as relates to the case in Colorado. But in this one, Phil, I think that you're right that the President's legal team wants to delay this law after the election, hoping that if he's elected, he can put his own team in the Department of Justice.

But in that your earlier segment with Eli and he went through all the different cases where you've jumped up to the Supreme Court, I think there's one that really it has a very strong parallel and that was 50 years ago in the Watergate case. We're actually a district court had ruled that the executive privilege was not blanketed immunity. And the Special Counsel asked the Supreme Court to take up that case. And they did. And the Supreme Court ruled that no, the executive privilege is not something that is blanketed.

And that happened within two months, the district court had ruled in May of '74. Supreme Court came down in July. And I think therefore, there is a precedent in this case for the Supreme Court to follow in denying the notion that executive privilege applies even when there's been potential criminal activity.

MATTINGLY: Would you like to see that happen, given the precedent?

SHORT: Well, I feel it's not something that I feel like I weigh in is what I would like to happen. I'm just saying what the legal course of actions are. And I think that this was going through its normal process. And I think that the Supreme Court again, has a precedent to follow in this case.

MATTINGLY: Well, Marc, it's been interesting when you look at the -- there's no shortage of polling right now. But while this might not have an effect in a Republican primary, the legal cases and again, we'll get to Colorado in a minute, I want to talk specifically about the special counsels cases. It will several polls in a row have shown that in a general election if Trump is convicted, that it would peel off a percentage of Republicans support and a percentage, even five, six, seven percent is enough based on what we saw in 2020 to swing an election. Given your concerns, you know, the vice presents concerns about Donald Trump and what you guys experienced, wouldn't you want that answer before the election?

[07:40:08]

SHORT: Well, Phil I sort of feel that you're right, the polling would suggest that if conviction happens, it does change the outcome for a lot of people. But I think our country is pretty polarized at this point. I think a lot of their opinions are kind of settled in on the events around January 6th. I find it, you know, disquieting, that the events leading up to January 6th are much more disqualifying. And a Republican primary is the state of where the party is and where many of our conservative leaders are.

But I'm not one who advocates the legal system should be the one that Trump's, the opinion of American voters. And I think that it's really one that has to be brought to the American voter make a case and still remained as much as I've articulated. My belief that the President's actions were wrong around January 6th, that there's a question, a real question whether or not that necessarily means it was illegal. It was wrong. It was I think, who asked the vice president to basically put aside his oath to the Constitution should be disqualified. But I think the question of whether or not that's legally should allow that to play out in the court system.

MATTINGLY: The point you're making, which is a strong one, particularly based on your personal experience, but it's also when you hear from other Republicans, mostly privately, sometimes publicly as well. And then they end up following if you ask the question of, OK, will you support him if he's the nominee? And the answer is always yes. There's very rarely a break on that front. As a Republican, somebody has been in the party, has been at the center of the party for as long as you have, would you support him if he's the nominee?

SHORT: Phil, I think there's a lot to play out between now and then. I think it's very difficult to suggest that I'd be comfortable supporting somebody who has put aside his oath to the Constitution and ask others to do the same. I think it's a fundamental oath that you take. Our men and women in uniform take that oath to defend our country.

And so for me, it's disqualifying. At the same time, though, it's not something that I would want to be in a camp that's looking to help elect Joe Biden, because I believe so many of his policies are hurting our country. So it puts -- I think it puts it in a very difficult choice where you don't feel comfortable, really with either option.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. To that point with the Vice President, the former Vice President, does he plan to endorse I mean, this race is moving, and it's about to kick into high gear, does he feel like he can have an effect? And does he wants somebody specifically?

SHORT: I kind of feel that endorsements often are overrated. I'm not going to speak for him. I would not anticipate any endorsements coming from him in the near future there, Phil.

MATTINGLY: On Colorado at the time we have left, Judge Luttig is one of the kind of one preeminent scholar in the conservative legal movement. But it's also been one of the most unequivocal backers of pursuing this route on the 14th Amendment Section 3. Is he off base here? He was so valuable to you guys in those the kind of the worst moments leading up to January 6th, what do you think?

SHORT: Well, Judge Luttig defended the Vice President's position, he -- to be fair, he was not really somebody that Vice President spoke to until after January 6th. I respect his legal opinions immensely. I do not agree with him in this case, I think the reality is, it's kind of hard to say if a person has not been convicted of insurrection, much less even been tried for it. It's not even a charge and Jack Smith has brought forward to suggest that a court event say a candidate is disqualified for insurrection. Again, we haven't even been tried for it, much less convicted. So now I do not agree with his opinion in this case.

MATTINGLY: In this do you think this bolsters Trump's approval --

SHORT: I think it does. Yeah, I think it does. I think the reality is, you've seen all the other major candidates out come to President Trump's defense, whether or not it's Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and I think that bolsters him. And the reality is that a lot of Republican voters feel that he is a victim of a political justice system, and that continues to bolster that argument. So sure, I think this helps him politically.

MATTINGLY: All right, Marc Short. Always appreciate your time. Thank you.

SHORT: Thanks Phil.

HILL: Well, federal judges block a California law that would have banned the carrying of firearms in most public places whether that person has a concealed carry permit or not. The law was set to take effect on January 1st, and would have banned concealed weapons and 26 sensitive places, among them public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The judge though, says that the law violates the Second Amendment and strips people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones. California's Attorney General says his office will appeal that decision.

SHORT: A possible merger could shake up the media industry, the details on that next.

[07:44:34]

HILL: Plus, lawmakers have officially left the building. They've also left a mountain of problems behind them after a very unproductive year. Those unresolved and pressing issues, they're going to be waiting for Congress when they return in the New Year.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Two media giants now in talks about a potential mega merger. Sources telling CNN Warner Brothers Discovery CEO David Zaslav met this week with his counterpart at Paramount Global Bob Bakish to discuss a possible deal between the two companies. Of course it is important to point out. This hits very close to home. Warner Brothers Discovery of course owns CNN, a potential merger would create an entertainment and news juggernaut encompassing Warner Brothers and Paramount Studios as well as CBS, this network, of course and a number of other cable T.V. assets.

The talks are said to be in the early stages. There are still major questions about how this deal would work. So who may have the answers, the reporter who broke the story, CNN senior media analyst and senior media reporter for Axios, Sara Fischer. Good to see you this morning. It's always a little awkward when you're talking about a story that involves the company where you work. But a lot of people looking at this not just our colleagues this morning is and trying to understand what's the upside here? We're talking about a lot of debt. We're talking about something that looks like potentially be a little tough in terms of regulatory issues. How would this work?

SARA FISCHER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA ANALYST: Everyone needs to get bigger. That's the big deal. I mean, if you think about big tech firms like Amazon and Netflix, they're all encroaching on the media industry. And you have traditional media companies like Paramount, like Warner Brothers discovery, but also companies like NBCU, which is owned by Comcast, that are looking at this landscape and they're saying, oh my gosh, if I don't get bigger, how am I going to be able to negotiate and win leverage for sports rights? How am I going to be able to draw eyeballs when people want to be on Netflix?

[07:50:03]

And so that's the incentive here. I think what these executives think is that they can get through problems like debt. They can get through some regulatory issues, but they can't deny their existential crisis, which is that core cutting is happening fast and big tech is winning out.

MATTINGLY: It's a fascinating window into the landscape right now. Look, the business stuff is fascinating. We all obviously are very personally interested in what happens here. But for viewers, what would this mean, if this tie up happened?

FISCHER: Well, this could trigger, Phil, a huge round of consolidation within the media industry. And that matters for people watching, because right now, we're all toggling between so many different streaming services, and our bills are going up. And what consolidation would mean is that some of those services would likely come together. So you're thinking -- you're talking about having fewer things that you have to pay for, have to navigate through, it also means that there's going to be different types of deals for your favorite kind of entertainment content.

Think about it, if you love Yellowstone, for example, it's confusing, right? Because Paramount might have the rights but they license them out to different companies. Well, if there's more consolidation, it might be easier to navigate where your favorite shows go and where they exist. And so I think this might be good for consumers. The question, though, and Erica brought up the regulatory concern is whether or not regulators think this is good for consumers. And in the past, Phil, there have been concerns about whether or not these types of mergers actually, you know, eliminate competition, and especially in things like diversity of programming, we'll have to see what they say.

HILL: Is there something we could look to in the past that gives us a sense of how this might be different as we look at these media mergers in this new space?

FISCHER: Oh, absolutely. I mean, let's think about the big ones. So Disney bought Fox's entertainment assets for $70 billion. That was a huge deal in 2019. And regulator said, look, we'll let that go through but you have to divest some of your networks. You can kind of see that might be playing out here. I mean, there's not a broadcast company that's owned by Warner Brothers Discovery. So that makes it easier to merge. You can't put two broadcast networks together.

But they both owned like minded cable networks. I mean, that could be a place where regulators might want to take a look at it. Where this is different, though, is that the climate is so different. When you think about those mergers that happened a few years ago, Fox and Disney, think about Viacom and CBS coming back together to form Paramount. You think about your company right, Discovery buying Warner Media. That happened at a time before the pandemic when streaming was not as intense as it is today. Right now, these companies are under more pressure than they ever have been to get bigger and to win eyeballs.

HILL: Sara Fischer, always good to see you. Thank you.

FISCHER: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, next, the latest move from the FDA that could slow down the opioid epidemic.

HILL: Plus, our crews are in the air and on the ground covering Iceland's erupting volcano. Just wait until we show you what our crews saw during a helicopter flyover.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:57:24]

MATTINGLY: In health this morning, there is now a genetic test to help assess whether someone has an increased risk of developing an opioid use disorder and it's just been approved by the FDA. CNN's Jacqueline Howard joins us now. Big question, who's the test for, how does it actually work?

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Yeah, well, Phil, this test it's called AvertD. And it's for adults 18 and older. And it's intended for patients before they have their first exposure to opioids. So these are for patients who are being considered for treatment for acute pain. This is not for chronic pain patients. So an example this could be for a patient who's considering a four-day to 30-day prescription for opioid pain medications for after a surgery, for instance.

So these are the kinds of patients who this kind of test is for. And the intention is really to assess them before they possibly start on a pain medication. And if it's found that they might be at elevated risk for opioid use disorder, then this can help guide a physician to think about well, what are some other alternative medication options for them? So that's really what this test is all about it looks like.

HILL: That process then if there is a screening here, what does it look like?

HOWARD: Right. So how the screening would work, it's basically a cheek swab. A healthcare provider who's trained on how to use this test would get that cheek swab and that DNA sample, it's all based on DNA, that sample would then be assessed to see if there are any genetic variants that may be associated with an increased risk of opioid use disorder. Now, I will say Erica and Phil, there are some experts out there who are making the argument that simply asking a patient their family history of addiction may be just as efficient.

So there are some complexities when it comes to genetics. But overall, whether you ask a family history or you conduct this test, assessing the risk for opioid use disorder is so important because just last year, about 6 million people ages 12 and older had opioid use disorders here in the United States. And it's estimated that more than 83,000 people nationwide die of opioid related overdose deaths each year.

So this is an ongoing issue for the country. The opioid epidemic is ongoing. And this test looks like it's just one additional tool that can be used to address this ongoing public health concern.

HILL: Yes. It is fascinating. Jacqueline Howard, appreciate it. Thank you.

And CNN this morning continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[07:59:55]

BILL BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: I think this kind of action of stretching the law taking these hyper aggressive have positions to try to knock Trump out of the race are counterproductive, they backfire.