Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Speaker Johnson Working On Ukraine Aid Despite GOP Opposition; European Court Rules Against Swiss Government In Climate Case; Special Counsel Urges SCOTUS To Reject Immunity Claims. Aired 5:30-6a ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 05:30   ET

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

[05:30:00]

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: A live look at the Jefferson Memorial here in Washington, D.C. on this Tuesday morning. Good morning to you. Thanks for being up with us.

Congress back here in this town today. They're back in session. Ukraine aid and the House speaker's job both in limbo.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declaring his country will lose its war with Russia if Congress fails to approve military aid. House Speaker Mike Johnson working behind the scenes to try and put together a Ukraine aid package that can pass despite opposition from inside his own party.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene continuing to be a threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): How dare he go on TV and say it's his top priority to fund Ukraine for $60 billion?

I will not tolerate a Speaker of the House that I voted for to sell us out. I will not tolerate it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Tough language.

Joining me now to discuss, Eugene Scott, senior politics reporter at Axios; and Farnoush Amiri, congressional reporter for the Associated Press. Good morning to both of you.

EUGENE SCOTT, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: Good morning.

FARNOUSH AMIRI, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Good morning.

HUNT: Great to see you.

Farnoush, how serious is this threat to Johnson from Marjorie Taylor Greene? AMIRI: It is the most serious one he's faced yet, right, since he got

the gavel. There have been whispers of whether the same tactics that were used against Kevin McCarthy would once again be looming over Johnson's head, and you see that. It only took five months but --

HUNT: I was going to say where are we on the --

AMIRI: McCarthy had a little bit more lead time but it only took five months and a tear. And it's so intrinsically tied to Ukraine aid and I think that the second that Johnson brings it he is going to see her initiate that trigger for the motion.

HUNT: That leaves the question, Eugene, of what Democrats would do in that event. There have been a number of them. Congressman Kildee was on the show yesterday saying that Johnson should call Hakeem Jeffries and ask for help.

SCOTT: Um-hum.

HUNT: And we've talked to a number of Democrats who say they might be willing to do it.

Is there any path for Johnson to find a Ukraine package that both he and as many Republicans as he can muster can get behind in a way that also doesn't include poison pills for Democrats?

SCOTT: I think there is and he's having to consider it. And one of the reasons I believe there is is because we have some Democrats who have gone on the record and said look, we don't want to be in another speaker battle.

An election is in a few months. This has not served either party well. Voters want lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to work together on a host of issues and many of the voters want them to find a solution to this issue right now because it's something that they have been talking about for quite a while and we've made no significant progress on.

HUNT: Yeah.

Farnoush, what is your sense of whether he can thread this needle because there has been some discussion of Johnson trying to include in a Ukraine package conservative priorities? How quickly does he get to a place where he can't get a bill over the finish line because Democrats would reject the other things in the bill?

AMIRI: Yeah -- no. I mean, it's a very fine line that he is balancing on right now, right, as he has to make sure that any Ukraine aid -- first of all, they want it to be tied to Israel aid. They want Israeli aid included in that. Democrats want humanitarian aid for Gaza. They don't want a Ukraine and Israel standalone bill.

And then, if you add too much of what Democrats would want -- too much aid for Gaza, then you're going to lose some Republicans on the other side who are extremely pro-Israel. So he's kind of in a very dicey situation. But like Eugene said,

Democrats are going to be his lifeline in this, right? The majority that -- he can only afford to lose one vote so he really has to make sure --

HUNT: One vote.

AMIRI: One vote. He really has to make sure --

HUNT: That is wild.

SCOTT: Yeah.

AMIRI: -- that Democrats are on board with whatever he decides to bring onto the floor.

HUNT: Yeah, and hope that every single person shows up.

SCOTT: Right.

AMIRI: No one has a clue, yeah.

HUNT: Has the time. No one gets sick.

AMIRI: Yeah.

HUNT: Yeah, good luck.

So, Eugene, let's talk a little bit more about Marjorie Taylor Greene. She, at this event, also addressed -- she talked about President Biden and January 6. Watch what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENE: If I had my way we would have impeached him a long time ago. Actually, if I had my way we would have been successful in our objection on January 6 and he wouldn't even be president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, Eugene, needless to say, this has been pretty normalized --

SCOTT: Yeah.

HUNT: -- this view in the Republican Party, but I just didn't want to lose sight of the fact that it still remains remarkable.

SCOTT: Absolutely, and -- but it's also a reminder to me of just how different some of these districts are. And that's -- that -- those talking points are pretty well-received among Republican voters in Marjorie Taylor Greene's district.

[05:35:00]

And so, it's crazy. It is inaccurate. It's insane to many of her critics. But you see the applause she gets. She's likely going to win reelection --

HUNT: Yeah.

SCOTT: -- by rates that are probably high or as high as what she's done in the past. And so, that's why we see her leaning into these talking points that people outside of her bubble consider absurd.

HUNT: And also, speaking of Marjorie Taylor Greene, because the well is apparently bottomless, Farnoush.

We also had some tweets from her where she talked about the eclipse. "God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent. Earthquakes and eclipses, and many more things to come." Then she notes, "Many have mocked and scoffed at this post and even put community notes" -- those are the little things on Twitter that say actually, this is wrong. "Eclipses are predictable and earthquakes happen, and we know when comets are passing by. But God created all these things and uses them to be signs for those of us who believe."

Now, I will say Mike Pence also posted something, talking about how these kinds of natural phenomena -- he quoted an atheist -- the columnist Gene Weingarten from The Washington Post, who acknowledged at one point feeling as though these things are unexplainable because they are a nearly -- they feel spiritual for many people who experience them.

SCOTT: Um-hum.

HUNT: However, tying it together with the earthquake that had happened in New York that day took this a step in the direction that you saw.

How do you see this playing out?

AMIRI: I mean, I think there was a story yesterday about someone who during the -- you know, during the eclipse went and shot people in the country because of --

SCOTT: On a spree, yeah.

AMIRI: Yeah, a shooting spree. So --

HUNT: Because God told her to do it allegedly.

AMIRI: Because God told her to do it.

And so, I don't think these things are happening in an isolated space, right? People look to their elected officials. People look to someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene who despite not being a committee chair or not having been in Congress for that long has, like, massive clout on Capitol Hill. Is able to hold this over the speaker's head and be able to take him out with one motion.

So I think it is important that -- what people say and how it's received, I think.

HUNT: Yeah -- no. That's actually a really important point. I'm glad -- I'm glad you framed it that way.

One other major issue that we've confronted in the last 24 hours, Eugene, is abortion rights and former President Donald Trump coming out and basically punting on a national abortion ban. He came out and said it should be left up to the states.

It very much angered some of his allies --

SCOTT: Sure.

HUNT: -- on the right. Lindsey Graham came out and said I respectfully disagree. They went back and forth on social. His former vice president, Mike Pence --

SCOTT: Um-hum.

HUNT: -- who, of course, has made anti-abortion stance as a centerpiece of his entire career, --

SCOTT: Sure.

HUNT: -- came out and said no, I don't -- I don't agree with this at all.

Bottom line, though, does it matter for the election here? I mean, Donald Trump seems to have done the political thing because he has been pretty clear in saying we have to win elections and --

SCOTT: Right.

HUNT: -- acknowledging that this has been an area where Republicans have really lost ground from an electoral perspective.

SCOTT: Well, it's worth noting that Trump could change his mind in a few weeks. We know he goes back and forth on these types of things.

But Republicans in Congress told Axios that they're largely relieved because this is an unpopular issue that they've not had a lot of success with in the past at the state level, and they don't think they would if there was a national ban that moved forward.

But they're also -- Democrats, who are trying to remind people that they don't think that Trump is someone you could trust when it comes to this issue based on the fact that he's taken credit for Roe versus Wade in the past. And that if a national abortion ban did get passed -- did get to this desk if he were in the White House, they believe he would sign it.

And so, they're still trying to help voters realize that this is not a settled issue just because Trump said he would not support it yesterday.

HUNT: All right, Eugene Scott, Farnoush Amiri. Thank you both very much for being here. I really appreciate it.

All right, this just in. The European Court of Human Rights ruling against the Swiss government in a landmark climate case. The court finding in favor of a group of elderly Swiss citizens who argue that heat waves fueled by climate change are undermining their health and quality of life.

CNN's Clare Sebastian is with us now. Clare, what can you tell us?

CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, good morning, Kasie.

There were actually three really important significant climate cases that were heard by the European Court of Human Rights. We got the verdict on all three this morning. Two of them were ruled inadmissible, including a major one where six young Portuguese people had sued 32 governments, trying to get them to increase their climate action. That was ruled inadmissible because they hadn't gone through domestic courts in their home country or been able to establish that the other countries they were suing were responsible for their human rights.

But in the case of these elderly Swiss women -- this group called the Swiss Senior Women -- they actually won their case, which means that there is now this legally binding decision, which may well force Switzerland to increase its climate targets. They had actually already been through the Swiss courts and had their case thrown out.

[05:40:04]

But the court ruled today that there had been critical gaps in the process in Switzerland of putting in place the relevant domestic regulatory framework and a failure by the Swiss authorities, they say, to quantify their greenhouse gas emissions.

So this, potentially, really treads on new legal ground here. It's the first case that has had this positive ruling in favor of the claimants in the European Court of Human Rights linking human rights to the issue of climate change and finding that the state of Switzerland is responsible through meeting its climate targets to the human rights of its citizens.

And even though we had the other two cases ruled inadmissible, this could mean that we could see more climate litigation coming through in Europe. People may see this now as an effective tool alongside international treaties, like Paris, to force further action from governments on climate change.

HUNT: All right, Clare Sebastian for us. Clare, thanks very much for that report.

Coming up next here, special counsel Jack Smith urging the Supreme Court to deny Donald Trump any additional delays in his election subversion case. Plus, celebrating the men's basketball champs.

(COMMERCIAL)

[05:45:34]

HUNT: Welcome back.

Special counsel Jack Smith is urging Supreme Court justices to reject Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity and deny any further attempts to delay his federal election subversion trial. Smith says that Trump's position that he is above the law has no foundation in the Constitution.

In a court filing Monday, he wrote this. "The framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts."

Trump, of course, doesn't see it that way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You have to leave immunity with a president. If a president is afraid to act because they're worried about being indicted when they leave office -- a President of the United States has to have immunity and the Supreme Court is going to be ruling on that. If they don't have immunity, no president is going to act. You're going to have guys who just sit in office and are afraid to do anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining us from New York, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. Joey, it's always good to see you. Thanks for being here.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY (via Webex by Cisco): Good to be here, Kasie. Thank you.

HUNT: So, Joey, we've been hearing this from Donald Trump over and over again. Why did this filing from the special counsel come now?

JACKSON: Yeah. I think it's important, really, to frame the issues as we get closer to the multiple trials that the president is facing.

And so, listen, the point is I think that Jack Smith has a level of frustration here in a variety of ways and I think it's really to give the sense and to give the focus that the immunity claim is just patently ridiculous.

The bottom line is that there's a few things under consideration, Kasie.

Number one, if you're going to talk, as everyone does, about everyone being equal under the law, that means the president certainly would be under that umbrella. Why would he be treated any differently than anyone else?

Number two, if you want to talk about what immunity would be proper and improper, you can't have a situation where a president could do anything in the Oval Office with impunity and never accept accountability for anything at any time based upon any circumstance. Number three, as you have these trials moving forward and as you have

the Supreme Court weighing in on this issue, you have to look at the legal basis for why immunity would be necessary. Can you really commit crimes while you're the president because you're the president and there's nothing to see here? I think immunity may have some place but it certainly doesn't have a place here when you're the president exercising your duties.

And so, I think Jack Smith wanted to really put a seal on that deal to have the Supreme Court, as they begin to entertain this matter, entertain it by using its legal basis and purpose and rejected out of hand so these trials can continue. I think he's frustrated by the bottleneck, Kasie, and wants to have these matters proceed.

HUNT: Joey, one of the examples that I keep coming back to you was the one that the D.C. Circuit brought up when this was being argued there, which was this idea that -- well, could a president use SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? And the Trump team seems to argue yes, in a way.

Is there a scenario where the Supreme Court makes some sort of determination about what's in bounds and what's out of bounds in terms of examples like that? It seems really, really tricky to do that. Or do you see a more black-and-white situation from the court where they say you either have total immunity or you don't have any immunity at all?

JACKSON: Yeah, Kasie, brilliant question, and here's my answer.

I think in circumstances where you have something this significant -- where you have, really, a decision that can be made that can be illegal in nature you have to set what we call in law 'bright-line rules'. Those are rules where there is no slippery slope. Those are rules where there is no room for interpretation. Those are rules in which you clearly delineate what's proper and what's improper.

Is it fair debate to talk about what is within the guidance of presidential actions and what is outside of it? Absolutely. But I think the Supreme Court has to set a standard, which would suggest that no crime -- no matter the rationale, no matter the circumstances, no matter the nature -- would be acceptable.

[05:50:07]

So you do something that would be illegal but you say because I am the president, right, it immunizes what you do? Can't have it.

And so, I think this is a situation and it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court develops this and entertains this. Yes, there are things presidential in nature. No, there are things not. But I think to have a rule that would give any indication that if you did something as president it's OK, but if you did it on a Saturday morning when you weren't acting as president it's not, I think is very dangerous.

So I think the Supreme Court will, in fact, impose a bright-line rule. And I don't think under any circumstance immunity would be granted.

But whether you like Donald Trump, you don't like him, this is about presidents yet unborn, right -- although certainly, the law changes over time. It's not only about Donald Trump. That's very important to note. It's about presidential actions in general. And I think you need specific guidance, which would suggest that you know what? You commit crimes, you do times.

HUNT: Joey, let's talk briefly about the hush money trial. We saw the jury questionnaire come out late yesterday. Some of the questions about what kind of media do people consume. Did they listen to Michael Cohen's podcast? Were you a member of QAnon or one of the groups that we saw show up at the Capitol on January 6? The Proud Boys, for example.

What were your takeaways from this questionnaire about what each side is concerned about?

JACKSON: So, big picture, obviously, what jury selection about -- is about, as we look there, what potential jurors may be asked, right -- the numerous questions -- it's about selecting a fair and impartial jury.

Now, the critical issue, Kasie, is not about whether you heard about the case before. Do you have opinions about the case before? Do you like the president? Do you dislike the president? The critical inquiry, rather, is whether you are right for this jury. Whether you can, based upon the facts and evidence in that courtroom, make a rational judgment as to guilt or innocence. And so, is this jury for you? It may not be.

And so, the overall takeaway is really to get at questions, which really look to whether jurors have any bias and whether they can put any of that away at the end of the day.

We live in a world where --

HUNT: Yeah.

JACKSON: -- it's internet-connected. Everything you say now is heard throughout the country. It's not about what you've heard. Could you be impartial? Could you be fair? And I think if they get at that it's important.

Last quick question -- issue, Kasie, and that's this. Remember that as lawyers, you have challenges for cause. What does that mean? It means if you question a juror and they say not the trial for me, they can be excused. You question another one -- I hate Trump -- excused. You question another juror -- you know what? I can't do this -- excused.

You have unlimited for-cause challenges. It's only the other challenges -- the peremptory challenges, which are challenges that you get that are limited in nature and that you could use.

HUNT: Right.

JACKSON: That's a story for another day.

But it's important to note that if someone can't be fair there's nothing in the law that says that you don't have an unlimited amount to just keep them moving off the jury until you get to a pool that is fair, impartial, and can make a unanimous assessment beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt or innocence.

HUNT: All right, fair enough. No pun intended.

Joey Jackson, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. See you soon.

JACKSON: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: All right, time now for sports. The UConn Huskies are the kings of the college basketball court, taking down Purdue to win their second-straight national title.

Coy Wire joins us from Glendale, Arizona with more. I think, Coy, you must have been up all night.

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Yeah, all night long, like Lionel Ritchie, here watching them break the court down now.

UConn left no doubt about it. They are the top dogs in the country. The Huskies repeat as champs, Kasie -- one of the most remarkable runs in history.

Purdue's seven-foot-four Zach Edey had 37 points and 10 rebounds, but even the two-time National Player of the Year couldn't slow down the Huskies express. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NCAA ANNOUNCER: UConn can bring this lead to double -- slams and chucks it. UConn comes for the ball. Special delivery to Johnson.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WIRE: Samson Johnson bringing down the house at State Farm Stadium with two thunderous stunts, putting an exclamation point on UConn's dominant performance, steamrolling Purdue 75-60. They're the first team to win back-to-back crowns since Florida did it in 2007.

Coach Dan Hurley's squad -- my goodness -- 12-straight tournament wins dating back to last year are all by double digits. That's the longest such streak in tournament history. The Huskies freight train doesn't seem to be running out of any steam any time soon.

And I caught up with Coach Dan Hurley as he walked off the court as champion again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WIRE: What's that mean cutting down those nets this time?

DAN HURLEY, HEAD COACH, UCONN: Oh, man, unbelievable. It feels like last year.

[05:55:00]

WIRE: Any different?

HURLEY: I mean, just incredible -- an incredible performance. To beat a team like Purdue the way we did -- just incredible.

WIRE: And you've dominated every team along the way. How? Why?

HURLEY: Yeah, we're the -- yeah, we're the best program in the country right now. We've got all the right players. Hold on. You're going to get that trophy.

WIRE: What do you have to say to all the fans watching back home?

HURLEY: Oh, I know they can't wait for us to get back. We'll see them at the airport. We'll see them in Gampel. And I cannot wait for the parade. The parade, man.

WIRE: Yeah. How are you going to celebrate tonight, Coach?

HURLEY: We're going to have some cocktails, I think. Let's go, baby.

WIRE: Coach, what do you have to say to all your seniors who poured their hearts out for you?

HURLEY: I mean, incredible -- the legacy they're leaving in a place that's hard to leave a legacy. Just a place that's impossible to be historical players and to have legacies that are as good as anyone that's ever put the uniform on, it's hard to do at UConn. So I couldn't be prouder and we're going to miss them a lot.

WIRE: Congrats, champ times two.

HURLEY: Let's go, man.

WIRE: All right, baby.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WIRE: Fans back on campus in stores jumping with joy as they celebrate a sixth national title, all since 1999. It's been a quarter- century of dominance, Kasie. Just look how they've done it, beating their opponents by an average margin of 20 points per game. Every win by double digits. I guess, non-conference opponents -- 33-1. Every one of those wins by double figures as well.

I'm sure coach is probably still enjoying cocktails. It's only 2:55 in the morning here so he's definitely still partying --

HUNT: Coy, I think you should go -- you should go to the party.

WIRE: -- for this wonderful title.

HUNT: You know? You're here working instead. WIRE: Yeah.

HUNT: Thank you for that. Great job.

WIRE: You should come, too, Kasie. Your show is almost over in an hour. Come on over.

HUNT: Oh, I wish. I guess we should pour one in here. I don't know.

All right, Coy. Thank you. I appreciate it. Get some rest.

Ahead here on CNN THIS MORNING, Congress is back with aid for Ukraine and Israel on the line. Democrat Mike Quigley of Illinois joins us. Plus, is Iran ready to attack Israel? Former Defense Sec. Mark Esper is here.

(COMMERCIAL)