Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Idaho Teen Charged with Providing Material Support to ISIS; Speaker Johnson Faces Major Test of Leadership with Funding Battles; Trump Faces Anti-Abortion Backlash After Abortion Announcement; U.S. on High Alert in Middle East Amid Expected Iranian Attack. Aired 6:30- 7a ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:30:49]

KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: All right, welcome back. An Idaho teenager is in custody, arrested and charged with providing material support to ISIS. 18-year-old Alexander Mercurio accused of plotting to kill churchgoers in his town in the name of ISIS. He remains in custody. He's not entered a plea. Investigators allege Mercurio was about to attack at least one church with guns, knives and flammable chemicals before he was busted.

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois. He is co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, and he also recently returned from that war-torn country. And Congressman, I definitely want to talk about your trip in just a second.

But first, you served for a number of years on the House Intelligence Committee. What do you make of the news that we've had an arrest for ISIS affiliation here in the U.S., especially in the wake of that attack we saw in Russia that was attributed to ISIS-K? I realize you haven't been briefed on this specific attack, but can you help us understand what this means in context?

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): Sure. I mean, look, I served eight years on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I guess what you learn every week is that eternal vigilance must be there. Those -- those threats, internationally inspired but domestically drawn out, are a very real threat.

In July and then August, we're going to have two conventions that show that our country can't operate as a democracy. And we had to fight very hard to get the security money for that, $75 million each. Americans need to be reminded that domestic and international threats exist, and we must be vigilant.

HUNT: Congressman, let's talk about your trip to Ukraine. You just returned after meeting with President Zelenskyy, and he has been warning that Ukraine will lose the war if Congress doesn't send help and do it relatively quickly. What did you hear from him, and how confident are you that you and your colleagues can deliver for him? QUIGLEY: Sure. Look, I've met President Zelenskyy six times since the war started, three times in Ukraine. He always begins with an extraordinary level of gratitude to the United States and the American people, and then a very clear-eyed assessment of the battlefield situation.

You know, he has a limited amount of sources -- resources he can draw upon. They're doing all the dying here, but Putin will send infinite -- seemingly infinite number of his own people, treating them like cannon fodder. So their democracy, a democracy in Eastern Europe, is at risk here. And there's a very real risk that if we don't get this done, that we'll be in danger.

I'd like to think this is certain to get done, but it's really up to Speaker Johnson. The fact is, about half the Republicans support this measure in the House and the vast majority of Democrats. If it was on the floor, it would pass.

HUNT: Would you personally be willing to help Speaker Mike Johnson retain his job in the face of a challenge from Marjorie Taylor Greene if he puts aid to Ukraine on the House floor?

QUIGLEY: You know, I think what has to happen is discussions between the leadership. I think Speaker McCarthy would still be Speaker McCarthy if he had been willing to have those discussions. You know, I don't know exactly procedurally how it would be done. But if we're going to do a supplemental that rebuilds our infrastructure, including the bridge in Baltimore. And, you know, funds Ukraine and Israel and other entities appropriately, I think a deal can be done. It could be an attendance problem on the Democratic side.

I certainly have no sympathy and support for Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extreme far right. In the end, partisanship aside, we have to function as a government.

I talked with Fiona Hill yesterday, and her message is always our political dysfunction is a national security threat. We have to show that we can work together.

HUNT: Congressman, a couple of your Republican colleagues, including Congressman Turner, over the weekend with my colleague Jake Tapper, have said that they see Russian propaganda coming into Republican talking points. Do you agree with that? And if so, how do you combat that?

[06:35:14]

QUIGLEY: Well, look, you can see these talking points in Russian TV. We have no pity for him. Well done, Republicans, they're standing firm. That's good for us. This is right off Russian TV after we voted down a measure.

And again, I respect Representative Turner. I respect the 100 or so Republicans who support Ukrainian aid. But I'm very concerned for my country that a very small number of extremists are able to wag the body politic, the dog -- the tail wagging the dog. And the expression we use for people who are apologists for Putin, the sort of useful idiots. And they're useful to Putin, but they're dangerous to our national and international security.

HUNT: All right, Congressman Mike Quigley. Congressman, I really appreciate you being here early in the morning. Thanks very much.

QUIGLEY: Glad to do it. Thank you.

HUNT: All right. All right, let's turn out of this. Donald Trump drawing the ire of both Democrats and anti-abortion conservatives after announcing yesterday that abortion rights, in his view, should be left to the states. His former Vice President, Mike Pence, calling the decision a, quote, "slap in the face to anti-abortion voters who backed him in 2016 and 2020."

Trump also sparring with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham in a series of posts after Graham publicly disagreed with the former president's stance. Trump accusing Graham of, quote, "doing a great disservice to the Republican Party."

Some anti-abortion voters suggested their support for Trump might be at stake.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR: Do you think that is enough for people to opt against Donald Trump as a result of this answer?

REBEKAH HAYNIE, ANTI-ABORTION VOTER: So if pro-lifers, if this is our issue, there should be consequences, as I said. Perhaps this should cost Donald Trump the pro-life vote. If this is your number one issue, what I do say is that those consequences for Donald Trump, the backlash should be loud. I do characterize this as a betrayal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HUNT: All right, my panel is back with us. So I got to be honest, Matt, I don't see the anti-abortion right penalizing Donald Trump, who is responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade over that. And it seems like Donald Trump knows this.

MATT MOWERS, FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah.

HUNT: I mean, he put this statement out the day of a total solar eclipse across the United States and the night of the NCAA championship.

MOWERS: Yeah. No, I mean, look, the truth is that America's -- American voters position on abortion is much more nuanced than our political discourses around the issue.

And if you look at a majority of Americans, they believe in some restrictions on abortion, but most believe that should be legal. And so, and then it gets, you know, breaks up even more when you ask should be a state issue or a federal issue. So what Donald Trump has done is put himself firmly in the middle of

the American electorate on this issue. And by doing so is now giving himself an opportunity to potentially paint President Biden as an extremist on the issue. If he's talking about late term abortions and also what a lot of his support Joe Biden supporters are going to want to hear.

HUNT: So, look, this is the tactic that Republicans use to paint Democrats as extremists in supporting late term abortion. When Roe versus Wade stood, because in that case, there were no restrictions that were placed on abortion. And so in theory, that was the reality.

The reality now with Roe fallen is that we're going to get ads like this one from the Biden campaign, which clearly was saving this to put out when Donald Trump made the statement. Watch this ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the outfit that she was going to maybe wear home from the hospital. All of these. This is the blanket that she was in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Donald Trump did this, it says.

MOWERS: Yeah, and look, it's clearly an emotionally powerful ad and your heart goes out for -- for that family. But, you know, the challenge is that Joe Biden obviously was going to run that ad, regardless what Donald Trump said yesterday. That's the politics of this. He was always going to run that ad.

And if you look at also the tactics --

HUNT: Yeah, right, but like --

(CROSSTALK)

MOWERS: Let me just puzzle this point. So the Democratic Party largely and Planned Parenthood in particular has gone out and said that any Republican supports any -- any restriction, even saying banning in the third trimester wants a ban. You saw them in New Hampshire where I'm from, where they said Chris Sununu --

HUNT: I am --

MOWERS: -- who was Republican, was actually said they wanted to ban abortion. He didn't. He put in a third trimester restriction. That's going to be the rhetoric that comes out regardless.

HUNT: I -- I understand your point in that, like, this is kind of how our political discourse unfolds sometimes. I'm not saying that every person or every actor always is completely above board in the way they make their arguments. But the reality is that states are limiting abortion in such an aggressive way.

[06:40:12]

That ad is about a woman who very much wanted to have a baby. I mean, like, I think Leigh Ann and I were both struggling a little bit because, I mean, the emotion around losing a very wanted child and not being able to -- she now -- that woman may not be able to have a child because she was denied care because her doctors were afraid of being criminalized. I mean, Leigh Ann, I feel like this is the thing about the way this has played out, that while maybe Republicans -- Republicans, honestly, before Roe fell, were able to more successfully make a political argument that Democrats were extreme. The reverse is now true.

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, THE EARLY 202 CO-AUTHOR, WASHINGTON POST: Yeah. The extremist argument coming from Republicans just doesn't land in the exact same way that it did a couple of years ago before Roe felled -- fell.

And what -- and voters aren't buying it at this point when voters rights are restricted, they're not thinking about late term abortions or whether that's accurate or not. The argument from Republicans, they're thinking my rights have been taken away now. And that's what you have seen in elections in 2022 and 2023. And that's what Democrats are betting on will happen in elections in 2024.

HUNT: Yeah, really -- just really, really tough stuff.

All right. Coming up next here. We are waiting for the release of body cam footage after a fatal police shooting.

Plus, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper is here to discuss a possible attack against Israel or the U.S. by Iran.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:45:50]

HUNT: Welcome back, U.S. troops in the Middle East remain on high alert today in anticipation of an Iranian attack that could target either Israeli or American assets in the region. The threat -- excuse me, coming in response to an Israeli airstrike on an Iranian consulate in Syria that killed a dozen military officials last week.

Two sources familiar with the intelligence tell CNN an attack would likely be carried out by an Iranian proxy or carried out by Iranian proxy forces in the region. Those sources warning that the threat is credible and inevitable.

Joining me now is former Secretary of Defense under President Trump, Mark Esper.

Mr. Secretary, good morning. Thank you very much --

MARK ESPER, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good morning, happy to be with you. HUNT: -- for being here. So let's start with this threat. Do you anticipate when you hear the word inevitable that it actually is? And what do you think it might look like?

ESPER: Yeah, it is inevitable. This is a culture, the Iranian culture, that goes an eye for an eye, just like they did when the United States, when -- when I was at the Pentagon, attacked Soleimani. They responded within five days.

So, yeah, they're going to attack back. I would have expected they would want to do it by themselves rather than through proxies. And I would expect that it would do -- they would go after a like target.

So some type of senior Israeli official, maybe a consular building, if they could do that, although the opportunities to do so are limited in that region of the world. So it'll be interesting to see how they go about this.

I don't think they will go after United States targets because I think at the end of the day, they want to make sure that the United States, Washington, is there to restrain Israel in case this thing starts to escalate.

HUNT: So you are skeptical that U.S. targets will be part of this?

ESPER: Yeah, I think -- I think it's possible, but I think it's unlikely that they'll attack American targets.

HUNT: What would -- what can you tell us, I realize it may be limited, but what can you tell us about what the Pentagon would be doing right now in preparation for something like this?

ESPER: Sure. Well, first of all, we'd be reaching out to our allies and partners in the region because, of course, we have troops in most countries on the -- on the -- on the Saudi Arabian Peninsula. And then we'd be putting our forces in a protective posture, making sure that our security is tight, that we have ample air defenses in case it comes and likely will do an air attack, either drones or a cruise missile or something like that. If it's -- if it's Iranian government.

And then, of course, we'd be thinking, what are our options? If -- if there's -- if this happens and the president wants to do something or we need to do something, what type of options should we tee up for the president? And that might involve moving some U.S. forces around in the region to be prepared to do that.

HUNT: On the question of Israel and the war in Gaza, we've seen the Israelis make some interesting tactical military decisions. Lately, we -- CNN crews witnessed tanks coming out of Israel and there were initial descriptions of this as being a potential Israeli withdrawal. Then there was some pushback on that.

And then overnight, we heard the Prime Minister say that there is a date for them to invade Rafah. Were you surprised to hear him say that? I mean, tactically, what do you think he's doing? And is it more about politics than military tactics? ESPER: Well, two things. I was surprised that they're withdrawing troops, you know, from Khan Yunis where it was, because when you conduct military operations on urban terrain, which is how we call it in the Defense Department, you always want to leave troops behind because otherwise the enemy comes in behind you and then starts conducting a counterinsurgency or attacks you from behind. We saw this a few weeks ago in Al-Shifa, where hundreds of Hamas militants made their way back up to the hospital and started attacking Israelis.

So that surprised me, number one. But secondly, for Netanyahu to announce again an attack. Now, he's been saying this for four or five, six weeks now. So I think this is more of a domestic play, because on one hand, he knows he's negotiating in Cairo with Hamas.

They think a deal is getting closer and closer. I'm very skeptical. And so maybe this is something to throw out to the folks on his right to say, no, no, no, we're still going in. We're going to still take out Hamas, which I think he needs to do, by the way. But I think this is a lot of domestic politics right here.

HUNT: Yeah. I think that makes a lot of sense. When I watched that clip this morning, I thought this is -- this is a political video more than anything else.

Let's talk about Ukraine. We just had Congressman Quigley on. He was back from his visit with Zelenskyy, essentially warning us that if Congress doesn't get aid to Ukraine out the door, it's going to mean that they lose the war with Russia. What do you think the implications are if Congress doesn't act?

ESPER: Well, eventually that right now, Zelenskyy is trading terrain for time, hoping that the United States Congress will pass something this week, next week, whenever, because if it doesn't happen, he will run out of ammunition. And once the United States falters, you can look at several European countries, NATO allies faltering as well. And then it's only a matter of time.

[06:50:09]

I mean, we expect that Moscow is going to conduct another counteroffensive in this spring or summer. He'll push back further. And then the question is, Putin's probably weighing out.

Well, maybe he should wait until November. If Donald Trump wins the presidency and comes in, in January 2025, Trump has promised to get rid of all Ukrainian support. So things are looking a lot better for Vladimir Putin today than they did, what eight months ago when Prigozhin was leading a military convoy to Moscow. So time is not on Zelenskyy's side.

HUNT: What do you make of these claims from some Republican members of Congress that there are Russian talking points showing up on the floor of the House? And what are the national security implications of that?

ESPER: They look very troubling. Not surprising that they, the Russians have had an influence campaign against the United States for years, so has China, by the way.

And so to see this, though, in the hands of lawmakers are being used, as -- as Congressman McCaul and Turner said, is really disturbing. I mean, during the Cold War, we would have never seen lawmakers using talking points from Pravda. But here we are, what, 40, 50 years later. And it's -- it's really troubling.

HUNT: It's a remarkable statement.

ESPER: Yeah.

HUNT: You mentioned China. The Prime Minister of Japan is here in Washington to meet with the President. That is in no small part about China. What are you watching for?

ESPER: Sure. Now, look, everybody's focused on Gaza and everything else that's happening in Europe. But this is a big meeting. I mean, Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan, is coming to town. He'll have a state dinner on Wednesday. Thursday, he goes before a joint session of Congress.

He'll probably talk about the importance of Ukraine being funded in order to push back against an aggressive autocracy, which is what he sees in China, by the way, facing him.

And they're also going to talk about China building a joint operational capability with the United States, a command in Japan to deal with China. At the same time, he's doubled his defense spending. He's building counterstrike weapons.

HUNT: Remarkable for Japan.

ESPER: These are things unheard of 10 years ago coming out of Japan. So it's a big visit that deserves more attention.

HUNT: Yeah. Finally, I want to ask you, there was an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court from a group of generals and admirals. And this is on the question of presidential immunity and former President Donald Trump.

They argue this, quote, "presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would threaten the military's role in American society, our nation's constitutional order and our national security. Under this theory, the President could, with impunity, direct his national security appointees to, in turn, direct military -- members of the military to execute plainly unlawful orders, placing those in the chain of command in an untenable position and irreparably harming the trust fundamental to civil-military relations." This seems to recall the question that was -- the D.C. Circuit had about whether SEAL Team Six could be ordered to take out a political rival. Do you agree with this?

ESPER: Well, I have to read it. You know, it's hard to listen to kind of translate that. First of all, my view is I would prefer to see retired admirals and generals not get involved in these issues. But look, the President doesn't have immunity on these types of issues. That's kind of well-documented, well-known and shouldn't, by the way. And the hypothetical SEAL Team 6 being used to take out a rival, it's just ridiculous.

So, look, the President, my view, doesn't have that type of immunity.

HUNT: I mean, that their team argued that he could potentially do it.

ESPER: It's just absurd, right? There's no military official would ever consider that. So it's just -- it's not even worth kind of talking about. It's just ridiculous.

HUNT: All right. Fair enough, Mr. Secretary. I'm so grateful for your time.

ESPER: Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: Thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate it.

All right, 52 minutes past the hour. Here's your morning roundup. The parents of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley are scheduled to be sentenced today on involuntary manslaughter charges. Jennifer and James Crumbley each face up to 15 years behind bars.

Body cam video of a fatal Chicago police involved shooting is set to be released today. Officials say Dexter Reed was killed last month after five officers pulled his vehicle over for a traffic stop.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled against the Swiss government in a landmark climate case. The court -- court ruled in favor of 2000 elderly Swiss women who argued that heat waves fueled by climate change are undermining their health and quality of life.

A record number of viewers watched Sunday's NCAA women's basketball final, the matchup between South Carolina and Iowa, registering 18.7 million viewers, shattering the women's college basketball ratings record. Here's Iowa's star Caitlin Clark, the GOAT, after her final game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAITLIN CLARK, IOWA GUARD: When I think about women's basketball going forward, you know, obviously it's just going to continue to grow, whether it's at the WNBA level, whether it's at the college level, like everybody sees it, everybody knows, everybody sees the viewership numbers. When you're given an opportunity, women's sports just kind of thrives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Our panel's back. And Axios' Senior Media Reporter, Sara Fischer, also joins us. I -- so I've got women on this half of the table, guys. I'm sorry. I would -- I would love it if you jumped in too. But Sara, I mean, these numbers for women's basketball are just so incredibly high. [06:55:00]

And one of the things I was reading about this, I mean, I have really been loving it, but there was this apparently this idea that while women wouldn't rate this way, so there was no promotion. But now they figured out that, well, actually, if you promote these -- these women the way you promote the men, this is what happens.

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, it's definitely a chicken and the egg when it comes to women's sports, right? Same thing with media rights. The WNBA is negotiating right now for media rights. They're hoping to double how much they make per year. Right now they're getting about 50 million. They want to get a hundred.

But it speaks to your point, if you make the investment up front, right, give them good distribution, give them good marketing. The viewership will come.

And by the way, it's not just on TV. We saw for the first-time tickets sold out for this tournament for the women. They're going to show up in person and in droves.

My good friend tells me all the time this is not -- this -- the moment -- it is the moment for women's sports. And it's going to be this moment for a long time.

HUNT: How does the WNBA compare to the NBA?

FISCHER: Oh, good question. I mean, it's a very fraction of what they get for the media rights and obviously for the promotion itself. But we're expecting these rights to come together in a package. So these are up for negotiation this year. They'll be renewed in 2025.

I mean, if we can get to a point where they are double, so we get to one hundred million, that would be landmark. If you think about it for soccer, soccer just passed a new deal. Two hundred forty million across four years. So this would be bigger than women's soccer. But I mean, a tiny fraction of men's basketball.

HUNT: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Mo, what do you see in this? I think you have a daughter.

MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: I do.

HUNT: Yeah.

ELLEITHEE: I do. And we're a big college basketball family. We go to games all the time. I took my daughter maybe five, six years ago to her first women's game, played in a very different venue, right? The men were playing in a big arena. The women were playing in a small -- smaller gym. We were seated in bleachers as opposed to arena seating. And I remember her looking around saying, this is different and it's not fair.

HUNT: Yeah. ELLEITHEE: What we are seeing today with the -- because of the focus on women's basketball and the emphasis on it and more and more people tuning in. I think you are going to start to see some of those inequities. Maybe not level out, but we are starting to close that gap. And I could not be more thrilled about that.

FISCHER: And can I just follow up on something? One of the reasons this gap is getting closed is the women themselves are really good at promoting themselves.

ELLEITHEE: Yeah.

FISCHER: So now because of NIL name, image and likeness, you have college stars who are female who are crushing on social media far more than their male counterparts. That's leading to more brand sponsorship deals. That's leading to more fans. They're putting the work in their own hands and they're making it happen.

ELLEITHEE: Yeah.

HUNT: You were a college athlete?

CALDWELL: I was. Yeah.

HUNT: I mean, what does this mean to you?

CALDWELL: I mean, it's huge. It's absolutely huge. You know, when everyone talks about filling out their bracket for the NCAA tournament, they're always talking about the men's bracket. And I've been pushing every single year only if we do a women's bracket, too.

But, you know, men's sport. I mean, of course, there's been Title IX, which has tried to give women's sports some more parity with men's sports as far as money is concerned. But they've always been behind men's sports. And as a college athlete, you know, I actually felt that very much as a swimmer.

HUNT: Yeah.

CALDWELL: And -- but now we are seeing, you know, a couple of decades later that -- that women are finally getting their due and they deserve it. They are just as amazing athletes doing just as much work as the men, if not more.

HUNT: Yeah. Caitlin Clark, Sara, I mean, how much is this about her, the person?

FISCHER: It's a good question. So when you take a look at the ratings, we had two games on Friday night, one with Caitlin Clark, one without. The one with Caitlin Clark had about double the viewership, but the one without her still drew seven million viewers. I mean, that's bigger than most award shows these days. So it gives you a sense of how big the momentum is, even without Caitlin Clark.

Now, the question becomes, what happens when she and Aisha Tyler and others move to the WNBA? Does the momentum stick with the NCAA? I would argue, yes. Because not only are the viewership numbers huge, but a lot of people who drove those numbers, if you think about South Carolina's team are freshmen.

HUNT: Yeah.

FISCHER: And so we think a lot of the big star power is going to continue on. And I think that the NCAA has a bright future without Caitlin Clark. WNBA has a bright future with her.

HUNT: Yeah. No, I love it. All right. I'll leave you with this.

Congratulations, love was in the air during yesterday's solar eclipse, as hundreds of couples across the country decided it was the moment to tie the knot. About 70 couples got married or renewed their vows at a mass ceremony in the town of Tiffin, Ohio.

Meanwhile, Russellville, Arkansas, said, hold my beer. They held an elope at the eclipse event with more than three hundred and fifty couples taking part.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASHLEY SMITH, ELOPED DURING THE ECLIPSE: I'm pretty confident and I love -- I love you. And I'm happy that I'm here doing this. And we're here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yeah, I couldn't be happier. I love you.

SMITH: I love you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:00:01]

HUNT: OK, that's a classic husband moment. Oh, yeah, me too.

Our own Derek Van Dam was able to break some big news yesterday in Stowe, Vermont, as a man proposed to his fiance live right here on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEREK VAN DAM, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Right now, you guy -- this is happening.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I love you. Will you marry me?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

(CHEERING)

VAN DAM: An engagement during a total solar eclipse.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: OK, congrats Derek, for that. All right. Thanks to you for watching that total eclipse of the heart. Thanks to our panel for joining us. I'm Kasie Hunt. Don't go anywhere. "CNN News Central" starts right now.

[07:00:00]