Return to Transcripts main page
SCOTUS Approved Congress Of Getting Trump's Tax Returns; Colorado Shooting Suspect Facing Multiple Charges; Fear And Cowardice Is Not An Option; Fans Saw What They Did Not Expect In World Cup; Questions Loom Why FIFA Handed World Cup To Qatar; Three Officers Arrested Over Violence Issue. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired November 22, 2022 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KASIE HUNT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Thanks so much for watching. I'll be back here tomorrow night. I hope you will be too. Our coverage continues now with Alisyn Camerota. Hi, Alisyn.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: I'll be back here tomorrow night. Kasie watching. Great show.
HUNT: We'll see each other.
CAMEROTA: OK. Fantastic. Thanks so much. Good evening, everyone. This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Alisyn Camerota.
The Supreme Court says Donald Trump's tax returns must be turned over to Congress. This is something the former president has been fighting for years. He took his fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and today they ruled against him.
So, when might we see what's in his taxes? Our experts will get into that. And that's just one of the legal issues hanging around Trump that seems to be accelerating. But turnaround is fair play and the Republicans are planning a smerkish board of their own investigations that we will lay put for you.
Plus, new information on the investigation into the Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub shooting. We have disturbing new details about the suspect's teenage years. And if you've ever played out in your own head what you would do in an active shooter situation, you're not alone.
One of our guests tonight says, it's time to rethink the advice to run, hide, fight. We'll find out what she says to do.
But let's start with Donald Trump's taxes. Here with me, our CNN senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, former Senator Al Franken and former Congressman Joe Walsh.
Great to have all of you here. Elie, this is something he's been fighting for years. I mean, since
2015 when Donald Trump first was running for president, he promised he was going to turn over his taxes and show them to the American public, and he never did it. He claimed he was being audited. We have no idea. And now, what did the Supreme Court decide, and on what grounds today?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the Supreme Court said, you're out of luck, and those tax returns have to go over to the House Ways and Means committee. And this, in many ways, is the typical Donald Trump legal battle. Here's why. He got wiped out at every level of federal courts. Started in the district court lost there. District court says tax returns go over. Then he went to the court of appeals, three judges, three to zero says, Trump, you lose, Congress, you win.
Then he tried to get the whole D.C. circuit to take the case. They said, no thank you. So still, he hasn't gotten a single judge. And then he tried to get to the Supreme Court, and today they issued a two-sentence ruling saying, nope, we're good. Not a single dissenter. So, he loses at every level. Yet as you said, Alisyn, what does he get? Delay?
Here we are. This legal battle, in particular has been going on for over two years and there's a new Congress.
CAMEROTA: But doesn't have to happen now. I mean, now the IRS has to turn over, right?
HONIG: Yes. They have to turn over. Of course, we're 40 some days though, from Congress flipping over to the House. I do want to say this though. If you look at the law that the House ways and means committee used to get these tax returns, it also says they have to keep individual tax returns even of a former president confidential. So, we should not expect to see them unless they are leaked, contrary to that law.
CAMEROTA: That's interesting. Because I was wondering when the American public would be able to see them.
CAMEROTA: What could possibly be in there that he doesn't want us to see?
FMR. SEN. AL FRANKEN (D-MN): He's a criminal. You know, you know, you know when he said if I -- I could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, I wouldn't lose any votes. He might have been right about that, but he would've been prosecuted for shooting someone. He's going to be prosecuted, he's going to be held accountable. Jack Smith is going -- we have a special prosecutor. He's going to be prosecuted.
CAMEROTA: So those are different things. I mean, obviously that's for the January 6th investigation, as well as the holding of the classified documents.
FRANKEN: And for he's going to be -- Georgia, I mean, how criminal is that? I need you to find me --
CAMEROTA: Let's pull this up.
FRANKEN: -- 11,700 votes.
CAMEROTA: On tape.
FRANKEN: And on tape.
FMR. REP. JOE WALSH (R-IL): Line them up. Line them up, Alisyn --
FRANKEN: And if you don't --
WALSH: -- there are so many.
CAMEROTA: Let's pull them up just so that everybody can keep track. So here are the investigations that Donald Trump is involved in right now. What he's being investigated for. You were alluding to it, Senator. So, there's everything from the Manhattan D.A., the Trump Organization, the House ways and means tax probe, the Georgia election interference, as you were saying, the January 6 committee, of course.
The DOJ is also looking into January 6th and whether he instigated the riot. DOJ, the classified documents that he hoarded at Mar-a-Lago, the New York attorney general, the fraud lawsuit. So, there's a lot that he's looking at. And you're saying, Senator, that he will be held accountable for something.
FRANKEN: God, yes. The only thing worse than prosecuting him is not prosecuting. He's going to be prosecuted.
WALSH: He has to.
WALSH: The senator is, right? He has to. He better be. But Alisyn, here's the danger. They've been going after him rightly on so many fronts for so long. His voters now believe he's the most persecuted president, probably the most persecuted American in American history.
So, the scary thing is all of these investigations and an indictment or two coming down the down weirdly might strengthen him with his Republican base.
CAMEROTA: With his base. And I hear what you're saying. I remember when he was found with all of the classified and top-secret documents at Mar-a-Lago, and he had said something to the effect of, if they can do this to me, just think what they can do to you.
CAMEROTA: Yes, if I had classified documents at my house, they would also do that to me. I found that logic to be so funny.
WALSH: You're right. But, Alisyn, Republicans rallied around him after that Mar-a-Lago. Just crazy.
HONIG: And I should say, we could be heading for a really unique moment in American history where you can have an active candidate, a leading candidate --
HONIG: -- perhaps for president who is under indictment. I mean, there is a very real chance he's indicted by Fulton County, by the special prosecutor. And I want to say people assume sometimes if you're indicted, that means you're knocked out. No, it does not. You can be convicted of most crimes and still run for president. So, we could have a --
CAMEROTA: But which one of those that we just put up there do you think will come to fruition?
HONIG: I think the two that are most likely, I think Fulton County has been given all indications that they're moving very aggressively and that they intend to indict --
CAMEROTA: Meaning the election interference in Georgia.
HONIG: Yes. And then the second thing is if we're looking at special counsel Jack Smith, I think they're more likely to indict on the Mar- a-Lago documents. So, we could see even two investigations. Again, who knows? But here's the thing to keep in mind, indictment is up to the prosecutor. Yes, you go to a grand jury, but prosecutors can get grand juries to indict whoever they want for the most part.
CAMEROTA: Ham sandwich.
HONIG: There is truth to that. Ham sandwich. There is some truth to that. But indictment is just the start. And you ask the question before, is there going to be accountability? It depends what you consider accountability. Indictment I think that's increasingly likely to happen. Conviction is going to be very powerful.
CAMEROTA: Well, just adjudication, I think that people would consider justice, adjudication for --
HONIG: It's better than nothing as the senator have said.
WALSH: Elie, would there be -- would there be any accountability for January 6th in your mind. I mean, Donald Trump incited and led -- HONIG: Yes.
WALSH: -- a violent attempt to overthrow an American election.
HONIG: I think Fulton County is increasingly likely to charge that, whether DOJ does, especially if Fulton County has charged, if you're sitting there at DOJ, you may say, well, they've got that piece. We'll do the documents. There's a lot of moving parts.
FRANKEN: Can I talk about what Joe said, which is, yes, maybe it'll whip up his supporters, but his -- this last election, the American people said, stop it. Stop it. They said all the deniers in key races lost. Donald Trump, you know, maybe he'll get the nomination. Who knows? Because you know, all you need are 30 percent in primaries. If there's a big field.
FRANKEN: That basically started what, started him in '16. But I -- there is not -- I don't know if it's a majority of the Republican Party. Maybe it is.
CAMEROTA: No, I hear what you're saying. And if voters said, stop the chaos. Then let's go to the next point, which is all of the investigations that Republicans are planning when they take back control of the House in January.
So, I'll just tick through these. They want to know the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm glad this is a amazing to you, Senator.
CAMEROTA: They want to know, Kevin McCarthy wants to know about China and investigate their theft of intellectual property, the conduct of health officials during COVID- 19, including Anthony Fauci, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was, you know, a disaster.
January 6th committee situation at the southern border. The FBI, the IRS, they want to try to impeach secretary Mayorkas, depart -- Education Department officials and Hunter Biden.
OK. Senator, go. What do you think of all of those?
FRANKEN: Well, I'd start with Hunter Biden because as I said, I think the American people said, stop it. But these, the Republicans are full of crazies or people who are just chicken. And I -- and McCarthy is, I think in the latter group. And yes, they'll do Hunter Biden and American people. They'll do exactly what the American people don't want them to do. Some of those are --
FRANKEN: -- things that are legit. And you should -- you should look at, but you know Jim Jordan leading the judiciary committee in the House.
CAMEROTA: This seems funny now that you're out of Congress, I assume this has been more amusing to you.
FRANKEN: Jim Jordan.
WALSH: Alisyn, Elie is right. my former party has been overtaken by crazies. Kevin McCarthy maybe speaker probably, but Marjorie Taylor Greene will be the de facto speaker. Period.
CAMEROTA: For real?
WALSH: For real.
CAMEROTA: How will she be the speaker?
WALSH: She will have such sway over him. I mean, look at what they've been emphasizing already. They're leading with all this crazy stuff. Why? Because McCarthy has to have Marjorie Taylor Greene and the rest of her crazies all lined up.
CAMEROTA: Because otherwise she'll tweet something. I mean, what's the downside? Why can't he alienate Marjorie Taylor Greene?
WALSH: Because he doesn't her to be the face of the party for the next two years. And if she doesn't get what she wants, Alisyn, she will become the face of the party.
HONIG: And Joe, one of the things --
FRANKEN: How long will she be speaker is the question?
HONIG: Yes, she -- she's been talking about the I word, impeachment, right?
WALSH: Yes. And another.
HONIG: She's already drafted impeachment.
HONIG: We're talking about Secretary Mayorkas, they're talking about the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, talking about Joe Biden.
Now, I'm interested to see what you think if they'll do that, but I do want to say this little, little legal wrinkle here. You certainly can impeach a president or vice president or what the Constitution calls civil officers. It's actually not clear under law that you can constitutionally impeach a secretary.
CAMEROTA: I didn't know that.
HONIG: It's only happened once, secretary of war in the 1870s and not since. So, they may be barking up the wrong tree if they go, but Mayorkas is going to be their first target, I think. CAMEROTA: Yes. Do you agree?
HONIG: You think they're going to?
FRANKEN: Well, that's what they're saying out loud, but I don't know.
WALSH: Because they can focus on the border, the border, of the border.
CAMEROTA: OK, gentlemen, thank you very much. Stick around. Great conversation. We have to talk about this. The Colorado Spring suspect is behind bars tonight and we're getting new accounts from survivors. But I'm sure that many of us have wondered what we would do in a horrifying situation like that.
Our next security expert says the old run, hide, fight advice maybe outdated.
CAMEROTA: The first court hearing is set for tomorrow for the suspect in the deadly mass shooting at the Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub. Five people were killed and at least 19 injured in Saturday night's attack. Police say the carnage could have been much worse if not for the bravery of two people who took down the attacker.
Ever since mass shootings have become our way of life, the conventional advice for people caught in the middle is to run and get out. If you cannot do that, try to hide and only after that fails try to fight back.
But CNN's national security Analyst, Juliette Kayyem has a new piece in the Atlantic saying it may be time to rethink that strategy. And Juliette joins me now.
Juliette, great to see you. I read your piece with great interest. So, if not, run, hide, fight. What? What's the solution?
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, look, fighting was always the last resort. I think the -- I think we just have to be honest about the evidence. And I just want to start with the beginning.
We shouldn't be -- in a rational society we would not be having this conversation. How do you survive an AR attack in a confined areas, essentially the conversation that we're having. But if you're going to judge success by do fewer people die, the evidence is starting to show that engagement with the killer if you -- if you can't get out, because in these confined spaces you often can't, can decrease the harm. We've seen it. A great peril to the per -- to the person or people who
are doing it, as we've seen in Colorado and as we've seen in other instances. So why does this matter? Because the run, hide, fight logo or the slogan. Everything people in my field believed in came out of 1999. It existed before, but really, Columbine. And that lesson was, the kids should get out or they should hide.
But what happened when they hid in the -- in the library was that was where all the kids were killed. Two decades later, go to the Pulse nightclub when the -- when they died, most of the people who died, who were killed, were killed in the bathroom because they tried to hide there.
And so, if running is not an option, it's not entirely clear hiding is a good option because of two realities. These mass shootings are happening more frequently and people are getting killed too quickly with this weaponry.
KAYYEM: And I want to be clear here. The statistics from the FBI as I wrote in the piece, are 70 percent of mass shootings end before the police can arrive, and 31 percent of them end after two minutes. I think that's what basically what happened in Colorado.
CAMEROTA: But Juliette, obviously it can't just be a one size fits all piece of advice.
CAMEROTA: Because I'm not Richard Fierro. I mean Richard Fierro --
CAMEROTA: -- was a 15-year veteran. He's a big guy and he has that kind of metal where he ran towards the guy with the weapon of war. I, five three Alisyn, can curl --
CAMEROTA: -- into a very tight ball, very small, and I can hide --
CAMEROTA: -- more easily than Richard Fierro. And so, it's just hard for, I mean, first of all, like you say, I can't believe we're having -- we have to have --
KAYYEM: It's an absurd conversation.
CAMEROTA: But we do have to have this conversation --
KAYYEM: I know.
CAMEROTA: -- because it's going through all of our heads. And so, isn't it just, you know, whatever you are capable of doing.
KAYYEM: Yes. It's both. It's -- so what I, you know, what's the alternative, right? Is that it's both situational and personal. And so, you know, in these instances where, you know, you have a for -- a former vet who happens to be there, but you know -- but you know, thank God is willing to go forward.
We've seen other instances where members of the public who are, don't have that kind of training are able to disarm or basically what we call it is you take the fight to the shooter. In other words, if you're able to distract them, what you're trying to do is buy time.
That is what these guns have not given us. They do not give the victims time to run, and they do not give law enforcement time to come in. I am, as you know, been on the show many times about, you know, the capacity of these guns to kill quickly has changed everything because you -- the best law enforcement response.
Forget the Uvaldes. The best law enforcement response is still going to take a minute or two. And I have to address something that's out there in response to this. There's very minimal evidence that arming more people, a good guy with a gun makes us safer. There are instances and people like me have to be honest about those instances.
In Indiana mall earlier this year, there was a gunman who killed a potential mass shooter. But it is not that more guns are the solution. If that were the case, we'd be the safest country on earth. It is just that this is going to be situational now, especially in instances where the running is difficult.
CAMEROTA: Such a great point. There was an armed guard in Buffalo, you know, at the supermarket.
CAMEROTA: There was an armed guard at Parkland. You know, we've, I mean, obviously there were cops all over Uvalde, and so it just --
CAMEROTA: -- it just -- it just does show the illogic of that notion. Juliette Kayyem, thank you very much. Really provocative piece.
KAYYEM: Thank you.
CAMEROTA: I appreciate it.
KAYYEM: Happy Thanksgiving.
CAMEROTA: You too. So, attorneys for the accused shooter, Anderson Lee Aldrich, say in new court filings tonight that the suspect now identifies as non-binary.
In a footnote to a motion asserting legal privileges the public defenders say, quote, "Anderson Aldrich is non-binary. They use they, them pronouns, and for the purposes of all formal filings will be addressed as mix Aldrich."
So, in other words, not mister or miss.
Joining me now, CNN political commentator, Errol Louis, also back in the Al Franken and Joe Walsh.
I don't know what to say about that. I mean, that's not anything that we had heard from his background. You know, people have been looking into his background and I don't know if anybody here, are you, guys lawyers?
ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
CAMEROTA: I mean, you know, I don't know if -- I don't know what to say about that. I mean, that's what he's now saying.
LOUIS: It sounds like they're trying to prepare a defense against a hate crimes charge. That's the least of his problems legally speaking. But it looks like they're trying to build some kind of sympathy or at least confusion on the question of whether or not this was purely motivated by hate.
CAMEROTA: Such a, I mean, that is what it sounds like. We'll wait to see. Back to that conversation that I was just having with Juliette. Have you thought about that? I mean, have you had to think about what would I do in an active shooter situation?
LOUIS: Well, we all have to, and that's the great tragedy of this situation we find ourselves in. As these gentlemen know we've been stuck legislatively on trying to get any kind of progress or serious solution to this. And what this does is it leaves the rest of us in a situation where we're going backwards in time.
And by backwards in time I mean, back to the 17th century when, you know, Thomas Hobbes writes Leviathan and he's talking about a war of all against all. And the whole point of government is to make it so that we're not all forced to sort of fight for our lives at any given moment. But that's where we are heading. Make no mistake about it, and it's an outrageous situation that we find ourselves in. We haven't been able to legislate our way out of it.
Frankly, you know, I mean, run, hide, or fight really applies politically. You can't run from this question, you can't hide from your responsibilities as a citizen or as a voter. And it is time to fight back.
WALSH: But Alisyn, what's so frustrating about this incident is, legislatively there was a law on the books (Inaudible).
CAMEROTA: The red --
WALSH: They had a red flag law. CAMEROTA: -- flag laws. Yes.
WALSH: And it wasn't enforced. That county, El Paso County, Colorado, the law enforcement in that county has basically publicly said they're not going to enforce the red flag laws.
CAMEROTA: That's right. And also, furthermore, Joe, there -- it relies on the parents. It relies on the family saying, yes, I'll press charges against my son. We saw this in the Highland Park shooter as well. Often mothers don't want to do that, and so then police leave. And that is a loophole that we need to figure out in red flag laws.
FRANKEN: We -- we've seen an uptick, and I don't know about this, this person and this shooter and his situation, but there's been an uptick in hate crimes and there's been an uptick in hate in Republican politics. You know, don't say gay legislation. All that does is isolate people, vulnerable kids who are already isolated.
We've seen uptick in anti-Semitic violence, in anti-Asian, in anti- LGBTQ, and it is exploiting hate for political purposes to get power. And it's very dangerous. And this is, I think part of, again, what American people want to want to stop.
CAMEROTA: I mean, and obviously everybody wants to stop mass shootings, but it's -- there's somehow, we've just accepted now that this is a part of our lives, that this is a part of our lives and somehow, we're all sitting ducks. So, our kids have to have active shooter trainings in their classrooms from the time they're in first grade. And we all have to figure out, OK, should we run or hide, or fight. Because, you know, every single week we report on a mass shooting.
WALSH: Well, they are a fact of life. They need to be minimized. This guy should not have had a gun. My God, there was a bomb threat a year before against his mom. The law enforcement could have then taken his guns away.
CAMEROTA: I want to believe that.
FRANKEN: I can't.
CAMEROTA: I mean, I hope that I want to believe that. What we had been told is that it has to be adjudicated. You know, he has to have been like convicted or something.
WALSH: I think that's separate from the red flag law. The enforce --
CAMEROTA: I hope you're right.
FRANKEN: I just, why do we have assault weapons? Why? There's no reason for assault weapons. There's no reason to have them. It's insane. And the number of mass shootings, again, has gone up significantly. There's no reason at all. There's -- no one needs an assault weapon. No one needs it to go hunting. CAMEROTA: But I mean, you know as well as anybody how hard it is in
Congress to fight that.
CAMEROTA: And when once the assault weapons band lapsed, then it never got back and you never were able to pull it together again.
FRANKEN: And what the gun industry did was just make more effective assault weapons. The Sandy Hook was a bushmaster that was designed to kill people in close quarters.
CAMEROTA: Absolutely. And so, I mean.
FRANKEN: It's sick.
CAMEROTA: It is sick, but you know, they -- the Biden administration touts that they've had the first bipartisan gun legislation in 30 years. But I'm not sure that it gets to the heart of the --
LOUIS: It doesn't, it doesn't. I mean, and look, the 110th Congress like the several before it made a little bit of progress, but not much and not enough. I would predict broadly that the 116th or the 118th Congress when some of these kids who had been brought up with these shooter drills and bulletproof backpacks and all of the garbage that we have accepted as normal.
When they get an opportunity, when they get into politics, when they get their hands on the levers of power, when they've got a trail of stories from Parkland all the way back to Columbine, I think they're going to get rid of all of this stuff.
FRANKEN: I don't think other -- I don't think other congresses have achieved anything. I know when I was there after Sandy --
LOUIS: Big time.
FRANKEN: -- after Sandy Hook, it was amazing that we couldn't get background checks. Americans want background checks.
CAMEROTA: At poll after poll. Poll after poll shows a --
WALSH: And that's --
CAMEROTA: -- huge majority.
WALSH: And that's an area where both sides can -- should -- can and should come together in a nanosecond.
FRANKEN: And it's amazing they can.
CAMEROTA: Amazing. Gentlemen, thank you very much. OK. We will now talk about sports, because you all know how good I am at this. It's a World Cup full of off the pitch controversies, and now there's all kinds of on the pitch drama too. So, we're going to explain one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history, next.
CAMEROTA: The excitement is growing for the U.S. versus England this Friday in the World Cup. Even with the controversies surrounding the games, fans are still showing up. So, what do we all need to know about the World Cup?
Obviously, I could tell you, but I've decided to call in John Berman to explain it to all of us from the matches to the controversies. Berman?
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Alisyn, so there are really two things going on at this World Cup. First, where it is? It is in Qatar or Qatar. Having been there I can tell you. You can say it either way. The issue with Qatar, number one, is how it treats its migrant workers, the guest workers, the people who built all these brand-new stadiums where all the events are happening there.
They have been severely criticized, the nation has, for the treatment of these guest workers that they live in suboptimal conditions and they just don't have the rights of everyday citizens. So, there's that in Qatar. And then there's also the human rights record in that country. You have no doubt have heard the controversy over whether or not people can wear arm bands there.
Gay rights basically nonexistent in that country, more or less outlawed to be gay. You cannot be gay in Qatar legally. And that's a real problem for a lot of the athletes competing there and a lot of the fans competing there.
Our friend Grant Wahl, a reporter who does terrific work in soccer, he was detained for a time yesterday because he went to one of the stadiums wearing a rainbow t-shirt.
So that's all going on. And yes, they're not serving alcohol even though they had said they would. They're not serving alcohol at or around the games either. That seems minor compared to the human rights issues and the gay rights issues.
So, there's all that. All that is because of where FIFA, the world governing body for soccer decided to have the World Cup. Then, there's the soccer. Now a lot of people, by the way, don't think you can get beyond the first part to even think about the soccer, but for those who want to pay attention to the soccer, it is one of the great sporting events every four years in the world.
This time around, there are 32 teams, 32 countries have teams there. They are grouped into eight separate groups. We are now in what is called the group stage. What happens is, each term team in each group play every other team and the top two teams advance to the next stage. So right now, it's around Robin. You get three points for winning. You
get one point for tying a game, you get zero points for losing. Again, the top two teams advance, which by the way, is why today it was so extraordinary that Argentina, which is considered one of the best teams in the world, not to mention the best team in group C here, that Argentina lost to Saudi Arabia. That's one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history.
It also throws this group into disarray. A lot of people just assumed it would be Argentina and maybe Mexico or Poland advancing to the next. Now that's very much in jeopardy. Also, by the way, it has to do with what happened to the United States. You can see the U.S. right here tying Wales yesterday.
Why is that a problem? Well, because everyone thinks England is the best team of the group, and unless the USA beat Wales, no one thinks or a lot of people don't think they would have the points to go onto the next stage. But we'll see. We just don't know yet. That's why they play the games.
This, by the way, is the U.S. team. This picture taken before the game against Wales. Enough of them were smiling here. I'm not sure they would've been smiling after the game because the one-one tie largely a disappointment for them. You can see the next games for the U.S. team, the big one is Friday at 2 p.m. against England, one of the best teams in the world. I will say the United States beat England in the revolution.
So, there is a history of beating England at stuff, so maybe that will be repeated here, but most people don't expect the U.S. to win this game. That would make the game against Iran. An absolute must win if the U.S. has any chance of advancing to the next round.
And for soccer fans like me, we've been waiting for this for eight years. The U.S. did not qualify for the World Cup four years ago. So, for eight years we have been waiting for this, and now we basically have two games by Monday. At 2 p.m. we will know whether our dreams have come true or whether or not they're simply shattered. Alisyn?
CAMEROTA: All right, back with me now Errol Louis, Al Franken, and suddenly John Berman. How did you get here so fast?
BERMAN: Fleet to foot.
CAMEROTA: Wow. Wow. That was great, John. You made us all smarter. That wasn't just a sports lesson, it was a history lesson, which I appreciate, but you didn't answer the most important question. Which player was Shakira's boyfriend?
BERMAN: He -- Pique who played for --
CAMEROTA: Yes, where's he?
BERMAN: -- Spain but he's not on the team. CAMEROTA: He is not.
BERMAN: This time around.
CAMEROTA: No. Then I'm suddenly not interested in any of this.
BERMAN: No, I'm sorry about that.
CAMEROTA: But you did tell me Catherine Zeta.
BERMAN: Catherine Zeta Jones is Welsh.
BERMAN: A lot of people -- a lot of -- Wales is confusing to a lot of people because it's part of the United Kingdom, but it plays as its own country in the World Cup. So, I often tell people who are trying to understand, Catherine Zeta Jones. It helps.
CAMEROTA: It helped me a lot.
CAMEROTA: Senator, are you following this with rap attention?
CAMEROTA: No, you're not.
FRANKEN: I -- it's a great sport.
FRANKEN: It is. It's the world. Very, very popular sport --
CAMEROTA: Yes, I feel it.
FRANKEN: -- in the world.
CAMEROTA: I feel what you're saying.
FRANKEN: I played soccer in high school but --
CAMEROTA: You should like it then.
FRANKEN: I should. We are terrible. We were, I mean, this is in, I graduated high school in 1969. We did not know how to play soccer in 1969 in America.
CAMEROTA: How did you play it?
FRANKEN: We, I just kicked this. I was a fullback, which is defense. I just kicked it as far as I could, every time. I just kicked it as far as I could. WALSH: And look where you're now.
CAMEROTA: Look where -- and look where you are now.
FRANKEN: Yes. Look where I am now.
CAMEROTA: Errol, forgetting the sport aspect of this for a moment, in terms of the controversies, has it been worth it to have it in Qatar?
LOUIS: I think so.
CAMEROTA: And why?
LOUIS: Just from an educational standpoint. I mean, listen, you come to appreciate your freedoms when you see other people who don't have them. So, when you find out, you know, layer after layer that there's no freedom of speech. If you criticize the government, you can be in prison. There's no freedom of religion. You are not allowed to practice your religion except in a designated area in Qatar.
There's, you know, you are not allowed to come in with alcohol or pork. You can't bring it into the country. It's a pretty rough place. It's a pretty sort of an old school, if you want to call it that, or pre-modern, almost frankly. As far as the Sharia law, the --
CAMEROTA: And all the LGBTQ --
LOUIS: -- restrictions.
CAMEROTA: The restrictions that we're seeing play out here.
LOUIS: Conversion therapy, floggings. I mean, it's a pretty brutal system to somebody who's familiar with how the freedoms that we take for granted in this country. And so, for that reason alone, it's really interesting to see how other people are living. Does that mean we should have not gone there to play? Does it mean that people should shun this nation?
Well, when you start seeing the other countries out there that also have these kind of restrictions, it makes you realize that the freedoms that we take for granted are really, really.
CAMEROTA: Leave it to Errol to give us the silver lining on all of this, and I really appreciate that. I think that's true. It has all come to the fore. We've been talking about it now for a week in a way that we wouldn't have been.
BERMAN: Look, and like Qatar spent a lot of money to get the World Cup there because it wanted it to be, it's coming out party on the world stage and they may be getting the opposite of what they were after.
FRANKEN: The treatment of foreign workers there is just, that's an under told story. BERMAN: Yes. No, it's something that people are, Grant Wahl, again,
our friend who was over there doing reporting, did a whole expose on this where I talked to them undercover. It's really shocking. It's really shocking. The really, hundreds of thousands of workers brought in to do the work and how they're treated.
FRANKEN: And what about the corruption for FIFA? Well, how did they choose Qatar?
BERMAN: Well, there have been all kinds of reports on this. It, you know, it's the money. I mean, there were -- there were accusations of flat-out bribery in some cases to get these World Cups. This one is in Qatar. Four years ago, it was in Russia.
BERMAN: So, not a great record when it comes to things like, you know --
CAMEROTA: Next one in the U.S.
BERMAN: The U.S. which hopefully would be vastly different.
CAMEROTA: Yes. Right.
BERMAN: That was after everything was exposed is when the U.S. one was awarded.
CAMEROTA: All right. Thank you for the lesson. Really interesting.
BERMAN: Nice to see you all.
CAMEROTA: You too. All right. The Supreme Court says the House can get Donald Trump's tax returns. But at a time when everything is so polarized, how much faith should Americans have in the Supreme Court. We talk about that next.
CAMEROTA: The Supreme Court is in the news tonight after granting Congress access to Donald Trump's taxes, and the court is also the subject of one of Al Franken's podcast episodes. So, let's talk about it.
So, Al, you are talking about the legitimacy of the court on your podcast with Dahlia Lithwick who writes about the Supreme Court for Slate. And what's the gist of what we're about to hear?
FRANKEN: I think this is a conversation about when Clarence Thomas after Alito did Dobbs decision in his concurrence said that we should also revisit Griswold, birth control and Lawrence.
FRANKEN: And Obergefell. So same sex marriage, privacy and sex. He didn't do Loving. I think that's what we talk about, obviously. I think we joked about it. Dahlia is, writes about the Supreme Court for Slate and she's brilliant and I always have her on when we talk about the Supreme Court.
CAMEROTA: OK. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANKEN: You know, I mean, I noticed that Clarence Thomas said the silent part out loud. Gee, this decision opens up Griswold.
It also wouldn't it, Loving versus Virginia, right?
DAHLIA LITHWICK, WRITER, SLATE: Well, this was a tiny bit of a, like, Twitter freak out because everybody thought he was using it to get out of his own interracial marriage. And I think that's not quite correct.
FRANKEN: Well, she's in trouble.
LITHWICK: The other case she is in trouble. It would -- it would solve the problem.
FRANKEN: So, he could say, yes, not legal. It was not legal.
LITHWICK: The problem of Ginny, I think that he explicitly named the three cases he said that are on the table are Obergefell, which is marriage equality. Lawrence v. Texas, which is the same sex intimacy, the anti-sodomy law in Texas, and Griswold, which is contraception, the right to use contraception in your marriage. He didn't name Loving.
Well, Brett Kavanaugh like rings his hands in his concurrence and it's like, nobody worried. Nobody is coming for marriage equality. Nobody is coming to reinstate the Texas anti-sodomy laws. And of course --
FRANKEN: Well, you know, stare decisis is so important. I remember him saying that in his hearing.
LITHWICK: Well, I think that the tell is when they tell you, we're not coming for the next thing, you should know that they're coming for it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: That's chilling. So, what's your conclusion about where we are with the Supreme -- where the Supreme Court is now?
FRANKEN: Well, I think it's an illegitimate court. I was there when they didn't take up Merrick Garland and when they didn't, remember, when they didn't take them up, they said, it's an election year. And they decided -- they said it was a kind precedent. It wasn't. That never happened before.
And then, of course, you know, four years later when we have Coney Barrett when Ruth Bader Ginsburg guys in late September, they write, they -- and Coney Barrett is sworn in like eight days before.
CAMEROTA: And that's what makes it illegitimate?
FRANKEN: Yes. That's two stolen seats in my mind. And you know, and they've changed their -- they lie about it all the time. This is kind of what they do. That's what it was, as McConnell said, well, we're short been from votes cast from New Hampshire. Remember he said that and then -- and then --
CAMEROTA: Marveling at your impression. Yes.
FRANKEN: Well, and then, Coney Barrett, boom.
FRANKEN: And you remember Lindsey Graham saying, like, if a seat comes open in 2020 --
FRANKEN: -- I will, we will not take up a nominee. And you can keep the tape.
FRANKEN: Remember I said that?
CAMEROTA: I remember it. I mean, I remember all those imaginations, but in terms of the decisions they're making, obviously they overturned Roe versus Wade, but then they do something like allow Donald Trump's taxes to be seen by Congress. And then that makes people think, OK, maybe they're not all Trump appointees.
FRANKEN: OK. I mean, but kind of was a no brainer. And it's more about fulfilling this conservative, fundamentalist Christian kind of agenda. And that's why Trump won the election in '16 when he said, I'm going to let the Federalist Society pick the --
FRANKEN: -- pick the justices.
CAMEROTA: Pick these nominees. Yes.
FRANKEN: And that's exactly what he did.
BERMAN: I'm curious what you think the fix is though. If, for people who agree with you when you bring this up, how would you now fix it? Is it -- is it packing the court? Is it term limits for the justices? Do you think any of those are actually within reach?
FRANKEN: No. I mean the term limits is a elegant solution, I think, which is given 18-year term limits, every president gets a 0.2. But, if you did that, that would be a slow walk to correcting the illegitimacy of the court right now. Now, there is another way to go, which is if it turns out, if we can prove that Alito leaked these things, his own opinion, and he leaked Hobby Lobby, which is, someone who's accusing him of maybe we could get rid of him. That'd be fun.
LOUIS: It's interesting that, even bringing up these kinds of questions I think does affect the justices. They act as if they're, you know, completely removed. They don't care what any of us think. That's why they have lifetime tenure. But the reality is they do care what the public thinks. They don't want to be seen as a bunch of partisan hacks. They've --
FRANKEN: That's why Coney Barrett went to the McConnell Center to make the speech about how they're not partisan.
LOUIS: Well, that's right. I mean, and --
BERMAN: Well, the Democrats have gone to the McConnell Center also.
BERMAN: Including Joe Biden has gone to the McConnell Center.
FRANKEN: But why go to the McConnell Center when you're making the point that we're not partisan, when he seated her nine days before the election.
FRANKEN: And on the principle, you can't have a -- you can't have a -- you can't --
CAMEROTA: Yes, of course.
FRANKEN: -- nominating hearing for Garland.
CAMEROTA: Right. The double standard was glaring.
FRANKEN: Because people have already voted her in --
CAMEROTA: But is your point that it does affect them and that they then reign themselves that don't want to be seen that way. And so, they self-police.
LOUIS: Yes. I mean the point being people should speak out. If you want to go in march, you want to write a letter, you want to complain, you want to get on television and say, we, we think you're illegitimate. I think people should absolutely do that. They have to --
FRANKEN: Where could I do that?
LOUIS: They have to know where -- they have to know where their limits are and that the public is watching what they do. And that things like some of the questions that have been raised about Ginni Thomas, Justice Thomas's wife, and her involvement in politics and what she might have done in and around January 6.
Those are perfectly legitimate questions. If they want to sort of, play this aggressive kind of conservative legal politics, they should expect some pushback.
BERMAN: You know what? They should also stop doing their jobs in secret. They should put cameras maybe in the Supreme Court so the American people can see what's going ugly in there --
CAMEROTA: I'd like that.
BERMAN: -- and then make up their own minds about what's happening.
CAMEROTA: That's a great idea. John, you knew the solution. You were just baiting everybody. You already had a solution suggested. All right, gentlemen, thank you very much for all of that.
There's a big development in a story that we brought you last week. Three employees of the sheriff's office in Camden County, Georgia have been arrested in connection with the beating of a detainee while in custody. So, we're going to explain the latest for you, next.
CAMEROTA: New developments tonight in a story that we've been following. Three employees of the Camden County Georgia Sheriff's office have been arrested and charged with felonies in connection with the beating of a detainee while in custody. You may have seen this very disturbing video of sheriff's office employees attacking 41-year- old Jarrett Hobbs in his cell.
We warn you, this is hard to watch. The first video provided to CNN by Hobbs' attorney Harry Daniels, shows the men entering and beating Hobbs and wrestling him to the ground. In the second video released by his attorneys, the men are seen dragging Hobbs out of the cell where the beating continues. It's not clear what preceded these two videos.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation says their investigation is ongoing and they will determine if the two other employees that you see in the that video will also be charge.
Well, the community of Colorado Springs devastated over the mass shooting at that LGBTQ nightclub and wondering if more could have been done to stop it.
So, I'll speak with a friend of Kelly Loving. She was one of the victims, and this friend spoke with Kelly just moments before the attack.