Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

Venezuela Swears in Maduro for His Third Term; U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on TikTok Ban. Aired 10:25-11a ET

Aired January 10, 2025 - 10:25   ET

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

[10:26:18]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: You've been watching CNN's special coverage of the sentencing of Donald Trump. We're also keeping a

very close eye on developments at the U.S. Supreme Court this hour, where arguments are now underway in a battle over whether or not to stop a

controversial ban on TikTok. More on that is coming up.

First, though, uncertainty and fear in Venezuela as the country swears in Nicolas Maduro for a third term as president there. That inauguration

happened just moments ago in Caracas, and Mr. Maduro is speaking, as we speak. A diplomat tells CNN there is fear on the streets of the capital as

Venezuelans brace for another expected wave of repression from President Maduro. The opposition says the winner of last year's election was Edmundo

Gonzalez, and it isn't backing down from its claim that the government's results were false.

Well, let's get you to Stefano Pozzebon, who is in neighboring Colombia, a country that has not -- has formally not recognized the election of Maduro.

Stefano joining us now from the capital there, Bogota.

And we'll talk about Colombia's position on that in a moment. Right now, we are hearing from Maduro, and as I understand it, he's just had a standing

ovation from the room of those who are listening to his speech in Caracas. What is he saying at what is this pivotal moment?

STEFANO POZZEBON, JOURNALIST: Well, what Maduro is saying was, is what was expected of him. He is not standing down. He's not giving in an inch to the

international outcry and all the controversy related to this election. He is there in the national assembly, together with the heads of the armed

forces, which is the real bulk of his power, and the few allies that are remained, the president of Cuba, the president of Nicaragua, an envoy from

Russia and Turkey.

But many, many countries in Latin America, including countries that have tried time and again to mediate for a peaceful solution to the Venezuelan

political and humanitarian crisis, just Colombia and Brazil, have only allowed for a small -- for their local ambassadors to present, to be part

of this ceremony and have not sent any high level delegation to Caracas. It's a sign that the tensions are growing, that the temperature is

escalating rapidly in Caracas, as Maduro goes ahead.

He's almost steamrolling his inauguration, which, by the way, was brought forward a few hours. The president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, arrived and

jumped into the scene almost as Maduro was commencing his speech. He completely missed out the whole, putting on the presidential stash and the

swearing in ceremony because Maduro pulled forward the ceremony itself.

This, of course, it's now a big slap in the face to the rest of the Western community. The European Union, for example, today announced a new sanctions

or -- sorry, the sanctions were announced a few months ago, but now they have taken place with Maduro beginning his new term as president. And we

understand that as early as today, the White House will issue a reaction.

So we'll bring that to you as soon as possible, Becky. But what remains to be seen is what happens in Caracas. We haven't seen Maria Corina Machado,

the main leader of the opposition inside the country, inside Venezuela, since yesterday afternoon.

ANDERSON: Yes.

POZZEBON: Who was briefly detained or attacked by government supporters. She said she was free and she will address her supporters today.

[10:30:02]

A lot of people looking at what she will do next and a lot of people looking at what Gonzalez would do next because he had been saying for weeks

that he was intending to go to Caracas to prevent what we just saw from happening. And now what is he going to do?

Becky, many questions open.

ANDERSON: So we're looking at a live pictures coming from the national assembly, a very animated Maduro, it has to be said, in front of a room

full of supporters and allies as you rightly point out.

Venezuela closing the border with neighboring Colombia earlier. And that was in response, as we understand it, to the decision by Colombia's

government to formally not recognize the result of these elections. So the question is, what happens next, Stefano?

POZZEBON: Yes, what happens next? Is there a mediation even possible now because no government tried to mediate between the Venezuelan opposition

and the government, between Maduro and the rest of the international community like Colombia? It was only the day before yesterday, on

Wednesday, that Gustavo Petro personally said that he was not recognizing the results of the election and criticized the human rights crackdown that

is going on right now in Caracas, with many people being put behind bars as we speak.

Late yesterday night, on Thursday night, the Colombian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that they would not recognize the results of the

elections so they will not recognize Maduro's rule or claim, legitimate claim, to the presidency. But they would still intend to send an ambassador

and to -- and they pledged to keep the border open.

This border is a massive lifeline for millions of people between Venezuela and Colombia, and it's where a lot of the economy between these two

countries takes place every single day. So both leaders know that it will create enormous, not just diplomatic, but economic repercussions, this

decision from Caracas to close the border. In fact Maduro says that they're closing the border now, citing an international conspiracy is a big slap in

the face of Petro, who tried almost more than anybody else to mediate, to try to find a solution.

At some point he even envisioned the possibility of doing a referendum on Maduro's rule rather than an election because the election was not deemed

to be fair with so many opposition leaders barred from running, among them Maria Corina Machado. All of those efforts, all of those mediation efforts

went to nothing. Maduro went ahead with his inauguration six months, almost six months after this election.

We're still waiting to hear from the electoral authorities in Venezuela to see the audited numbers that they say gave Maduro the presidency, the

victory. We haven't seen any of them as members of the press who cover Venezuela. We have seen a lot of the tallies published by the opposition,

and we know from international observers that those tallies are believed to be legitimate. However, it seems now the force is prevailing in Caracas and

it's a very dark times.

And just before you let me go, Becky, this also, of course, is a direct challenge to Donald Trump and to what Donald Trump would do as soon as he

takes office in a couple of weeks' time because we've seen yesterday Donald Trump taking a position, calling Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo Gonzalez

freedom fighters defending democracy in Venezuela.

Well, now, the Biden administration tried for the last four years a policy of engagement with Maduro that led to nothing, that failed. Maduro went

ahead despite the outcry. What Trump does now is key for the entire region here in Latin America -- Becky.

ANDERSON: Fascinating. Stefano, always a pleasure. Thank you very much indeed.

We are going to take a very quick break at this point. Stay with us. Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:36:14]

ANDERSON: Welcome back. You're watching CONNECT THE WORLD. I'm Becky Anderson, and wherever you are watching, you are more than welcome.

Let's get back to our other breaking news this hour. And it is a busy couple of hours in the news cycle out of the United States. Very

specifically a ban on TikTok in the U.S. is set to take effect just nine days from now, the day before Donald Trump's inauguration, on January 19th.

So the clock is ticking. This is a case that pits national security concerns against the protection of free speech.

TikTok and the creators that use the platform are arguing that fears of Chinese influence and data collection are speculative. If the court does

not intervene, and if TikTok's Chinese owner doesn't divest the company or sell it by January 19th, the app will be shut down in the United States.

Well, Donald Trump, who takes office, of course, on January 20th, has asked the court to hit pause on that deadline so that he can negotiate that.

We've got some audio from the Supreme Court as these cases are being discussed. Let's just listen in.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I've never said anything like that. You know, let's put aside the -- your argument that this is facially

content based. It seems to me that your stronger argument, or at least the one that most interested me, was this argument of, look, if the government

is doing something specifically for the purpose of changing the content that people see, that has to be subject to strict scrutiny. But I don't see

that as affecting TikTok, as opposed to as affecting ByteDance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, no, no, I very much do see it as affecting TikTok because they choose this algorithm because it reflects the mix of content.

The government's fear is that China could come in and pressure TikTok through ByteDance to TikTok to alter that mix of content to make it too

pro-Chinese or too anti-American. That is very much directly a content based charge straight at TikTok. The other point I would like to --

KAGAN: I hear you that it might very well have that effect. I guess what I'm suggesting is that the law is only targeted at this foreign

corporation, which doesn't have First Amendment rights. Whatever effect it has, it has. You know, maybe ByteDance will figure out a way to like put

this on open source, and then TikTok will be able to use the app.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, Your Honor, if I could take that on directly, because to the -- I think TikTok has First Amendment rights to the extent

ByteDance is speaking in the United States. It, I believe, has First Amendment rights. If you conclude that neither has First Amendment rights,

then surely the creators have First Amendment rights. But if you take a step back, what their position is, is that none of these entities -- this

is the universe of entities affected by this law.

None of these entities have the authority to assert First Amendment rights, which means that the government really could come in and say, I'm going to

shut down TikTok because it's too pro-Republican or too pro-Democrat, or won't disseminate the speech I want, and that would get no First Amendment

scrutiny by anybody. That cannot possibly be the case. Yet that is the effect of their position.

The last point I'd like to emphasize, though, is this law, like the "Playboy" case, like the Hobby Lobby case, has built within it a less

restrictive of alternative, which is the general provision, by definition designed to protect against the very harm the government is identifying.

Supposed New York state passing asbestos abatement law. They say these types of buildings have to abate asbestos.

[10:40:05]

In addition, "New York Times," you have to abate asbestos in your building. And they say there are two reasons for this. One, we want to abate

asbestos. Two, we hate "The New York Times" editorial page. Surely, at the very least, what you're going to say is you can't target "The New York

Times" directly. What you can do is throw them into the general process.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Thank you, Counsel.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We think that's the minimum that should be done here.

ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel. We've been talking about connection between the regulation of TikTok and the burden on expressive conduct. And your

basic position is that interfering with the ownership of TikTok constitutes a direct regulation of the expressive conduct of other people.

What is your best example in our precedent of a situation where regulation of corporate structure or something else has been treated as a direct

regulation of expressive conduct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The regulation of a corporate structure as a --

ROBERTS: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your Honor, I don't have a case in my fingertips. I can consult and come back --

ROBERTS: Well, I don't have one at my fingertips or any other --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rebuttal, but I think it's quite clear, though, that if you're saying to a company, you have to stop talking unless somebody else

does something and that's imposed by the force of law, it directly affects that company's speech.

ROBERTS: Well, that's -- it's, again, I don't -- I don't know if it's directly affecting the company speech or the speech of third parties. And

I'm not sure what, you know, where your emphasis is. But again, I'm not sure there's another case where we've said that regulating a company has --

should be -- others' expression should be treated as direct imposition on their speech in terms of the standard of review, for example, when it's

based on derivative regulation of corporate structure of somebody else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, Your Honor, I think that it's -- I would concede that this is a pretty unprecedented case. I'm not aware of any time in

American history where the Congress has tried to shut down a major speech platform. But I think that if a law imposes a direct regulation on a third

party, that in turn results in shutting down somebody else's speech, and they do it for content based, viewpoint based reasons, and in particular on

this record, because the speaker that is ultimately being shut down, they don't like the speech of that particular platform. that's a real problem.

ROBERTS: So it may be a real problem or may not, but I just am wondering if there's any precedent where we have that same connection and that it

affects the standard of review, for example, you would treat it as a direct restriction on expression. Even the only thing the law does is say in this

case somebody other than the Chinese government has to own.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So we don't have any direct precedent along the lines that you're citing. But we do have precedents. We have cases like Arcara.

And what Arcara says is, if the law is totally speech neutral, then that's one thing. We have cases like O'Brien, which say if the law doesn't care

about speech but happens to draw in speech, that's another thing. Both of those cases made clear, however, is that when the law is concerned with the

content of the speech, when the justification is based on the content of the speech, that's cases like read two, then you do trigger strict

scrutiny.

ROBERTS: So then I think your argument comes down to, is this direct concern with speech, or is it concerned with the potential for Chinese

interference with the level of interference indirectly? In other words, they're not coming back. The Chinese government -- TikTok doesn't care what

the people are saying on TikTok. That's not the concern. The concern is that they are regulating a particular channel of communication.

And I just wonder if there's any precedent for that type of thing. They're not saying we're going to restrict this content and that content, but not

this. They're just saying we're going to be in a position where we can control what happens, whether it's based on the expression, whether it's

based on anything else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, Your Honor, I disagree. And I think if you take a step back and look at this record, I think it is quite clear that it is

focused on both current and potential future content on TikTok. TikTok Incorporated. Here, you don't have just an act that is based on speakers

and speech. It's triggered by speech. It's focused on a single speech or TikTok -- speak or TikTok Incorporated.

ROBERTS: Justice Thomas? Justice Alito?

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO, U.S. SUPREME COURT: What if Congress -- if there were nothing in this act about content moderation or covert manipulation? What

if it was just about preventing what Congress viewed as an enormously powerful, popular application from gathering an arsenal of information

about American citizens, and they said this is the worst offender, and we're going to require divestiture by this offender?

[10:45:11]

Would there be a First Amendment problem there? And if you think there would be, what would the level of scrutiny be?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, there would be a First Amendment problem. If you had a law like this that was only focused on speakers, those who use user

generated content other than product, travel or business.

ALITO: Well, Congress concludes that this particular entity is the worst. This is the worst offender, and it happens to be an entity that is involved

with speech.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If all you have -- so I want to make sure I understand the hypothetical. The only provision you have is one that says this company

has to shut down because of data security.

ALITO: Right. Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would have a different set of arguments. I think it would still implicate the First Amendment, particularly where you have

strong evidence that they were being targeted in part at least because of their speakers and speech. Suppose Congress passed the law that you

possibly --

ALITO: Well, you're changing that. You're changing the hypothetical by injecting congressional concern about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, well, I'll put that to the side.

ALITO: So what would your argument be? It would be an equal protection argument?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no. I'd still be saying --

ALITO: Based on the --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd still be saying that Arcara itself makes clear that where a law disproportionately burdens just the speaker, we have to subject

that to scrutiny to suss it out, to suss out whether the asserted interest is the actual interest. There the asserted interest is in data security. I

think I would have a couple of arguments under whatever form of scrutiny you want to apply, whether it is strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny

in that context.

I would say first that that law is dramatically underinclusive because it categorically exempts e-commerce apps that this record shows have

comparable ties to China.

ALITO: All right. You say -- I don't want to prolong this too much. You say this is not like Arcara. I think primarily because you say that, the

divestiture requires the new company to cease using the algorithm, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I think it's not like Arcara for a much more fundamental sense. Arcara involved a totally speech neutral law. It didn't

go after speakers at all. If you had a law in Arcara that said we're going to prohibit prostitution in bookstores only, then I think that Arcara would

have come out differently. There would have at least been, you know, some kind of intermediate scrutiny, potentially strict --

ALITO: All right, well --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the law that I think is your hypothetical --

ALITO: You continue to walk away from the hypothetical for the purposes of narrowing in on what you're on your argument is. I understood you to say

that this -- that would not be a solution to the problem because one of Congress' motivations was the content, was based on the content of TikTok.

Am I wrong in that? Did I read your argument incorrectly?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think that -- I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I certainly think that because one of the motivations

was content, that is an enormously important fact. I was trying to answer your hypothetical where we were trying to take that out of the mix. And the

reason why Arcara is different is because Arcara didn't just --

ANDERSON: Well, you are listening to oral arguments on the TikTok ban at the Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court. The players there today, the

justices, including the chief justice, of course, and then a former solicitor general under Trump on behalf of TikTok, Noel Francisco, Jeffrey

Fisher, and the U.S. solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar.

We will get back to that. This is an incredibly important case. The ban on TikTok is supposed to go into effect on the 19th of January. That's a day

before the inauguration of Donald Trump, who has asked at this point for a stay by the Supreme Court on that. We'll get back to that. It's an

important case.

We're going to take a very short break. Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:51:13]

ANDERSON: Well, a ban on TikTok in the United States is set to take effect just nine days from now. U.S. Supreme Court justices have been hearing oral

arguments on the ban.

To discuss all of this, we want to bring in the director for the Center on Technology Policy at New York University. That is Scott Brennen. And Marc

Stewart, my colleague joining us from Beijing for a view from China.

Let me start with you, Scott, and thank you, Marc, for joining us as well. You've been listening in to the line of questioning, the oral arguments

that we are hearing in the Supreme Court as we speak. What did you read into the questions that are being asked by the justices on what is

ultimately by the company a First Amendment challenge to this ban? Just lay it out for us, if you will.

SCOTT BABWAH BRENNEN, DIRECTOR, CENTER ON TECHNOLOGY POLICY, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Sure. Yes. Well, thank you so much. Yes, it's fun to talk about

this as the oral arguments are actually going on. So it's sort of hard to really get a sense of how the court is thinking about this. But I'll say,

you know, in the first 50 minutes they seem pretty skeptical about TikTok's position and seemed pretty supportive of the law.

And I think a lot of analysts coming into the arguments had expected the Supreme Court to ultimately uphold the law. We saw a lot of concern about -

- what First Amendment rights TikTok has. Is it really a, you know, a U.S. company? Does the law really just apply to ByteDance, a Chinese owned

company?

A lot of discussion about the appropriate level of scrutiny, which is basically how we should judge if the law passes constitutional muster. And

we saw a lot of discussion about what exactly is the speech that matters here. What exactly is TikTok speech that is protected? Is it just the

algorithmic curation of content? Is there a compelling government interest there? So there's a -- you know, it's a complicated case. There's a lot

going on.

ANDERSON: Yes, there is. And ultimately it sort of comes down to the government's case, which is mostly about national security, the data

collection, and the worries and concerns they have by this Chinese-owned company at present. And then the content creators and TikTok's argument

this is an infringement of the freedom of speech.

Marc, let's bring you in. China or ByteDance, U.S. suggesting ByteDance, owned by the Chinese government. ByteDance does not want to sell or divest

TikTok. How closely is Beijing watching this case?

MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Beijing is no question following this closely. And from an optics standpoint, Becky, I think for the moment,

Beijing has to be happy in the sense that the CEO of ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, met with the president-elect not too long ago in Mar-a-

Lago. But there are still all of these lingering questions. One question, which I have been asking the Chinese government, is it advising ByteDance,

the parent company of TikTok, about how to proceed in all of this?

Today, at a press conference, when I asked that question, no clear answer. In fact, I was referred to past responses saying that the U.S. doesn't

support free markets and that these national security concerns, there's no evidence there.

One person who I have talked about this issue with here in China is actually the U.S. ambassador to China. We talked about many of these

issues. Let me share with you just part of my conversation with U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns.

[10:55:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEWART: How much influence does Beijing have in this debate?

NICHOLAS BURNS, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CHINA: We make the assumption, I certainly do as ambassador here, that the Chinese government has ultimate,

complete authority and access to convince a state enterprise here in China or a private company to do what they wish them to do. This is an

authoritarian government in an authoritarian environment. So that is an issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEWART: So some strong words from the U.S. ambassador. We have talked a lot about free speech issues, national security issues.

But, Becky, I just want to throw one other issue on the table. That is finances. TikTok has now introduced a shopping aspect to its app in the

U.S. It's something that we've seen here in China, and the money making potential, it is just tremendous.

ANDERSON: It's fascinating, isn't it? And it is ongoing. It has only just started. These are the oral arguments in what are effectively two cases.

One brought by the company, the other by creators on TikTok. Will the company be banned or be forced to sell TikTok or not? This is the case in

front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

That is it for us. Thank you both for joining us on CONNECT THE WORLD.

Viewers, please stay with CNN. This story continues and we will continue to cover it. NEWSROOM is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END