Return to Transcripts main page

First Move with Julia Chatterley

Supreme Court Controversy; Supreme Court Ruling On Trump's And Future President's Immunity; Supreme Court: Presidents Have Immunity For "Official Acts"; Right-Wing Parties Lead France's First Round Of Parliamentary Elections; French Parliamentary Elections; Boeing's Plea Deal To Avoid Criminal Trial; Biden Working To Save Campaign; Paradromics Set To Begin Brain Implant Device Trials; Emotion Running High At Europe 2024. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 01, 2024 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Whether he will take questions, you should stay tuned to CNN for that. And until then, you can follow me on

Facebook, Instagram, Fred's, X formerly known as Twitter on the TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on X @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an

episode of the lead, you can listen to the show, all two hours, whence you get your podcasts.

And the news continues on CNN with Pamela Brown in for Wolf Blitzer, but still right next door in a place I like to call "The Situation Room." I'll

see you tomorrow.

JULIA CHATTERLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: It's 6:00 a. m. in Beijing, midnight in Paris, and 6:00 p. m. here in New York. I'm Julia Chatterley,

and wherever you are in the world, this is your "First Move."

And a warm welcome to "First Move," as always. And here's today's Need to Know. Court controversy. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump

and future presidents have some immunity from prosecution.

French fright. A round one victory to the far-right National Rally leaves rival parties looking to block them in this weekend's decisive vote.

Boeing backlash. The company set to avoid a criminal trial over the two 737 MAX crashes, according to a lawyer for the victim's families. We'll speak

to a woman whose father died in the second crash.

And a brain chip breakthrough. A competitor to Elon Musk's Neuralink preparing to test on humans. That conversation and plenty more coming up.

But first, Supreme Court confusion. Donald Trump has the immunity for official acts he took while president. That's the ruling from the High

Court in a six to three decision. Now, it's up to a lower court to decide just what counts as official versus unofficial. The White House responding,

saying, "Nobody is above the law."

The decision is the latest blow to officials prosecuting Donald Trump. It's expected to further delay the federal trial he faces for allegedly trying

to overturn the 2020 election. Paula Reid has more on what today's ruling means.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Presidents have to be given total immunity. They have to be allowed to do

their job.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Supreme Court partially siding with Former President Donald Trump in his ongoing

January 6th case, ruling that former presidents are entitled to some immunity from prosecution for official actions, but not for private

conduct.

In the 6-3 opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, at least with respect to the president's exercise of his core constitutional

powers, this immunity must be absolute. The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official.

The president is not above the law.

The high court, though, leaving it up to lower courts to determine which actions are official and therefore immune. Roberts writing, other

allegations, such as those involving Trump's interactions with the vice president, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments

to the general public, present more difficult questions.

Meaning, District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump's January 6th case, will need to decide whether Trump's pressure campaign to

get Vice President Pence --

TRUMP: If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.

REID (voice-over): -- Georgia state officials --

TRUMP: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have, because we won the state.

REID (voice-over): -- and others to overturn the 2020 election results were official acts. Trump celebrating the decision on social media, posting, big

win for our constitution and democracy. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting from the majority opinion, writing, the relationship between the president

and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.

Something she and other liberal justices warned about during oral arguments in April.

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into you know, the seat of

criminal activity in this country.

REID (voice-over): The decision today likely to hamstring Special Counsel Jack Smith's election subversion case.

[18:05:00]

JACK SMITH, SPECIAL COUNSEL: Charging Donald J. Trump with to defraud the United States.

REID (voice-over): Roberts making clear in his majority opinion that Trump's discussions with Justice Department officials and his official

conversations with the then-vice president are immune. And in another blow for Smith, Roberts says Trump's official acts cannot be considered even as

evidence at trial. A trial in this case, though, now highly unlikely before the November election.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHATTERLEY: And we're joined now by former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi. Gene, great to have you with us. Can we both agree that actually no

president is blanket provided immunity and not a king above the law, but it does create a very -- a difficult gray area over what's core official acts

as a president, what's official acts as a president, which may or may not get immunity, and then, there's the unofficial or the personal behavior.

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Julia, you didn't need me on to do that. You did a great job summarizing the three buckets. You have the core

constitutional duties of a president, total immunity. So, that's a win for Mr. Trump, but it's only limited to core duties.

The second bucket, the is unofficial acts that aren't core duties. There's a presumption, but that can be defeated by the prosecutor. And then, the

case is very clear that personal acts are not immune from anything. So, what we have here, it's not a total win for Mr. Trump, it's a partial win,

and it's not a total loss for Mr. Smith, Jack Smith, the prosecutor, but what it does do, it sends it back to the district court judge who is going

to have a Herculean task of having evidentiary hearings to determine which of the three buckets we're talking about with respect to the allegations in

the indictment.

Here's the bad news for Mr. Trump, though, Julia. This case may not be tried to a jury this year, but the bad news is you're going to have fulsome

and extensive evidentiary hearings to determine whether it's bucket one, two, or three that a particular allegation falls into. And that will

require evidence, testimony, and that'll be right before the election. That's not good news for Donald Trump.

CHATTERLEY: That's interesting. So, you think they'll get moving on that even if it doesn't come to any kind of trial point before the presidential

election, we will at least hear some form of proceedings and evidence heard as a result of that. The question, I guess, really, though, Gene, is if the

former president wins the presidential election, does all that become superfluous anyway, and all of this goes away?

ROSSI: Well, let me get to that last point you just brought up. If Donald Trump is re-elected, he can either pardon himself or most likely he'll

authorize his attorney general to dismiss the charges. And guess what's going to happen? If the Democrats take back the House of Representatives,

he will be impeached if he dismisses those two cases, the one down in Florida and the January 6th case in D.C.

But going back to your first part of your points, is I think the judge, the district court judge, is just salivating at setting a hearing date in

September or early October. She doesn't want to wait. And it'll give them 60 days. They've had discovery for months. So, this is the evidentiary

hearing, Julia, t's not the trial. So, you could see a one-week of hearings to determine which bucket these official acts or unofficial acts fall into.

CHATTERLEY: OK. So, forgive me for getting into the weeds here, but now, you're making the weeds important, particularly if we get these hearings

right before a presidential election. What Justice Roberts wrote was that the lower courts may not consider a former president's motive, which may

allow Trump's attorneys to argue that, look, he wasn't attempting to overturn an election in his favor at all.

If we go back to what we just let our viewers listen to, which was the former president saying, look, all I need is 11,780 votes, which is one

more than I have. Could they then argue on this basis that, look, you know, he wasn't trying to overturn an election or find votes where they didn't

exist, he was just making a point?

ROSSI: Well, I got to correct you a little bit.

CHATTERLEY: Please.

ROSSI: Motive is not relevant when you're looking at official acts, but that call that he made to the secretary of state, I would argue that was a

call that was personal. It had nothing to do with his official duties. He was calling basically to browbeat and have a secretary of state violate the

state law.

[18:10:00]

So, that conversation, that conversation that's recorded, that would definitely be evidence. But you're right, getting into the weeds, the

Supreme Court unnecessarily, in my view, had this evidentiary ruling that you can't go into the motive of the president. I think that was gratuitous.

It was unnecessary. And it's unfounded to make it so limited.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. And I'm happy to be corrected, particularly on a point like this, because actually I do think this is vitally important. If you

can't talk about the motive for doing something, then inference is not enough. Gene, great to have you. As always, sir. Thank you. Gene Rossi

there, former federal prosecutor.

ROSSI: Good to be back.

CHATTERLEY: All right. A hectic week ahead in France for campaigning and political deal making as the far-right National Rally takes the lead in

parliamentary elections. The results led to protests overnight in Paris. Centrists and the left are now scrambling ahead of the runoff vote this

weekend.

The once fringe National Rally led by Marine Le Pen could now be poised to assume power after getting 33 percent of the vote. Melissa Bell has more on

what this all means for France.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (VOICE-OVER): Jubilation mixed with disbelief. France's far-right supporters celebrating

their historic win. The long controversial party's lead in the first round of parliamentary elections, but that was hardly surprising given the

National Rally's victory in European elections last month.

HELENE CONWAY-MOURET, FRENCH SENATOR, SOCIALIST PARTY: When I saw the figures yesterday of people voting, I kind of felt, well, you know --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, because of high turnout.

CONWAY-MOURET: Yes. They do not want the extreme right. But in fact, it's a vote that has been constantly dated from the -- three weeks ago, the

European elections where we thought maybe it was just a message. No, it's not a message. It's an actual movement.

BELL (voice-over): Marine Le Pen's party held just 88 seats in parliament before Macron called the snap elections. Now, it leads the votes, securing

outright 38 seats in the first round, with projections showing that it leads the race in more than half of 501 seats that are up for grabs in the

second round.

The far-right now poised for a parliamentary majority with the remaining question of whether or not it will be absolute and with that, whether the

28-year-old Jordan Bardella will become the next prime minister.

JORDAN BARDELLA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RALLY PARTY (through translator): I'm the only one in this election who can talk about the substance and the day-

to-day concerns of the French people, purchasing power security and immigration.

BELL (voice-over): But it is on France's relationship with the rest of the world that some of the biggest questions arise in particular what a far-

right French government would mean for Europe and for Ukraine.

DONALD TUSK, POLISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): This is all really starting to smell of great danger, not only the results of the first round

of the French elections, but also the information about Russian influence and Russian services in many parts of the radical right in Europe.

BELL (voice-over): Long seen as a fringe party, considered too toxic by some to be electable, its move to center stage has led to calls for the

country to unite against it ahead of this Sunday's second round of voting, which will see an unprecedented number of races between three candidates,

representing the far-right, the left-wing new popular front alliance, which came second, and Emmanuel Macron's centrist Ensemble coalition.

Within that coalition, the Renaissance Party, eight years after it was created, looks set to be the main victim of an election its founder never

even had to call.

Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHATTERLEY: Now, the Caribbean is preparing for the worst due to Hurricane Beryl. It made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane on Monday. Officials in

Granada say 95 percent of the island has lost power after the storm unleashed heavy rain and violent winds. Beryl is the strongest hurricane to

hit the region this early into the season.

Chad Myers joins us now. Chad, that's a crucial point to make too, but first, what do we expect further from Beryl?

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Well, what we have now, Julia, is that the storm has moved away from the islands. Yes, we still have 50-kilometer per

hour winds, but we don't have the 240-kilometer per hour, 150-mile per hour winds that hit the islands earlier today. It has now moved out into the

open ocean. There's a lot of ocean out there and not much to hit just yet.

But this could still make an impact on Jamaica later in the week, maybe even the Dominican Republic and Haiti on those southern shores. Getting

dark on that last picture. So, I'll kind of show you the brighter picture here. There it is moving just right there through Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines just to the south of there.

[18:15:00]

We do know that there was an island right in the way, Curacao. It was hit with 150-mile per hour winds, 240 kilometers per hour from both directions,

because it went right through the middle of the eye. So, not only did it get wind from this direction on the front side of the eye, it got winds

from the other side from the south on the backside of the eye.

Notice though how close and how quickly this gets close to Jamaica in the cupping days. There's that little pink island because of the warnings here

in the watches. But this is what I'm concerned about is that if that takes a little jog and we get that cone more over Jamaica, there's nothing to

hold this back. Our temperatures are still in the 30s, when it comes to water in the 80s, Fahrenheit. And that's still going to cause a significant

amount of damage there.

We had Tropical Storm Chris. Might have missed this one, but we have a sea storm. The sea storm now just going to make rain for Mexico. But here, the

first named storm usually back in, you know, of course, June, July. But the third named storm, around August 3rd. The first major hurricane, around

September 1st. And on my watch, it's July 1st. That's two months ahead of time for the first major hurricane in the water. That's how warm the water

is. Climate change to blame. Julia.

CHATTERLEY: Wow. Two months early. Chad Myers. Thank you so much for that.

All right. Come up -- coming up first on "First Move" -- next on "First Move," forgive me, the latest action from the Euros. I'm getting

overexcited. Including a thrilling penalty shootout between Portugal and Slovenia.

Plus, a legal break for Boeing. Reports say the U.S. is offering the playmaker a plea deal to avoid a criminal trial. The firm taking new steps

to address its ongoing safety crisis. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move." U.S. stocks looking a bit spry on the first day of July. All that and more in today's "Money Move." Wall

Street ending higher across the board on the first trading day of the third quarter with tech leading the way. It's a holiday shortened trading week,

of course, but important jobs numbers in the United States will also be released on Friday.

Green arrows in Asia as well, despite fresh signs of economic weakness in Japan and in China. Chinese manufacturing activity contracting for the

second straight month. That's according to a survey that tracks mainly largest state-owned firms.

[18:20:00]

And across to Japan now, new numbers there showing economic weakness, at least compared to what we thought we saw in the first quarter. That means

the Bank of Japan rate hike now perhaps less likely in the near future.

And in other business news, shares of aerospace giant Boeing rising more than 2.5 percent on Monday. First, Boeing announced it will buy back

manufacturing partner Spirit AeroSystems to help address its ongoing safety issues. This brings key production back under Boeing's control. But I think

by far the bigger news today, reports suggesting Boeing may avoid a criminal trial in a case tied to the fatal crashes involving its 737 MAX

jets.

The two accidents in 2018 and 2019 took the lives of 346 people. Under a proposed agreement, Boeing would plead guilty to criminal charges and

reportedly pay a $240 million fine. The company would have to agree to safety improvements and government oversight as well, but the deal will

reportedly not force Boeing to admit that production problems led to those crashes.

Victims' families call the offer "a sweetheart deal." And they say a trial is the only way to hold Boeing accountable. Now, if Boeing accepts the

deal, a federal judge would still have to sign off on it. The Justice Department has declined to comment. We have not yet heard from Boeing.

Joining us now is Zipporah Kuria. She lost her father, Joseph, in a crash of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in 2019. Welcome to the show. And

first and foremost, we are very sorry for the loss, for you and for your family members too.

Can I just start by asking what you've heard from the Justice Department? Because I believe family members have been breached.

ZIPPORAH KURIA, DAUGHTER OF BOEING 737 CRASH VICTIM: Yes. So, a group of us who are obviously part of a suit with Paul Cassell had a meeting with the

Department of Justice yesterday, in which they informed us that they were going to offer Boeing a plea deal. And for us, the plea deal is just

basically an extension of the current DPA with some wording changed and-- but 95 percent is still the original agreement, which we deemed a slap on

the wrist. That's what we were told yesterday.

We then obviously asked, why not prosecute? Because that seems like the next logical set -- you know, step. But we're learning that when it comes

to you to the Department of Justice and U.S. lawmakers, common sense isn't quite common, because we don't understand and they couldn't answer the

question when we asked, why are you not prosecuting? Why are you offering a plea deal?

CHATTERLEY: Do you have a view on why, why it seems to be so difficult to get justice, I think, for your father and for the other victims and the

families that suffered as a result of this?

KURIA: I don't have any theories. I think, for me, it feels like just something that's completely utterly inhumane. 346 people died and they lost

their life. The fact that we're even talking about a fraud charge and not manslaughter or negligent wrongful death.

I lost my dad. He was cut into a thousand pieces in a field in Ethiopia. Far away from us, far away from our loved ones. I know parents who lost

their children. They'll never see them walk. They'll never see them graduate, go to college. They'll never walk their children down the aisle.

And we're talking and discussing a fraudulent charge. It doesn't make sense to me.

There is no conceivable place or reasoning behind this. I think as an international kind of citizen, my only understanding could be maybe it's

the fact that, you know, Boeing bankrolls, you know, America. I don't know what it is. Maybe because it's such a big contributor to the economy,

they're less likely to charge them.

Because it's ridiculous. Had this been somebody who walked down the street and shot my dad in the head, there would have been charges. This would be

murder. But unfortunately, it seems as though, for some reason, the Department of Justice is bent on, you know, prioritizing corporate -- you

know, corporate interests over public safety.

CHATTERLEY: We're showing pictures of him now.

KURIA: It doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make sense to us.

CHATTERLEY: I understand.

KURIA: Yes.

CHATTERLEY: We're showing pictures of him now. He was just 55 years old, I believe. And of course, this was now five years ago. And it's -- for some

respects, it feels like the time has flown, but I'm sure for you, you're living his loss every minute of every day. And I think that loss, everybody

would agree, was utterly needless. The question is, can it mean something? I think.

[18:25:00]

And at this moment, I feel like that's what you're fighting for. How do you stop that in some way feeling meaningless as well as needless?

KURIA: I think that we, as the families, have done our best to make sure that the death of our loved ones don't feel meaningless or needless in

trying to fight. But at every junction, we deal with the Department of Justice after lots of false reassurances that they're going to pursue what

is a semblance of justice for us. We're then told and their death is completely invalidated again and again.

This plea deal does not acknowledge us as victim. It does not factor us in. There isn't even room for restitution in this. This is something they

expect the families to continue fighting for, but they're supposed to be fighting for us. I think the only way this could be not seen as meaningless

is if this doesn't happen again. But when we fail to learn from history, when we fail to hold companies like Boeing accountable, these behaviors

continue, you know, costing lives.

And to be honest, I don't know if there's a way that we can make this not feel meaningless if this is how it's going to -- you know, the journey

continues on with the Department of Justice, because it's to say 346 people have died, and we're just going to look the other way.

CHATTERLEY: Zipporah, I know you were there in Washington when the Boeing CEO was testifying. Did you believe his assurances that they will change

things and that they will make things safer? Because the point that you made in your first answer is this is very similar to the promise that they

made the first time around. And again, they're almost being asked the same thing, which, I can only imagine how frustrating and painful that is for

you.

Do you trust now that that accountability, if not in terms of a criminal and legal case, what's being done now will force them to make people safe

and safer than they were in your father's case?

KURIA: Absolutely not. Not enough has been done to hold them accountable. So, I don't trust that they're going to change their behaviors.

Dave Calhoun sat there, you know, after it had been established that he makes $33 million a year, gave us a lot of I don't knows in regards to

what's going on at Boeing, and then turned around and said, he is proud of the safety record that Boeing holds while we were in there holding pictures

of our dead loved ones, which are Boeing safety record, because it's so safe that 346 people died.

And then on top of that, to say that they don't regret any of the decisions they've made thus far, I have no trust that Boeing are making any changes

to factor in any regard for human life. This is profit. Profit, profit, and profit. The fact that he's still pushing to gain that $30 million as his

exit, you know, bonus, it doesn't make any sense to me.

And I think it's reflective of the culture at Boeing. It's rotten to the core. And unless that core is ripped out by accountability, nothing is

going to change. Even this plea deal, it offers them the ability to choose their own independent monitors. And what got us in the situation to begin

with was allowing Boeing to self-regulate. And the only thing that we found when we allow them to self-regulate is they continue lying to us, and the

cost is families lining the ground graves with their dead ones, you know, with their loved ones.

I have no trust in this. I have no trust in the fact that the 737 MAX is as safe as they claim it is because it was flawed in design. There is no ounce

of hope for me in this company changing without any reformation and without any real accountability here.

CHATTERLEY: Zipporah, I wanted to ask you about your father, but you are so persuasive in the way that you speak. I sort of pushed it in terms of time.

So, I'm running out of it. But I'm sure -- and it depends on what your beliefs are, but I truly believe that he's looking down on you and must be

overwhelmingly proud of the woman you are today.

Just very briefly, who was your father? What should we know about him?

KURIA: Joseph Kuria Waithaka, I always smile when I speak about my dad and people find it strange because he's gone and they think I should be crying,

but my father was a semblance of security and joy and peace, and his only desire was only to help the people that were around him to elevate them.

[18:30:00]

He was as embarrassing as dad's come, but honestly, he was a force of nature. He was just almost ethereal, perfectly flawed, but he was always

there championing us and pushing us ahead and encourages -- encouraging us not to be silent and to always fight for something bigger than just us to

live for more than just us, to really champion legacy, because life is about the people that are coming behind us. It's not just about self-

indulgence.

He was one of the most selfless people. And in a way, I think if he had been given the opportunity to switch positions with anybody in the world,

he would have still taken his place on that seat to make sure that a world of difference is made from at least his death because his life changed so

much. So, many young people who found themselves on the wrong side of the law had so much to say when he died. People don't often praise their

probation officers, but Joseph Waithaka was made of a different cloth. He was a man of joy, peace. Yes.

CHATTERLEY: I'll add one more thing. He's also the father of a very powerful daughter, Zipporah.

KURIA: Thank you.

CHATTERLEY: So, we'll give him that too. It made me emotional. Thank you. And we'll stay in touch.

KURIA: Thank you.

CHATTERLEY: Keep fighting. Zipporah Kuria there. All right. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move" with more international headlines this hour. At least 39 people have lost their lives in Kenya's nationwide

protests, according to the country's National Commission on Human Rights. The commission accusing security forces of using excessive force against

demonstrators. Kenya has seen weeks of protests over a controversial tax bill. That bill was later withdrawn Ruto, but activists are planning to

take to the streets once again on Tuesday.

[18:35:00]

At least nine people are dead after a car struck a crowd of people in downtown Seoul on Monday. Four others are injured. Officials say the driver

was unconscious and a blood alcohol level test showed they were not under the influence. People are warning the casualty count may rise.

Donald Trump's former strategist, Steve Bannon, reported to a federal prison in Connecticut on Monday. He begins a four-month sentence for

defying a congressional subpoena. Bannon said he was proud to go to prison right before the start of his sentence.

A Chinese rocket crashed after being accidentally launched during a ground test on Sunday. The company behind the rocket, Space Pioneer, says it

separated from the test platform due to a connection failure. It fell into a hilly area in Central China. No one was hurt.

Joe Biden facing an uphill battle in the race for the White House as he seeks re-election in November. This after his disastrous debate performance

on Thursday. And a new poll from CBS News and YouGov shows that nearly three quarters of registered U.S. voters believe he should not run for re-

election.

The president's family disagrees. And in an interview with "Vogue," First Lady Jill Biden says they will "continue the fight and not let those 90

minutes define the four years he's been president." Senior White House correspondent MJ Lee has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm with Joe Biden.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's not about performance in terms of a debate, it's about performance in a presidency.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have confidence in Joe Biden. They think he's our strongest candidate.

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Democrats are in full crisis mode.

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Dealing with everything we have to do with -- look, if -- we finally beat Medicare.

LEE (voice-over): On the heels of President Biden's poor debate performance against Donald Trump, Democrats gravely concerned about what comes next for

their party.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): There are very honest and serious and rigorous conversations taking place at every level of our party.

LEE (voice-over): While the president and his campaign are fighting for survival.

JILL BIDEN, U.S. FIRST LADY: Joe, you did such a great job.

LEE (voice-over): Huddled at Camp David over the weekend, the president's family giving him their unequivocal support.

JILL BIDEN: There is no one that I would rather have sitting in the Oval Office right now than my husband.

LEE (voice-over): The first lady telling "Vogue" magazine that the family will not let those 90 minutes define the four years he's been president.

The Biden clan undeniably frustrated with the president's senior aides in the fallout of the CNN Debate and privately discussing whether any advisors

should be fired.

JOE BIDEN: Well, I don't speak as smoothly as I used to. I don't debate as well as I used to.

LEE (voice-over): Top campaign officials and party leaders fielding a flurry of worried phone calls and public criticism pouring in from

lawmakers, surrogates, and donors. But for now, insisting the president is staying put.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe Biden is not going to take himself out of this race, nor should he.

LEE (voice-over): But the next stretch of day is crucial for the president's political future. The Biden team is collecting and awaiting

polling and research to get a fuller sense of the post-debate damage. One Democratic congressman telling CNN that Congress is the party's so-called

firewall and suggesting that if data comes out showing Biden is not just going to lose the presidency, but he's going to lose the House, then the

dam will likely break, prompting Democratic officials to publicly call for a plan B.

JIM CLYBURN, NATIONAL CO-CHAIR, BIDEN CAMPAIGN: I do not believe that Joe Biden has a problem leading for the next four years because he's done a

great job of leading for the last three and a half years.

LEE (voice-over): Amid the panic, the campaign doing its best to spin last week's presidential debate to their advantage, namely pointing to the 90-

minute face off showing Donald Trump's true colors.

JOE BIDEN: I know I'm not a young man, but I know how to do this job. I know right from wrong. I know how to tell the truth. And I know like

millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back up.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHATTERLEY: All right. Coming up shortly, we're going to be discussing brain chip implants, and a technology that's soon to be tasted -- tested on

patients too. Stay with us. We're back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:42:04]

CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move." Now, it may sound like something from a science fiction movie, but cutting-edge technology powered by A.I.

may soon make it possible for victims of paralysis and other neurological disorders to communicate and lead more independent lives using brain

implants. that turn thoughts into text.

Now, Elon Musk's Neuralink company is taking its first steps towards its goal of merging man and machine. Earlier this year, it implanted a chip

into the brain of a quadriplegic man who is now able to control a computer using just his thoughts. And not far behind is Austin, Texas-based

Paradromics. It's set to begin trials of its brain implant device next year. It's announced on Monday that it will join a U.S. program to help

speed up the review process of its products. Paradromics hopes to begin selling its devices by the end of the decade.

And Matt Angle is the CEO and he joins us now. Matt, fantastic to have you on the show. Just let's take a step back. Give us the vision of

Paradromics.

MATT ANGLE, CEO, PARADROMICS: So, our mission at Paradromics is to transform untreatable medical conditions into solvable technology problems

using brain computer interfaces.

The first people to benefit from this technology will be people who have lost the ability to communicate because of severe paralysis. But the

expanse is much wider and it could be used to treat a number of different physical and mental health conditions.

CHATTERLEY: Why focus on the motor and the speech function first? Is it simply because we have the research and the science and, I guess, the

engineering actually to make it possible?

ANGLE: That is exactly why, because we know that it's possible and it's a place where we can have very, very high impact. The people who have lost

the ability to speak because of paralysis, it's extremely isolating and it's not just for them, but also for their family members. The ability to

communicate is essential, to be able to say I love you to a family member or to be able to communicate your own health care needs to your own doctor.

So, it's a place where we know that the technology can deliver an incredible outcome, and we know that that outcome will have a really high

impact.

CHATTERLEY: I mean, the brain, the brain is incredibly powerful. We know that. We have billions of neurons. I guess individually, though, they're

less powerful than the computer chips that we can now create. Just talk to us about the device itself. I believe it's wireless. It doesn't require

charging. And how risky is the process of even implanting it? Because I think a lot of people hear about this, and their initial reaction is, ugh.

ANGLE: I love the way that you introduce that, because one of the most important things to understand about brain computer interfaces is that the

brain is made of a lot of neurons and individual neurons are actually very slow.

And so, when we think about what a revolution brain computer interface technology could mean, it's really interesting to contrast it to what

happened in microprocessors and internet.

[18:45:00]

In the world of digital, things got better and we got more data from running everything faster. But in the world of brain computer interfaces,

you get more data by talking to more neurons. And so, the way that our device is designed is it sits on the surface of the brain and it has little

tiny sensors that are each smaller than a human hair that talk to individual neurons.

And one of the things that's special about Paradromics technology is the scale at which we interface with the brain and the ability to talk to a lot

of individual neurons simultaneously. And so, yes, our device has an implantable component that's under the skull. It has a wireless power and

data system that sits at the chest in the place where pacemaker might sit. The whole thing is under the skin. So, if you saw someone with a device

like this, you wouldn't know that they had it.

The surgery to implant something like this is very similar to other neurosurgical procedures. Brain surgery is surgery. And so, we take that

very seriously. And in fact, I would say that the other really important aspect of our system is that we see a brain implant as a very serious

commitment to a patient who's receiving it. We don't want them to have to undergo multiple surgeries where you want to give a device that will last

for a very, very long time and perform reliably for a very, very long time.

And that's one of the things that's core to our thesis. Is that a good brain computer interface, one that you would want to build an industry

around is one that has both a lot of data, but also that last reliably for a very long time.

CHATTERLEY: Just very quickly. Can you define a very long time? I know it's difficult because we're still experimenting here, but how long do you hope

that when you're in --

ANGLE: Many years and at least 10 years.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. OK. Good. Jump to today's news and the fact that you're participating in this U.S. program now to accelerate development or fast-

track development, what's that going to mean in terms of timing, of research of actually physically implanting this in a patient?

ANGLE: We're aiming to begin our clinical trial next year, and what we're excited about with the FDA's new TAP program is it offers an opportunity

for innovative companies to come to them and talk to them more often.

And one of the keys we have found in interacting with the FDA, but in general, just working with proactive and collaborative regulators, is that

more communication is better. And right now, we're extremely lucky to have people at the FDA who have expertise and brain computer interfaces and

fundamentally want to bring safe efficacious devices to patients as soon as safely possible.

And so, we've, you know, through the Breakthrough Device Program, which we've participated in and now through the top program, we're very happy to

be working with the FDA.

CHATTERLEY: We talked about other applications for this as well, in consumer applications. I've seen it talked about in terms of perhaps

helping people with issues like depression, for example. Is there a point upon which that you can see, and it's always the same with technologies,

that they can be used for good and bad, that this kind of technology will allow you to, in some way, control the behaviors of individuals?

I can just imagine part of the sort of fear factor that also surrounds the development of this kind of technology. Matt, how might this be used in in

the wrong hands?

ANGLE: You know, brain computer interfaces are very powerful. I think that's something that everyone is realizing, and it's extremely important

that the companies that are developing these powerful tools be working with ethicists, lawmakers and looking forward. And I think one aspect that

you've put your finger on is that anything that is a powerful tool can be used for potentially nefarious things.

I think an even more important ethical consideration, though, is for the good things that it can do, how do we get -- how do we provide access to

people? Because these are expensive devices. When they go to market, I anticipate that they will cost six figures, and yet, they're also life-

changing therapies.

And so, from my perspective, maybe the most important ethical consideration is access, and how do we make sure that governments and private insurance

payers are going to pay for these devices when they become available.

CHATTERLEY: It's such a great question. Very quickly. When you say six figures, are you talking $100,000 or are you talking just shy of a million

dollars?

ANGLE: No, I think it will be north of $100,000. I would be hesitant to say exactly. I don't think it's going to be a million-dollar device. But -- and

I also think it's important to understand that as these devices serve larger and larger markets, costs will come down to be more in line with

more traditional implantable medical devices like pacemakers.

CHATTERLEY: Yes. OK. I mean, it's just mind-blowing technology and development that you're working on. So, for people suffering some form of

paralysis, just life-changing, truly. Matt, stay in touch. We'll keep in touch. We'll keep talking to you. Matt Angle, the CEO of Paradromics there.

[18:50:00]

Now, if you missed any of our interviews today, they'll be on my X and Instagram pages. You can search for @jchatterleyCNN.

Now, still to come, emotions running high at the Euros. Portugal beats Slovenia after a dramatic penalty shootout to reach the quarterfinals. Wow,

look at that, some tears. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHATTERLEY: Welcome back to "First Move" and to the Euros. Portugal advancing to the quarterfinals, beating Slovenia in a penalty shootout on

Monday. Cristiano Ronaldo was in tears after missing a spot kick in extra time earlier.

France scored a late winner to book their spot in the quarterfinals thanks to a hard-fought 1-nil victory against Belgium. Let's get more with Darren

Lewis. That explains the tears. Wow. You don't want to be missing a spot kick in this kind of tournaments, but he still got through.

DARREN LEWIS, CNN SENIOR SPORTS ANALYST: Yes, they did indeed go through in no small part to Cristiano Ronaldo's leadership, really, because after

those tears, he stepped up to take the first of the penalties and put it away in a tremendous show of character. Anyone else would have stepped away

after this. An incredible save by the Atletico Madrid keeper, Jan Oblak.

Now, Oblak knows Ronaldo from their time together in Madrid. Ronaldo was playing for Real, Oblak still is at Atletico. So, he pulled off that save

and everybody expected Ronaldo to shrink away. But instead, he stepped up, he scored the first. And then, the goalkeeper for Portugal, Diogo Costa, 24

years old, plays for Porto in Portugal, he pulled off three saves, the first keeper to pull off three saves in a shootout in European championship

football history.

A wonderful night for Portugal, but a very dramatic night for that man there, Ronaldo. He will dominate the news agenda and the sports agenda. I

should say tomorrow. And he's already trending, Julia, on social media.

CHATTERLEY: I'm sure my father would say, no whinging to those tears, but he made up for it rewards. You cry when you're hurt, that's my mother.

Let's talk about Belgium out. France progressing.

LEWIS: Well, progressing is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, you know, Julia, because although they are into the quarterfinals, they haven't

scored that many goals. Three in total, two of them were own goals. The other goal was a penalty. Mbappe, we all know what he can do, does it so

often for his country. But when he doesn't score, Julia, there are far too few other French players who do, and that's the reason why it was hard

going until this goal, deflected in by a defender off the -- from the boot of the French attacker, Randal Kolo Muani. But a very lucky goal. The

second, as I say, own goal put into their own net by an opposition defender.

[18:55:00]

There is work for France to do if they are to get past the Portuguese come the quarterfinals.

CHATTERLEY: Good, you could have substituted England for that. We'll call them plodding, Darren. Good gracious.

LEWIS: Yes, indeed.

CHATTERLEY: Never mind. It's progression of sorts. Yes, Darren Lewis.

LEWIS: Yes, indeed. If you look at the top right-hand corner of the screen, you can see the other four countries that will be in action on Tuesday,

Austria, out of all of them, look as though they're going to be the surprise package under the former Manchester United head coach Ralf

Rangnick. They've pulled off a few surprises. Netherlands are the superpower expected to get past Romania, but after what we've seen so far,

you cannot take anything for granted at this European championship, Julia. I expect to be on tomorrow night telling you about some more drama and

maybe even a few more tears.

CHATTERLEY: It's a date. No whinging. No, no, no tears. No tears. Darren, thank you. We'll see you tomorrow.

LEWIS: Thank you.

CHATTERLEY: And that just about wraps up the show. Thank you for joining us. We'll see you tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END