Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Jonathan Wachtel is Interviewed about the War in Ukraine; Supreme Court's Legitimacy; Ryan Goodman is Interviewed about Trump. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired June 27, 2022 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you soi much for being with us.

Zelenskyy wants the war over by winter. Can he do anything to make that happen?

JONATHAN WACHTEL, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: Look, if you've been through a winter in that part of the world, it's darn hard to even get through a winter, let alone have your country's infrastructure completely mashed up and have to suffer through a winter. I mean we all saw what happened in Mariupol and how hard it was even coming out of winter into where we are. Of course, he wants that. And of course, he wants it also because the Russians have the missile firepower. They can continue to pulverize the country where the land battle, the combat on the ground becomes less meaningful. So of course, the winter is going to create a scenario that's much more difficult for him.

BERMAN: Look, Russia now controls Severodonetsk in the east. They control much, if not most now, of the eastern part of that country. Do you think -- and we don't have the full read out on what Zelenskyy said -- do you think there's a window there for Zelenskyy to be saying he's willing to negotiate some kind of ceasefire that would include conceding Russian control of that part of the country?

WACHTEL: Unrealistic. I mean the truth is, Putin has been trying very hard to secure all this, as you pointed out, because Putin wants that territory, period. It's the leverage that Russia has. And they'll continue to hit Ukraine as hard as they can until he says cry uncle, until Zelenskyy says cry uncle. That's what they want. Russia has intentions of going to Odessa. They wanted all this. They wanted Kyiv at the beginning of this conflict.

Really the ball is kind of in Putin's court as to how long he wants to continue with this. Certainly, we've got many more months of battle that Putin's prepared to have if he needs to do that. And he'll take it right into winter if he wants to.

BERMAN: So he will keep it going if he wants to. There's nothing necessarily Ukraine can do to force that issue. You look at what's happening again in the east, Severodonetsk has fallen to the Russians. Lysychansk on the verge perhaps of failing. Tony Blinken, the secretary of state, said that Putin is failing in

Ukraine. Is he if he continues to make gains in the eastern part of the country and consolidate them at this point? Look, Kyiv, he did not take. He wanted it being (ph) taken. Odessa, he didn't take. He wanted it. He didn't take it. Kharkiv, he wanted, he didn't take it. However, he's making steady gains in the east. Is it fair to say he's failing?

WACHTEL: I don't think it's fair to say he's failing. Has he failed with his ultimate goal? Of course, he's failed with his ultimate goal. But as long as -- from his perspective, from Putin's perspective, if he can seize these territories completely, hold them, have them as territory that, you know, Zelenskyy may have to concede portions of Ukraine to end this by winter as he wants. Putin is trying as hard as he can to hurt Ukraine, as much as it can, so that he's got the leverage that he needs.

And, frankly speaking, it can be spun within a state like Russia, where it's controlled media, where there's one guy leading the show, he can spin this how he wants with his own domestic consumption of news and information to be able to drive what he wants to have happen here. It's a totally different ballpark here. Zelenskyy has to answer to a democratic society and to a European and western society. The orientation is different. The game is completely different here.

BERMAN: Look, we were just talking about the G-7 meeting in Germany right now. Weapons systems, talking about sending new weapon systems into Ukraine.

Is there any weapons system that could turn the tide at this point?

WACHTEL: Certainly if the Ukrainian forces could end up getting the Namans (ph), the missile defense systems and stuff like that, more sophisticated weaponry, it would help them out tremendously and it would enable them to stop these incoming missiles like we saw hit Kyiv. You know, that's terrifying. And if you don't contain that, and as winter approaches, I mentioned earlier, this is going to become more of a slugfest of missiles rather than trench warfare type of stuff that you see going on, you know, with artillery and stuff like that in the winter. It slows down. That all gets more sluggish and the movements get more difficult in the winter. That's why Zelenskyy is nervous about that. Russia has got the firepower and the ability to continue to stream in weaponry. Yes, their resources are depleting to a certain degree, of course, but they still have the means.

BERMAN: We have some live pictures now to show people of the G-7 meeting in Germany. I can't actually see them, but I do understand up on the screen -- there they are, that is a meeting of the G-7, milling about. This is not, I don't believe, the official family photo, but that is something we will see in a little bit.

Jonathan Wachtel, thank you very much for being with us this morning.

WACHTEL: A pleasure, John.

BERMAN: I appreciate it. Senator Elizabeth Warren said the Supreme Court, quote, set a torch to its own legitimacy by overturning Roe versus Wade. We'll speak about the court's credibility going forward.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, airlines canceling another 700 flights on Sunday, and they're warning of a chaotic holiday weekend ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:38:48]

KEILAR: Backlash following the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade with several high-profile Democrats taking aim at the integrity of the court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): This court has lost legitimacy. They have burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had after their gun decision, after their voting decision, after their union decision. They just took the last of it and set a torch to it with the Roe versus Wade opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Joining us now to discuss, we have CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic and national reporter for "The New York Times" Kate Zernike.

Joan, just take that head on. Where does faith in this institution stand right now?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: You know, there are reasons for the court's legitimacy to be called into question. Obviously, their poll numbers are dropping right now. But let's just step back and think about how much this was not expected yet in the law. Obviously, politics out in the states, that's another question.

But in the actual law, for 50 years the Supreme Court had adhered to this. Everyone talks about the 1992 case that robustly reaffirmed it. But even just two years ago, Brianna, two years ago this Supreme Court implicitly affirmed abortion rights when it struck down a Louisiana restriction on abortion.

[06:40:12]

So -- and then, here's the other thing, when this case first came up from Mississippi, Roe v. Wade wasn't on the table. It was only a question of whether this 15-week ban would be upheld. So, the message in the law, just talking law and constitutional principles, was that Roe was still good law. The only thing that changed was the addition of the Trump appointees, particularly in 2020 after the Louisiana law was struck down, Ay Coney Barrett comes on and that's when everything accelerated. So, the message that this court is sending to the public is that, when

the personnel changes, the law will change. And that does raise serious questions of legitimacy.

BERMAN: Well, Kate, what are the implications of that going forward, then?

KATE ZERNIKE, NATIONAL REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I think, you know, look, for people who want to defend abortion rights, this fight has always been in the states and in the Senate, because the Senate is where the Supreme Court justices are confirmed.

Right now, though, you've got this very young Supreme Court. So those -- it's not like those seats are up for grabs now.

BERMAN: Right.

ZERNIKE: There is talk about expanding the court. I don't imagine that's going to get very far. But I think right now the -- if you're a defender of abortion rights, you need to go back to the states.

I mean I think also -- look, abortion rights supporters are in Florida this morning fighting against that state's 15-week ban. So I think there will be some litigation against some of these trigger laws that banned abortion automatically in states as soon as the Supreme Court acted. But this is a very, very tough position for abortion rights supporters right now.

KEILAR: It's worth noting that for a big chunk of the American population the legitimacy of the court has now been raised, right? They think the court is legitimate because of this decision.

ZERNIKE: No, that's absolutely true. And they are very grateful to the court, right? Like the -- if you were an anti-abortion person in the '70s, you were betting on the court -- first of all, you were betting on a constitutional amendment to overturn the right to abortion. Then you thought, OK, let's get the court to do it.

In 1992, as John mentioned, with the Casey case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the anti-abortion side thought they were going to win that. They thought the court would move then. They lost then. So their lesson that they took from then was, we can't count on the court.

It's actually kind of surprising if you -- 15 years ago I don't think the anti-abortion side thought they could count on the court. I think this is a very surprising moment for them as well.

BERMAN: Joan, you've written about this extensively. Chief justice - the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, has made it his mission to keep this court together -- and I put that word in quotation marks -- to steer this court in a way to keep them in some ways non-controversial. He has failed at that. What are the implications of the chief justice losing control of the Supreme Court?

BISKUPIC: You know, John, I don't know how he gets that back. The five to his right are all younger than him. The three new Trump appointees are just in their 50s. John Roberts is 67. I envision that he could stay easily 20 more years. But how does he get back for the national perspective, you know, people to believe in this court and believe it's not political, for better or for worse, and also how does he inspire confidence among his colleagues?

Now, I've written that he lost this defining case of his generation. But the thing I also want to mention is that John Roberts still is smack in the center of other things that this court is doing, you know, against racial remedies, against expansive protection of voting rights, in favor of lifting campaign finance restrictions, in favor of kind of narrowing -- lowering the wall between church and state. So, John Roberts is actually with his conservative colleagues on many issues. It's just that for this major, major -- as I truly believe we're not going to get another case in this generation that's going to rise to this kind of national significance -- he came up - he really fell short.

And what he tried to do here, that they considered completely unprincipled, was to just only take on the case that was brought to them, the 15-week ban. But his colleagues said, you do 15 weeks here, next week somebody's coming up to us with a 12-week ban, then 6 weeks, then nothing. We have to solve it now.

And what kind of attitude that is, we have to take that on now. That doesn't - that's not an attitude that you would think would be born in the Constitution. And what the chief said is, if it's not necessary to decide a question, then it's definitely necessary not to decide that question. But he had no takers for that position, John.

KEILAR: No, he certainly did not.

Kate, Joan, thank you so much to both of you.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

KEILAR: A big, legal question as the investigation into January 6 continues, does Donald Trump actually believe his election lies? Does that matter? Our next guest says, no, it's irrelevant to proving guilt.

BERMAN: And a supermarket employee is arrested for allegedly assaulting Rudy Giuliani.

[06:45:04]

We'll show you the moment in question.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Did former President Trump believe his own election lies and does it matter? According to a "Washington Post" op-ed, it's irrelevant to proving his guilt, the authors argue, quote, for a number of the possible crimes the committee has identified, it doesn't matter what Trump believed about the election. If prosecutors focus on Trump's efforts to engage in vigilante justice, the intent element of these cases is easily satisfied. Joining us now is one of the authors of that op-ed, Ryan Goodman. He's

a former special council at the Department of Defense and now a law professor at New York University.

It doesn't matter, you say. Why?

RYAN GOODMAN, PROFESSOR, NYU SCHOOL OF LAW: It doesn't matter. So, it could matter. There's a crime in which it would matter. But there are other core crimes that it doesn't. So, let's just take, for example, the 800 people who -- over 800 people who have been charged with the insurrection or engaging in the riot. It doesn't matter that they think Trump won. And I'd assume a great majority of them do. It's about their other forms of intent.

[06:50:01]

So, for example, if Trump engaged in intimidation or a threat of officials in order to try to overturn the election, that's what they need to prove. They don't need to prove whether or not he thought he won. And so, for example, if they say, well, you threatened the Georgia secretary of state, defense counsel can't stand up in court and say, yes, but he thought he'd won. That's why he threatened the Georgia secretary of state. That's the crime. So, that's part of the problem for him.

Another one, fraudulent documents. You can't, you know, submit fake documents about -- from these alternative slate of electors to the National Archives to try to gum up the works for the certification of the election, but he can say, well, I thought I won, so that's why I submitted the fake documents. So it's a bunch of the core crimes. It's not something tangential or superficial. These are really what the committee is being - discovering and presenting to us.

KEILAR: Because you make the case that that is clearly an illegal act and that's where you should be looking, at these illegal acts in the aftermath of the election.

GOODMAN: That's right. And it's not just the, did he incite the riot and the attack on the Capitol, but a whole bunch of other things, including what we just recently saw, trying to utilize the Justice Department to overturn the election. So that on its own, you know, there are federal crimes involved in that. That's why Eric Herschmann, the White House lawyer, actually turns to Jeffrey Clark, who is working closely with the president and says, if you do this, if you become the acting attorney general and do this, your very first act will be a felony. That's got nothing to do with Jeffrey Clark can't turn around and say, yes, but I think we won or he won. It's actually, you know, you can't fraudulently claim to the states that the Department of Justice has found fraud and then try to get them to decertify the election. That was his scheme. That's going to be pretty straightforward, and I think that's why things have shifted quite a bit in the way in which people view what the committee is presenting.

BERMAN: Look, Trump did this 12-page statement after the hearings began where he seemed to lean into this possible defense. He continues to say the election was stolen. Why is he doing that from a legal perspective?

GOODMAN: So, there is the, you know, the one chief crime that many people did have their eye on is, did he corruptly obstruct the congressional procedure? And what is corrupt? It is, if you know you lost and then you still try to overturn the election. That's just obviously a crime. And so that's been kind of the centerpiece, the, you know, bright, shiny object. I think for that, that's a very good defense. He needs to say, look, I was being told by the former mayor of New York, who was a former prosecutor, that I won, so I believed it. And that's - that's a good defense for that crime but it doesn't work for the others.

BERMAN: Ryan Goodman, thank you so much for being with us.

GOODMAN: Thank you.

BERMAN: You just mentioned the former of the mayor of New York. He's in the news elsewhere, right?

KEILAR: Certainly is. Rudy Giuliani accusing a supermarket employee of attacking him. The NYPD says a 39-year-old man who worked at a Shoprite in Staten Island was taken into custody and faces assault charges after he slapped Giuliani in the back and said, quote, what's up, scumbag.

Here's a photo of that alleged slap. The former New York mayor and Trump attorney was campaigning for his son, who is running for New York governor. And here's how Giuliani described the incident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI: And all of a sudden I feel a shot on my back, like somebody shot me. I went forward but luckily I didn't fall down. Lucky, I'm a 78-year-old who's in pretty good shape because if I wasn't I'd have hit the ground and probably cracked my skull.

And he moves away, yelling and screaming, things like, you're going to kill babies, your people are going to kill -- not babies, you're going to kill women, you're going to kill women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Police say Giuliani refused medical attention.

We do have more on a major headline this morning, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy just told President Biden and other G-7 leaders the war needs to be over by the winter.

BERMAN: Plus, the pitch that sparked this wild, and I mean wild, bench clearing brawl.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:58:12]

BERMAN: The Colorado Avalanche, Stanley Cup champs for the first time since 2001.

Andy Scholes has this morning's "Bleacher Report."

Good morning, Andy.

ANDY SCHOLES: Yes, good morning, John.

So, you know, what a series this was. The Avalanche, they were favorites all year long and, in the end, they hoist the Stanley Cup, ending the Lightning's dreams of a three-peat.

And game six was a good one. Second period, we had a tie game. Colorado's Artturi Lehkonen scores to give them a 2-1 lead. We go to the third. Tampa desperately trying to even the score. Gabriel Landeskog blocks Nikita Kucherov's shot with his skate. Look at this, the blade popped off. So Landeskog had to crawl off the ice to try to go get it fixed. Final seconds, the Avalanche able to hold off the Lightning's final charge with an empty net. Colorado celebrates as Stanley Cup champions for the first time since 2001.

And what a post season it was for the Avalanche. They finished with a 16-4 record, ten comeback wins. The second best playoff record since 1987. Twenty-three-year-old Cale Makar received the Conn Smythe trophy for the most outstanding player in the playoffs.

All right, and we had a brawl in baseball on Sunday between the Mariners and the Angles. Andrew Wantz drilling Jessie Winker. So this came after Mike Trout and the Angels were really mad after he was nearly hit in the head on Saturday. The Angels actually changed starters to have Wantz, who's a reliever, start on Sunday. Lots of punches thrown in this one. Six players, both managers were ejected. Winker not happy when he was leaving the field. He gave the L.A. fans the double bird on the way out.

And then after the maylay (ph) was all over, Raisel Iglesias was still mad. He decided to throw all of the team's sunflower seeds onto the field toward the Mariners. That kind of kept this going for a few moments. But, John, I'm not sure what that did other than, you know, get rid of the team's sunflower seeds.

[07:00:00]

They didn't have any to enjoy during the game.

Also probably made a poor bat boy have to go clean it all up.

BERMAN: They didn't look happy, Andy. That's all I can say.