Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Democratic Group Makes False Claims And Allegations On Boebert's Past; Inside A Frustrated White House Consumed By Problems; 700+ More Flights Canceled As Airlines Warn Of July 4th Travel. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired June 27, 2022 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR (via Webex by Cisco): We need what you promised us and that is the heavy artillery and the exact kind of weapon systems that are required in order to fight this. Just on that level, Kyiv -- the government -- has said that they were outnumbered 10 to one in terms of artillery systems throughout this several months and weeks war in the east there, John.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: What would make Russia want to end this by the end of the year, Christiane?

AMANPOUR: I think, you know, I'm simply not going to put a deadline on that. I think it's what Zelenskyy said. On the other hand, the head of NATO, as you know, Jens Stoltenberg has said the thing about war is you cannot predict its momentum or its outcome. It's what happens on the ground.

What we do know is that the high-motivated forces of those defending their territory -- that's the Ukrainians. We've seen that since the beginning. What we know is that there's been a lack of morale and a very difficult slog for the Russians.

Remember, this is land that they already partly occupied since 2014 and they've only just managed by, again, using this terrible attrition, funneling more and more forces in as cannon fodder, using their numerical advantage and heavy artillery and aircraft to do what they're doing now. But they are also suffering heavy casualties and losses of weaponry.

So can they do any more? We don't know. We don't know whether they can. Some say that they perhaps don't have the ability to go any further than the east.

But clearly, what they would want is some kind of gain/victory that Putin can then sell at home and start negotiating, potentially from his view, from a position of strength.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Christiane Amanpour, as always, thank you so much for helping us understand what we're hearing today from the Ukrainian leader.

AMANPOUR: Thanks, John.

BERMAN: So, a new weekend of trouble for summer travelers. Hundreds of flights canceled. The warning from airlines ahead of the July Fourth weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TARAJI P. HENSON, ACTRESS-SINGER: A weapon that can take lives has more power than a woman who can give life if she chooses to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And abortion rights and gun reform taking center stage at last night's BET Awards.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:36:20]

BERMAN: So where does the decision to overturn Roe versus Wade by the Supreme Court sit in terms of public opinion?

John Avlon with a reality check.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people -- majority rule. And persuasion is supposed to be key to bridging divisions and solving problems. But these core principles are looking quaint today because the Supreme Court just pulled off an ideological power grab that ignores persuasion and popular opinion, and that has conservative activists celebrating.

Now, the most obvious but not only example is the overturning of Roe v. Wade after half a century, rolling back a key constitutional right to reproductive freedom for women. Now, this is a shock not least because three of the conservative justices said under oath that they recognized the importance of Roe v. Wade as settled law or precedent on precedent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMUEL ALITO, THEN-SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed.

NEIL GORSUCH, THEN-SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands.

BRETT KAVANAUGH, THEN-SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By it, I mean Roe v. Wade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: Now, presumably, they knew that admitting a willingness to overturn Roe would have been bad for their confirmation prospects, precisely because it was so out of step with the nation. In fact, Americans' support for legal abortion hit an all-time high in

a Gallup poll conducted just last month. Get this -- only 13% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. And more than double that, 35%, say it should be legal in all circumstances. While the majority of us, 50%, believe abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Look, abortion is a deeply personal issue and good people can disagree, but that's 85% of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal in all or certain circumstances.

Nonetheless, the Guttmacher Institute says 26 states seem set to effectively ban abortion. Six have already enacted blanket bans, even in the cases of rape and incest.

That's despite the fact that Gallup found even 77% of Republicans think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, while a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 63% of Republican women agreed that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, not the government.

Now only that, the number of abortions in America has been falling for decades until, ironically, a reversal during the Trump administration.

So why did the Supreme Court push through a minority opinion over a half-century precedent? Because they could. Because it's been a longstanding goal for conservative activists, and those activists are used to operating outside majority politics to gain power. After all, three of the justices were appointed by Trump who, of course, lost the popular vote in 2016. And five total were confirmed by Republican Senate majorities who received far fewer votes in total than their Democratic Senate colleagues.

Abortion is not the only place we've seen this disregard for majority opinion in Supreme Court decisions. Take the recent ruling on guns killed a century-old New York law requiring a special permit to carry a firearm in public. It ignored the fact that in the history and tradition of the Old West people were not permitted to carry guns into town.

But more to the point, last year, a stunning nearly 80% of Americans opposed allowing people to conceal -- carry concealed weapons in public with a permit. Now, you can't get 80% of Americans to agree on anything these days, right? But that piece of common ground has been obliterated by the court because now people can carry concealed weapons in all sorts of public places without restrictions, although it's worth noting courts are exempt from this firearm fiesta.

[07:40:04]

Look, in some ways, the decision is even more destructive because it removes the ability of local and state governments to balance public safety with the right to bear arms. In the case of abortion, states can change their policies if Democrats persuade voters and gain control of state legislatures, which would be vastly more likely if they return to the more modest Clinton-era formulation of safe, legal, and rare. But, you see, it's not quite that simple because we've seen a systemic reduction in the number of competitive districts by design, both state legislative and congressional, through the rigged system of redistricting. And that's created the political incentive structure for ignoring the will of the majority of voters. That's how we got here.

Now this dynamic has reached the Supreme Court, resulting in divisive decisions that don't reflect the vast majority of Americans and that threatens the court's long-term legitimacy.

Not for nothing, even before the Roe decision was released, public confidence in the Supreme Court hit an all-time low of 25% in the Gallup poll, down 11 points from just a year ago. That's dangerous for the stability of our democracy and we've got to heal the breach.

And that's your reality check.

BERMAN: John Avlon, thank you very much.

Harry Enten will be here in a little bit. We have a very deep dive into some of the numbers on the Roe decision across the country.

So, a Democratic super PAC making dramatic and false allegations about Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's past. We have a fact-check coming up.

KEILAR: And new CNN reporting taking us inside the White House as they face issues the president can't fix or doesn't have a plan for.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:45:51]

KEILAR: Just blatant falsehoods from a Democratic super PAC involving Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert of Colorado and her past.

Joining us now is CNN senior reporter and fact-checker, Daniel Dale. These really took the internet by fire -- a lot of them completely untrue -- but not before they were amplified online, Daniel.

DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, I looked into them, Brianna. I found a bunch of false claims from the super PAC -- at least five of them. And the co-founder of the PAC, David Wheeler, acknowledged to me last week that all five of these were, indeed, inaccurate.

Now, Mr. Wheeler also says, Brianna, that the PAC still stands by what he calls the main points of the allegations, all of which Boebert vehemently denies, that she used to work as an escort, had a profile on a so-called Sugar Daddy website. That she had two abortions. But so far, the PAC has not provided corroborating evidence to prove those so-called main points.

And Mr. Wheeler acknowledges, again, that they've gotten a bunch of other things wrong. Here's one example. The PAC published a photo of a woman posing on a bed in a tight dress.

One of their anonymous sources claims that she had gotten this photo from the page the super PAC claims Boebert had on sugardaddymeet.com.

Well, the photo is not actually of Lauren Boebert. It is a photo of a different woman. How do I know? Well, it was on that woman's old profile on a modeling website. The woman told me directly last week that it was her.

And then after Mr. Wheeler suggested to me that maybe this woman was, quote, "lying," the woman went and found me more evidence, including an old hard copy of the bed photo and another photo of herself in that same distinctive dress.

Eventually, on Thursday, Mr. Wheeler conceded it was not Boebert in the shot. He said the source got this wrong. He said he is not sure how she got it wrong.

Here's a second example, Brianna. The super PAC also published a statement on its website saying a different anonymous source told them she had driven Boebert to get an abortion in the, quote, "fall of 2004." Well, not only does Boebert deny ever having had an abortion, she gave birth to a son in March 2005. So, fall 2004 seemed like a pretty implausible timeline.

And when I pointed out her son's birthdate, Mr. Wheeler quickly backtracked. He said the 2004 claim was a, quote, "typo by our social media guy" even though it was on their website. And he quickly changed the page to say fall of 2005.

I'll give you one more example. The super PAC also claimed that Boebert had been introduced to Sen. Ted Cruz by a supposed escort client of hers before she ran for Congress. Again, Boebert denies she was ever an escort. She also denies having met or spoken to Cruz until after she won her 2020 primary.

And sugardaddymeet.com told me it has, quote, "no record" of Boebert ever using this site.

But anyway, on this claim, regardless, the super PAC claimed that Boebert then got a big donation from Cruz -- $70,500 -- and initially failed to report that donation. But that is just not true. She did report it quickly.

The donation from Cruz's so-called Victory Fund, which backed more than 20 GOP candidates in that election -- Boebert was not unusual -- came in September 2020. And Boebert's campaign reported it in its quarterly finance report in October 2020. That is quick. That is prompt.

Now, the Boebert campaign initially did fail to list this so-called -- this -- I'm sorry, initially failed to list this Cruz fund as a so- called joint fundraising partner of the campaign. On another form, they had to go back and put that on the other form. But there is no basis to claim they ever hid the actual Cruz donation itself. So, Brianna, here's the thing. I can either prove not prove false some

of this PAC story about Boebert. It is theoretically possible, sure, that some parts could maybe be proven accurate eventually. But so far, at least, the PAC has not released substantiating proof and is basically asking people to just trust them. And given how much this PAC has gotten wrong in what it has actually released so far, I think it would be quite understandable if a lot of people were just not feeling all that trusting.

KEILAR: Indeed. Thank you for taking us through that, Daniel Dale. We appreciate it.

DALE: Thank you.

BERMAN: All right, brand-new CNN reporting revealing the frustrations the White House is feeling over problems the president can't fix.

CNN senior White House correspondent Phil Mattingly joins us with his reporting. And Phil, there's a terrific part of your reporting, which is up on cnn.com -- people can see.

[07:50:00]

You write, "Asked by CNN about progress in a seemingly intractable challenge, a senior White House official responded flatly: Which one?"

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

BERMAN: That just goes to show what they're facing right now.

MATTINGLY: Yes, there's no question about it.

Look, one of the big questions I think, particularly when you talk to Democrats on Capitol Hill and Democrats around the country who are very cognizant of a ticking clock towards those midterm elections, is does the White House understand just how complex and problematic this current economic moment is for them. And the short answer is yes, unquestionably.

When they look at gas prices, when you look at inflation writ large, they know this is a huge issue despite very real economic progress -- a very rapid economic recovery in the post-pandemic world that they helped drive.

That said, there is so little the president can do when it comes to gas prices. Obviously, oil is a global marketplace. We've seen a series of problems, whether on the international side. Obviously, the Russian invasion is having a huge impact on prices itself. But even here at home refinery capacity at 93%-94% unable to move the millions of barrels of oil that the U.S. is producing is a huge problem. Nothing that the president can do from his executive power can address that.

As one official told me earlier, when they look at the broader political landscape it doesn't take a very sophisticated person to see how the lines of presidential approval and gas prices connect over the course of history. They know they have a problem and no easy near-term solutions.

BERMAN: Democrats in Congress seem to be telling the White House -- or saying to them help us help you, and they're not totally satisfied with the help they're getting.

MATTINGLY: Yes, they really aren't. And look, part of its anxiety. They're seeing the poll numbers. They know that November is only a few months away.

But I think the broader issues that I've picked up in talking to Democrats on Capitol Hill is they feel like the White House has been engaged in intensive deliberations in debates and not really come forward with any types of plans -- any types of proposals. They recognize on Capitol Hill that there isn't a singular policy that can solve this problem right now and yet, they want action.

We saw some of that last week. The president backing a federal gas tax holiday even though they know they don't have the votes on Capitol Hill. The energy secretary meeting behind the scenes with oil executives trying to address that refinery issue.

But when you talk to Democrats on Capitol Hill they want more of that. They want things that they can point to -- actions -- or they want rhetoric. They want people to blame besides Putin's price hikes, as one Democrat told me.

John, there's one scene that I have in this piece where White House officials went to Capitol Hill to brief House Democrats on economic messaging. That was what the invitation said. They showed up late. They did not give a lot of answers, at least according to House Democrats that were in the room.

They were very unsatisfied with that briefing and I think that underscores kind of this moment here. You talk to White House officials, they say -- they dispute kind of how the tone of the meeting was generally.

But it just underscores, as I put in the piece, kind of this Gordian knot right now. There is no good answer. There is no great political message.

What this takes more than anything else is time. And right now, I think when you talk to Democrats on Capitol Hill, they don't believe they have it.

BERMAN: No.

Phil Mattingly, it's a terrific story. Thanks so much for coming on NEW DAY and sharing your reporting. It's like Christmas in July -- or June, I should say, having Phil here with us. It's Christmas any month -- June, July, August. A lot of Christmas with you, Phil. Thank you very much.

MATTINGLY: Thank you.

BERMAN: I like Christmas. KEILAR: And Phil Mattingly, apparently.

BERMAN: And Phil.

All right. Airlines warning of July Fourth travel chaos. Hundreds of flights canceled just this weekend.

KEILAR: And a mystery on the moon. What caused this double crater? Hmm.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:57:46]

BERMAN: If you are planning to travel by plane over the Fourth of July holiday it might be a good idea to have a backup plan.

CNN's Pete Muntean at Reagan National Airport this morning. Man, it was another challenging weekend, Pete.

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: And John, the pressure is on airlines to perform with this coming weekend and the July Fourth holiday, not only from the federal government -- Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg told the airlines they must have their act together this weekend -- but also from passengers after two consecutive weekends of major cancellations.

Look at the latest numbers from FlightAware. More than 600 flights canceled nationwide on Saturday. More than 800 on Sunday. Another 600 today, so far, and that number is going up with bad weather coming for the East Coast.

We know that airlines got a lot smaller over the pandemic. There is just not much wiggle room in their networks and systems, meaning that when bad weather strikes that is when the deck of cards really comes tumbling down.

Delta Airlines continues to lead the pack when it comes to cancellations. In fact, it accounted for about a third of all cancellations in the U.S. just yesterday.

It put out a statement saying that the causes for these cancellations are not only higher than planned absences in some work groups, including pilots and flight attendants -- remember, the pandemic is not over -- but weather issues and air traffic control issues.

And this is what is really interesting, John. You know, airlines are now putting some of the blame for these cancellations and delays back on the federal government even though the FAA insists that is not a problem and it is moving controllers around to some of the delay and cancellations hotspots.

You know, this is going to be a huge weekend for travel. United Airlines says bookings are about 92% of where they were back in 2019 during the July Fourth holiday. In fact, this past Friday, we saw 2.45 million people pass through security at America's airports nationwide. That's the highest number we have seen since the start of the pandemic.

No doubt this weekend is going to be big, but now the question is whether or not it will be a smooth one, John.

BERMAN: Yes. Based on what we've seen it doesn't look promising.

Pete Muntean for us at Reagan. I know you just had a birthday, Pete. Happy birthday to you, Pete Muntean.

MUNTEAN: Thank you, John. Thank you.

BERMAN: NEW DAY continues right now.

[08:00:00]