Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
SCOTUS Rules Limited Immunity For Trump From Criminal Prosecution In His January 6th Case; President Biden Says Trump Told A Lot Of Lies During The First Presidential Debate 2024; U.S. Gymnast Simone Biles Books Her Ticket To The Paris Olympics; U.S. DOJ Faces Criticism As It Nears An Agreement With Boeing; France's Far-Right Party Celebrates A Surge Of Support. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired July 01, 2024 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:25]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: All right, coming to you live from New York I'm Zain Asher. Bianna, my colleague, is off today. You are watching
"ONE WORLD". I want to start with some major, major breaking news.
The U.S. Supreme Court rules that former president Donald Trump has limited, limited immunity from criminal prosecution in his January 6th
case. This idea that former President Donald Trump has limited immunity from criminal prosecution in his January 6th case. I do want to bring in my
colleague Jim Sciutto from Washington D.C. who has of course been following this story. So, Jim, the heart of this ruling is whether or not an American
president is essentially above the law.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Yeah.
ASHER: A lot of constitutional experts had been expecting we would get some kind of mixed bag ruling and that is, in a sense, what we got. This idea
that the president has limited immunity for official acts, take us through that, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Although if you if you read some of the dissents here from the liberal justices they're saying that in effect this puts presidents above
the law.
ASHER: Right.
SCIUTTO: It's -- it's a dispute but we saw the dispute play out quite in the open inside that courtroom today and in the -- in the opinions, the
majority opinion of the dissents as we've been reading them and this is certainly about Donald Trump. He's been given a big legal win by the U.S.
Supreme Court but it is also one that affects presidents going forward in this country, writing a rule for the ages as Justice Gorsuch said in
advance of this decision.
The court has, Zain, as you said found Trump and other presidents have some immunity from prosecution for official acts while president. Chief Justice
John Roberts wrote for the majority, "The first step is to distinguish a president's official from unofficial actions. In this case however, no
court has, thus far, considered how to draw that distinction in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular."
The court has now sent Trump's case back down to a lower court to determine which acts are official, which were unofficial as relates to attempts to
overturn the election. But it did provide some guidance saying that, for example, any conversations that Trump had with his vice president, Vice
President Pence, must be considered official acts so they could not be part of the evidence in such a case.
The court's three liberal justices, they disagreed strongly with the conservatives. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned just a blistering dissent
saying, quote, "The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country and possibly the world. When he uses his official
powers in any way under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.
"Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in
exchange for a pardon? Immune, immune, immune, immune." Those are the words from Justice Sotomayor dissenting in this case. We're going to be covering
this important story from many angles.
Let's begin with CNN senior crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz. You could sense the sharpness of the disagreement on this decision
between the court's conservative and liberal wing, but also there are different reads of the consequences of this decision. Because Roberts
seemed to be writing in some degree -- to some degree to say, oh, the liberals, they're overreacting here, whereas the liberal justices writing
in their dissents that this is democracy at stake, in effect, and that in effect democracy has been undermined.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Jim, the reporters in the courtroom over at the Supreme Court building this morning said the
tension was palpable between these justices as Justice Roberts read his opinion and then followed by those searing words from Justice Sotomayor in
her dissent that she fears for the democracy in this country going forward from here.
There's two planes that this is working on right now as we're getting this opinion and finding out what happens next for Donald Trump. There's what
happens in his case and if it goes to trial this year, it's going to be a difficult road for that to happen because what the justices are saying, the
six, that all came together under that Roberts opinion, they're saying that the district court has a lot more work to do.
The trial judge has to figure a lot of things out here and there could be more appeals about what in those allegations against Donald Trump related
to the 2020 election where the immunity would lie are things like his conversations with certain private parties, his conversations with Vice
President Mike Pence after the 2020 election -- could those be protected?
[12:05:11]
That's something the trial judge is going to work out and then there could be more appeals on. But then, the other plate that this is working on is
about the American presidency and what the protections are around that office. And there, that is where the Supreme Court is being very clear and
much different than what someone like Justice Sotomayor is writing in her dissent, that the protections there that are being given are sweeping when
they relate to what the president does as part of his constitutional authority.
So, talking to other people who are his underlings in the executive branch, all of that gets a level of protection and immunity that we have never seen
articulated in this country going forward. And that is why these dissenters, Justice Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, say it is a dire moment
for democracy and the future. Jim?
SCIUTTO: Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much. So, let's talk about the political reaction to this, specifically from Donald Trump and his camp,
CNN's Alayna Treene, she covers the Trump campaign for us. Well, you can get one sense of how they interpret this based on the fact that they are
openly and aggressively celebrating this decision.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: No, you're exactly right. They are very happy with this decision, Jim. And I'll tell you, I mean, first of all, when they
had brought up this case initially and it was going to the Supreme Court, from my conversations with Donald Trump's political team, but also his
legal advisors, they had initially thought this was some sort of Hail Mary pass.
They were not sure how this would land in the courts. That had changed after they had heard oral arguments in this case, particularly the line of
questioning from Justice Kavanaugh. And then going into today, they were very optimistic, I'd say cautiously optimistic, that they would receive
some sort of ruling that did lay out some sort of limited immunity.
And of course, that is exactly the decision that we saw today. Now, I think a big question, and they tell me they're still going through this decision
and reading through it carefully with a fine-tuned comb. But what they need to decide is, okay, what will count as official acts and unofficial acts?
And that's, of course, been kicked down to the district court, lower than the Supreme Court.
And so, they're waiting to see what happens there. But I think the big picture here is two things. One, they are hoping that this argument can not
only be applied to this case and see how it could impact the special counsel Jack Smith's indictment against him in the January 6th case, but
also how could this potentially even be used to help him in his other cases, potentially the classified documents case in Florida.
And then, of course, the second part of this is this will likely delay a potential trial until after the election. And I hear many people ask me
often, do you think that if Donald Trump were to win the White House and win a second term, that he would just dismiss this case outright? And I
tell them, it's not a certainty. It's not a question. It's a certainty.
Donald Trump's team has been very explicit that if he were to win, this case would go away. And so, of course, a huge goal of theirs in all of his
cases has been to delay this as much as possible. And so we're really seeing them celebrate that decision, even fundraising off it shortly after
this came down. Jim?
SCIUTTO: Alayna Treene, thanks so much. So, let's get some legal analysis, bringing in former federal prosecutor David Weinstein. David, you heard
Alayna Treene there say that even Trump's legal team considered their immunity argument before the Supreme Court to be something of a Hail Mary
pass.
And yet here it is, I think you could say with confidence, a partial victory for the Trump team, perhaps a big one. But also one that expands
the bounds of presidential immunity beyond where it was prior to this decision today. How did it go from a Hail Mary pass from Trump's lawyers to
the law of the land?
DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER US FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, you know, Jim, it was one of those passes that went up in the air. It was a jump ball and his
team caught it, landed in the end zone and if nothing else, put the game into overtime. It was a Hail Mary that worked as time was expiring.
And now, he has more time to challenge both this case, the case down here in the Southern District of Florida and the case that's pending in Georgia.
And so, he's going to use the words of the majority and this carve out of immunity that's not absolute, but it's certainly there and his for the
taking to go ahead and kick that field goal that wins a game for him.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you just very briefly on the Georgia case, which has its own issues relating back to the ongoing questions about the personal
relationship between the lead prosecutor and the D.A. there. Does this decision kill a state case, in effect? I mean, is this decision relative to
or relevant, rather, to that state case?
[12:10:03]
WEINSTEIN: Oh, it's certainly relevant. It's the law of the land. It's the federal authorities are applying it. And so, they're going to have to have
the same type of analysis, same type of factual hearing there. Was this an official act conducted by a president or was it one that didn't fall within
his official acts or even the outer limits? You're going to have a hearing there, as well.
SCIUTTO: New York case, as well? Could that be revisited based on this, an appeal?
WEINSTEIN: Well, you know, the New York case dealt with actions that were taken at a time prior to him becoming the president. And so, you can't take
official acts until you're the president. But then we did hear testimony about certain things that he did while he was in office. Did those fall in
the outer limits? That's something they're going to take up, certainly in a motion for new trial in advance of this July 11th sentencing date.
SCIUTTO: Okay, so let's talk then about that's a state case in Georgia -- New York case already prosecuted, convicted. Let's talk about what happens
to Jack Smith's case right now. The court instructed the district court to now decide, in effect, what falls under official, unofficial acts here,
though it did give some guidance, as Roberts called it here. Where does that leave Jack Smith's prosecution?
WEINSTEIN: Well, they're going to be scrambling a little bit on two different fronts. One decision they have to make is do we take the decision
and do we now go back to the grand jury and issue a superseding indictment, carve out what the court has said would not be a crime, restructure the
indictment?
Look, there was a very interesting footnote in there where they said that Judge Chutkan also has to consider their decision last week in Fisher as to
whether or not the obstruction charge can even still stand. So, they may decide to go back to the grand jury, get a superseding indictment, knowing
that this case is going to go back up on appeal anyways and clean things up.
Or they could just proceed as is, urge Judge Chutkan to hold an evidentiary hearing beginning quickly and then try to get through the process in the
lower court. But then they're going to have to go back to the court of appeals again, both at the D.C. Circuit and then up at the U.S. Supreme
Court. So, it might be a better move for them to go back and supersede.
SCIUTTO: If you did a superseding indictment, what would most likely to be in that? What would be most likely to be in that to survive this decision,
in effect? What would Jack Smith smartly, in your view, parcel out?
WEINSTEIN: Actions that were undertaken by somebody who was a candidate for the presidency and actions that were undertaken not in his role as the
chief executive, but rather as someone who had either lost the election and was trying to change things to go his way, that weren't communications with
people in the executive branch, but were with private parties outside the scope of that official act capability and narrow it down to that. You'd
have to rewrite the obstruction, as well, to see whether or not it fit within Fisher and try to get acts in there, as well.
SCIUTTO: David Weinstein, we'll see. Of course, the ball is now in the special counsel's court as well as it is certainly in Judge Chutkan's
court, given that the court -- Supreme Court remanded it back to the district court. We'll see what they do now. David Weinstein, thanks so
much.
Coming up, our coverage of the Supreme Court's immunity decision continues. The Biden campaign has now released reaction while the president's family
reacts to another event. Last week's difficult presidential debate -- that is just ahead. Plus, more votes, more seats for France's far right party in
the first round of parliamentary elections there. What does that mean for President Macron?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:16:25]
ASHER: All right, let's talk about the political implications of the Supreme Court ruling. The big question is how is, for example, U.S.
President Joe Biden responding to this momentous decision by the Supreme Court? His campaign says the ruling simply doesn't change the facts.
The campaign then doubled down on allegations that former President Donald Trump, quote, "snapped when he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob
to overthrow the results of a free and fair election". An adviser went on to say that since January 6th, Trump has only grown more unhinged.
CNN's Priscilla Alvarez joins us live now outside the White House. So, Priscilla, obviously, Biden's priority, especially Biden's campaign's
priority, is really dealing with the fallout from last week's debate. But this momentous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a priority for them.
They're focusing on that, as well.
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And it certainly served in some ways as the crux of the re-election campaign, the protection of democracy. And
they say this type of ruling is what puts that at risk if former President Donald Trump were to take a second term. And just now, the Biden campaign
held a press call where they underscored the stakes of the election using this ruling as another data point.
And saying, for example, that this has handed Trump the keys to a dictatorship, saying, too, that it would potentially allow the former
president to go after his political opponents if he were to be elected in November. So, all of that really echoing what we heard from the senior
adviser to the campaign earlier this morning, again, sort of noting that he, being former President Donald Trump, thinks he's above the law.
Now, the White House has not yet issued a statement on this. We have asked them for comment. But there's certainly implications for the office of the
presidency. Of course, historians have said that over the last several years, there has been more power given to the president. And this type of
ruling is one that would enhance that power for whoever is sitting in the Oval Office.
Now, the White House and President Biden have not weighed in as much or at all on Donald Trump's legal troubles over the last several months. But the
president was asked about this last December by reporters who asked if he believed the president is immune from criminal prosecution. The president
responding at the time, quote, "I can't think of one."
Now, President Biden is at Camp David -- Camp David. He'll be returning to the White House later this evening. So, we await the response from the
White House and the president. But at least the campaign, using this as another data point to really amplify their message that former President
Donald Trump poses a risk to democracy. And this type of ruling would give him even more power.
ASHER: All right, Priscilla Alvarez, live for us there. Thank you so much. Let me bring in Jim Sciutto who's obviously still in Washington for us. So,
Jim, as we digest the political reaction to this, I think it's really important to underscore the fact that you can't really separate the
political from the legal when it comes to this ruling, especially when you consider the 6-3 ideological divide and how that went down. Take us through
that.
SCIUTTO: No question. Listen, I mean, the history of that divide, how it happened going back to denying President Obama a Supreme Court justice, how
that affected the math of the court and sneaking in one more justice before the end of Trump's term. I mean, you were dealing now with the legal and
constitutional legacy of those decisions, not only on this case, but going back to Roe v. Wade, as well, and countless decisions in between.
But this one, the most immediate one, because it, of course, affects the election for the next president, who will have his own power to appoint
Supreme Court justices, perhaps, too, so, enormous fallout.
[12:20:00]
And this happening after the first presidential debate just last week, in which you have a wounded candidate in Joe Biden following his performance
there. Joe Biden's family is encouraging the president to stay in the race, to keep fighting, as they say. This, despite calls for him to step aside
from some after his poor performance in that debate here on CNN last week.
His family spent time together on Sunday at Camp David. One advisor says they also discussed whether top aid should even be fired. Meanwhile, an ad
released on Monday tries to turn the conversation from Biden to Donald Trump's debate performance. It does not show footage of Biden's halting
answers. Instead, focuses on his energetic rally the following day. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Did you see Trump last night? I mean it sincerely. The most lies told in a single debate. He lied about the
great economy he created. He lied about the pandemic he bought. And then his biggest lie. He lied about how he had nothing to do with the
insurrection of January 6th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: CNN senior politics reporter Stephen Collinson joins us now from Washington. He just published an article on Biden's efforts to save his
reelection campaign. You describe it, Stephen, as a desperate effort to save his campaign.
And I just wonder against whom. I mean, we've certainly seen the public commentary and folks on television and "The New York Times" editorial, et
cetera. But is there, to your understanding, a movement within the party to get him to step down?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: I think what we saw over the weekend and out of the debate was a very aggressive, preemptive attempt
by the Biden campaign to squelch any question -- the president shouldn't continue. You saw an unprecedented wave of attacks on Biden and questioning
his campaign from usually friendly sources in the media, democratic commentators.
How they parried that, they sent out some Democratic grandees, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, allies of the president on television to
say, look, we need to stay the course. Trump -- Biden will be the nominee.
The real danger is Trump. Now, there are behind the scenes, a lot of questions being asked by Democrats, not just whether the president should
step down or what would happen if he did and all the complications that would bring to bear.
So, I think the question now is to try to keep the dam from holding. I think one important data point here will be if we get some polls coming out
in the next few days that show that the bottom has fallen out of the president's already very questionable support in this election, he's got
big problems with the Democratic coalition that could start a movement in the House of Representatives in particular from lawmakers who are worried
about their seats.
But I agree with you that it seems like it's very problematic when no big figure in the party has come out against the president. But things are
moving underneath the surface, I think.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, you mentioned, specifically, folks whose political necks are on the line, right? I mean, members of the House, they feel they have an
opportunity to win back the House here. And you have frontline candidates concerned that they lose if the president loses. And I'm certain that
Senate candidates might feel the same effect.
COLLINSON: Right. I mean, I think the issue here is that Democrats were quite confident in their ability to win back the House. It's been a very
difficult period for Republicans. The majority has been absolute chaos. The set of seats that are up in the Senate are much more problematic for the
Democrats. So, there's a good chance they would lose this where all of this comes together.
The debate, today's Supreme Court decision, is that it is now pretty clear to envisage a period of complete conservative control of government. An
aggressive Supreme Court, President Trump in a second term who would see almost no limits on his power. The House would be the only check on that
and if Democrats lose that, as well, it will be quite an interesting era of conservative governments. There will be no checks on Trump.
So that I think argument is going to get a lot stronger in the days ahead. And, you know, Democrats hope that the courts would deal with Trump, that
he'd lose the Republican primary. Biden, who is now a much weakened candidate, is now the only thing standing between Trump and the presidency.
SCIUTTO: And it seems that one of the frustrations among his own party with President Biden is his inability to some degree to make those arguments to
the voting public, certainly on the debate floor that night, missing multiple opportunities to even mention January 6th.
[12:25:06]
But it seems that they worry about his ability to do it effectively in the weeks and months ahead.
COLLINSON: Yeah. The big test that the president faced going into that debate is to show that he did have that capacity, that he wasn't too old to
campaign effectively, and it wasn't difficult for people to envisage him serving out a full term, which would end when he is 86. He failed that
test.
Now, there's a big debate over whether he's fit for the presidency now. The presidency has a number of different functions. Obviously, one is making
the toughest decisions on national security and everything else. But an important function of the presidency is also rallying the American people
behind your platform, explaining it.
And that is what campaigning is about. And I think a lot of Democrats are really asking the question now is whether the president can fulfill that
duty. And that is what's really undermining his support.
SCIUTTO: Stephen Collinson, thanks so much. Well, one justice says the Supreme Court is breaking new and dangerous ground with this decision.
We're going to look at the fallout from the courts of unity ruling just after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Welcome back. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
[12:30:01]
Recapping our top story today, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to some immunity in the January 6th
case. The high court's decision will likely push back Trump's federal election subversion case until after the November elections. Also, enormous
consequences for the very power of the presidency.
Trump and his team have been calling this ruling a major victory. They say it's a big win for the U.S. Constitution and democracy, just as Sonia
Sotomayor signed off her dissent against the conservative majority opinion, saying, "with fear for our democracy". For more insight, let's bring in
former U.S. federal prosecutor Gene Rossi. What is it? Which is it? Is it a victory for democracy, in your view, or is it one that dangerously expands
the power of the president?
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it's a victory for the expansive power of a president. I would agree that it is a victory of sorts
for President Trump, Mr. Trump, but it is not a total victory. What we have here, Jim, are three buckets of conduct.
One is the bucket for personal conduct. That's not protected at all. The other bucket, which is not a big bucket, for core presidential functions,
C-O-R-E, core, he gets absolute immunity. And that would be sending out troops or things like that that clearly are within the power of a
president.
But then they created this third bucket called its official acts that have a presumption of immunity. But you can pierce that immunity very easily,
depending on the facts of the case. So, is it a partial victory for President Trump, Mr. Trump? Yes. Is it a major victory? I would say not.
There's a little bit that both sides can take from this opinion that will give them solace but it still is not a victory for democracy writ large.
SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this as relates to the ongoing Trump prosecution. In your view, and again these are questions still to be adjudicated and by
the way decided by the special counsel what he proceeds with, what is most likely to survive from the current federal prosecution of Trump for his
alleged attempts to overturn the election?
ROSSI: I'm putting on my prosecutor's hat so I'm going to be very aggressive here reading as much as I can of this long opinion, so bear with
me. If I were a prosecutor, I would go through every paragraph, line, and word of the indictment and determine whether it's personal, is it core
functions of the president that would be absolute immunity, or is it something that has a presumption that can be pierced?
There are instances in the indictment where it's clear that it is personal conduct. It has nothing to do with his role as a president of the United
States. There is no case, no justice, even Justice Alito would not agree that you can enter a conspiracy to submit false electoral college delegates
for January 6th certification. Under no circumstances would that be considered a core function or even a presumptive function, it's purely one
motive and that is to preserve his ability to maintain his office. That is easy.
The other one is, others are hard. When he was telling Department of Justice officials to investigate something, to issue a statement, that gets
very tricky and that may survive the presumption of official acts.
So, there's a lot to work with. There's a lot that Mr. Trump, President Trump can work with, but there's still a lot that Jack Smith can work with
because this case does not absolve conduct that is clearly not presidential and is clearly personal and there's a fair amount of that.
SCIUTTO: But how about how you would then prosecute acts that are not protected here? Because Roberts set some guidelines, even though he did
hand this back to the district court, things like testimony or private records of the president or advisers may not be admitted at trial. He also
seems to indicate that you cannot inquire as to a president's motives.
It would strike me that even if you had a case and you're a prosecutor, it'd be pretty hard for you to bring and prove a case if you eliminate that
kind of evidence. I mean, I asked this last hour, this means, you know, in a Nixon prosecution, you couldn't use the Nixon tapes.
[12:35:00]
ROSSI: Well, that's where Judge Chutkan is going to have a Herculean task. She's going to actually have to read this very confusing opinion, which is
contradictory at times, and she's going to have to have evidentiary hearings.
Now, at the evidentiary hearings, which are not covered by the rules of evidence, like at a trial, she can bring out testimony and evidence that
may not be admissible at trial that may help her decide whether the actions occur in one of those three buckets that I talked about. And frankly, the
only two buckets in these cases are, is it personal or is it presumptive, official conduct or presumptive?
But Jim, you're right that the Supreme Court not only established absolute immunity for certain things, they also took an evidentiary bent that sort
of narrowed what the prosecution can do. But I still think at the end of the day, at the end of the day, let's focus on the call that Mr. Trump made
to Secretary Raffensperger, if I pronounced his name right. That has nothing to do with notes, personal records. That is core evidence that he
was engaging in a personal act to commit a crime that's not covered by this opinion.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. And yet that state case, of course, ran into its own issues between the lead prosecutor and the D.A. We'll see which, if any of these
cases are prosecuted before the election. Gene Rossi, thanks so much. Appreciate your analysis.
And that's all for me on this consequential day in U.S. law and U.S. politics. Handing it back to you, Zain. We've had a lot of news to cover
and this is one of those days.
ASHER: So much news. And as Gene was just talking about, it is a huge minefield just in terms of trying to figure out what constitutes as
official versus unofficial acts as it pertains to January 6th. Is it a legal question for a judge, for example, or for a jury? Jim Sciutto, thank
you so much, my friend.
SCIUTTO: Thank you.
ASHER: Appreciate you being with us at this hour. As we've mentioned, this deeply monumental decision by the Supreme Court effectively delays Donald
Trump's election subversion trial until after voters cast their ballots in November.
The decision now opens the door for further litigation. And if Trump is elected, he could make his election subversion case and the classified
documents case simply go away. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the two other liberal justices, said in a strongly worded dissent that she has, quote,
"fear for our democracy".
Larry Sabato is director at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. He's also the editor of "Return to Normalcy: The 2020 election
that almost broke America". And he joins us live now from Charlottesville.
Larry, thank you so much for being with us. How strong is the fear, right, Larry? How strong is the fear that if Trump gets elected, that he could, in
effect, use this ruling to go after his political opponents since certain official versus unofficial acts could be protected through immunity? Just
take us through that fear.
LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR POLITICS, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Well, the fear is intense and it's justified. Just look at what Donald Trump has
said and done, even yesterday, implying through one of his posts on a social media outlet that he wants a televised military tribunal for Liz
Cheney and probably others on the January 6th Committee.
Just unbelievable stuff that never would have come from a prior president, but which frequently comes from Donald Trump. I think most people say
correctly, he has proven in the past that you need to listen to what he says because he tries to do it or he actually gets it done. This is very
important to him -- retribution and revenge. He talks about it a great deal. So, the fear, Zain, is intense and it is justified.
ASHER: A couple of questions about just how much faith the American people have in the U.S. Supreme Court. We've talked a lot over the past couple of
hours about the ideological divide, the fact that this was a split 6-3 decision right down ideological lines, and also the fact that this decision
was so delayed.
I mean, they ruled on it on the very last possible day. Some, not all, but some people believe that that in and itself has, of course, political
implications because the chances of there being a trial before November is minuscule and it only serves to benefit Donald Trump. Take us through just
the amount of faith or lack thereof the American people have in the U.S. Supreme Court at this point in time.
SABATO: I think we can use polls once and I'm going to use them because there have been quite a few over the years asking whether people had faith
in the court or whether they approved or disapproved of the job that they were doing, their job performance. And this court has sunk lower than any
other court since polls had been taken.
[12:40:02]
They're somewhere in the '30s. Normally, the Supreme Court, except in very controversial moments in the '60s, for example, they're normally in the
'50s somewhere, upper '50s, because it's an institution that is cloaked as it's supposed to be, and maybe in obscurity, but it's still cloaked. And
people want to have faith in something, in government, and they tend to have faith in the court system if they have faith in any part of the
government.
That is no longer there. And a lot of it is due to John Roberts and his court. The six Republican conservatives, that super majority of
conservative Republicans, pretty consistently rules together and amazingly, coincidentally, Zain, it tends to help Republicans. Isn't that amazing?
Just as this tended to help Donald Trump. And maybe I'm being cynical. I've been accused of that.
But as a political guy on the outside, I know that some of these people are very, very political, no matter what they say publicly. And they make some
political decisions. They want to help their side, their party, their ideology. So, I think that's a big part of it, whether people want to
accept that or not.
ASHER: You're not the only one that has noticed that correlation. But let's just talk about, obviously, what this decision means for democracy. A lot
of people have pointed to the fact, in fact, Trump's campaign has intimated that, look, this case basically goes away, that the Justice Department
would effectively be ordered to shut down this case if Trump wins election. What does that mean for American democracy?
SABATO: It is, if not a death blow, then a very damaging blow. And it's not as though Trump will be supporting democracy in other ways. The system
will, through his eyes or his purposes, saying that's the way he governed the first term, but he is likely to be much worse in the second term.
And the people he's bringing in, frankly, some of them are kooky. And they do not believe in the system of democracy we've had or a democratic
republic. They talk about, openly, about a post-constitutional presidency. Well, we all know what that means.
So, people have to be clear-eyed about this. But unfortunately, because of Biden's debate performance and perhaps the weaknesses of old age, they're
not necessarily focusing on what they need to focus on before they vote.
ASHER: All right, Larry Sabato, live for us there. Always good to have you, my friend. Thank you so much. All right, still to come, Hurricane Beryl
hits the Caribbean, marking an exceptionally early start to the Atlantic hurricane season. We'll have a live report for you on this storm just
ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:45:32]
ASHER: Hurricane Beryl is roaring through the Caribbean this hour after strengthening into a powerful Category 4 storm again. It's the strongest
storm to hit the Wynwood Islands in two decades, bringing violent winds, life-threatening storm surges and flash floods to several islands in the
Caribbean. There's never been a storm of such intensity in the Atlantic this early in the year before.
CNN's Patrick Oppmann is monitoring the storm. He joins us live now from Havana. This Category 4 storm hitting the Caribbean exceptionally early.
Just take us through that in the month of June.
PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, a strong Category 4 storm at that, and forecasters are saying that it feels more like August or
September. That's usually the time of year when you see these stronger hurricanes develop, as Beryl has, you know, it really is terrifying.
On Saturday, Beryl was just a tropical storm, something that is something of a common occurrence here in the Caribbean and have it blow up and
intensify so rapidly. That just means that people have less time to prepare, less time to ready their homes, to find shelters, to get gas, to
load up on food, all the things you need to do before facing a storm like this.
And of course, in the Wynwood Islands, where Beryl is currently rampaging right now, of course, more people don't have the opportunity, the ability
to get out of the way of the storm. And the only real option is to hunker down and ride it out. And of course, time makes all the difference when it
comes to preparing.
So, this storm is expected to continue through the Caribbean, stay south of Cuba, where I am right now, but certainly have an impact on Haiti and
Jamaica, as it's expected, and then head in towards the Yucatan Peninsula and Mexico.
Of course, you know, it's July 1st, so still very, very early in the season, a season that forecasters are saying might be the busiest on
record. So, it's certainly starting off with a bang, and it will be hours before we get any clear picture, most likely, of the damage that it's
already caused.
ASHER: It's being described as potentially catastrophic in terms of sustained winds. We're talking about 150 miles per hour. Patrick Oppmann,
live for us there. Thank you so much. All right, still to come, France's far-right party inches closer to the gates of power, closer than ever
before, in fact, more on the country's first round of parliamentary elections up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:38]
ASHER: All right, the U.S. Department of Justice is facing criticism as it nears an agreement with Boeing over the company's recent string of safety
failures and production problems. The attorney representing 737 MAX crash victims' families is calling the offer a sweetheart deal. It's set to
include a corporate monitor and a fine in exchange for a guilty plea to criminal charges. Boeing has until the end of the week to decide whether to
accept the agreement or go to trial.
France's far-right party is celebrating a surge of support in the first round of the country's parliamentary elections. The party of Marine Le Pen
is leading, getting more than 33 percent of the vote. The left-wing coalition known as the Popular Front came second. President Macron's
centrist alliance slumped to a dismal third in the polls with just over 20 percent of the vote.
The second round of voting takes place this Sunday. And at just 28 years old, national rally leader Jordan Bardella could be the next French prime
minister. CNN producer Saskia Van Dorn has more on who he is and what exactly he wants for France.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SASKIA VAN DORN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He's been called the TikTok king and young people love him. But who's the slick 28-year-old
French far-right leader on the brink of power? Jordan Bardella has transformed the national rally, taking it from the fringes into the
mainstream, solidifying its rural base.
JORDAN BARDELLA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RALLY PARTY (through translator): What we want is to take agriculture completely out of the free trade agreements
so that we can protect our domestic markets.
VAN DORN (voice-over): And using social media to reach a new generation of voters.
BARDELLA (through translator): Go out and vote to stop the migration surge that threatens our security, identity and values.
VAN DORN (voice-over): The populist rhetoric isn't new, but because of this gifted communicator, it's resonating in France now more than ever.
KEVIN ARCENEAUX, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, SCIENCES PO: The sorts of young voters who are attracted to Jordan Bardella, they tend to have less
optimism about their future. I think Jordan Bardella shows them, look, look at me. You know, I don't have a college education. I come from a place in
France that the elite looks down upon. If young people also find themselves in those circumstances, see that is actually inspiring.
VAN DORN: Jordan Bardella grew up here in Saint-Saens, a suburb northeast of Paris. He attended this private school and at 16 he joined the national
rally.
VAN DORN (voice-over): Around here, people know his name, but they remain divided.
UNKNOWN (through translator): I'm rather proud of the fact that he is aware of our problems here, that he knows our reality.
UNKNOWN (through translator): If we're not white, if we don't have a typically French name, we're not considered French.
UNKNOWN: I know the struggles that students face here. And I don't feel that he's representing young people.
VAN DORN (voice-over): Bardella was handpicked by Marine Le Pen to be her successor in an effort to detoxify and normalize the party that was founded
by former French members of Hitler's SS. Though he lacks experience, he and Le Pen form a powerful duo.
BARDELLA (through translator): She's the political leader and I'm the army general. We work together in harmony.
VAN DORN (voice-over): First, a strong standing in the European elections. Now, a real shot at the parliament. And finally, another go at the
presidency by Le Pen, all with one man firmly in their sights.
BARDELLA (through translator): The person who erased France has a name. It's Emmanuel Macron.
VAN DORN (voice-over): Saskia Van Dorn, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right. You may remember the old saying, if your friends jumped off a cliff, would you? Well, what if it was part of the Red Bull Cliff
Diving World Series? The competition has divers free falling from as high as 27 meters. This is video from the third leg of the series held on
Italy's Adriatic coast on Sunday. The series moves on to Northern Ireland's Causeway Coast on July 20th.
[12:55:00]
All right, there's good news for U.S. gymnast Simone Biles. She has booked her ticket to the Paris Olympics after a major win at the Olympic
gymnastics trials. She's now the fourth American woman to compete in three Olympic Games.
Biles plays first in the all-around competition on Sunday, leading her competitors by more than five points. That guarantees the reigning world
champion and the most decorated gymnast ever an automatic spot on the U.S. team.
And a watershed moment for the world's most famous cycle race. Biniam Girmay from Eritrea has become the first black African rider to win a stage
of the Tour de France. He finished first in a sprint in the line in Monday's third stage. Only two African riders, both white, had previously
won tour stages.
All right, that does it for this hour of "ONE WORLD". I'm Zain Asher. Appreciate you watching. "AMANPOUR" is up next. You're watching CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
