Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Trump Scores Huge Legal Win, Stays On Colorado Ballot; Apple Hit With Landmark: $2 Billion EU Antitrust Fine; VP Harris Escalates Administration Calls For Gaza Ceasefire; Malaysia May Renew Search For Plane Lost A Decade Ago; Swift Singapore Stop Boosts Economy, Stirs Regional Drama; U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Keeps Trump On The Ballot. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired March 04, 2024 - 15:00   ET



RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: A new week together, an hour to go of trading on Wall Street. Look at the markets.

Well, the worst of the day seems to have gone and down 25 points. Who knows where we're we will end, but things have sort of perked up in the last

hour, we might even go positive, I wouldn't put money unnecessarily on that.

The markets and the main events that you and I need to digest: The Supreme Court rules to keep Donald Trump on the ballot in all states. It was a

unanimous decision. As always though, the devil is in the detail.

The EU has fined apple $2 billion over its rules for music streaming apps.

And yes, a bad blood in Southeast Asia. Singapore is in hot water into neighbors over payments to attract Taylor Swift for an exclusive series of

contracts only in Singapore.

Now, we are in New York live, as always. Monday, March the 4th, I'm Richard Quest, and as we start the week together, I mean business.

Good evening.

Tonight, we begin with Donald Trump, who has overcome a major obstacle in his presidential campaign because of a ruling by the Supreme Court. It was


The nine justices said the state of Colorado had misapplied the 14th Amendment when it struck him off from the ballot in that state. Two other

states, Maine and Illinois sought to disqualify Mr. Trump as an alleged insurrectionist.

Colorado and Maine are among the states holding nominating contests on Super Tuesday tomorrow. Republicans now will be able to vote for Donald

Trump. He hailed the ruling.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to start by thanking the Supreme Court for its unanimous decision today, it was a very

important decision. Very well crafted.

And I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together which our country needs.

You cannot take somebody out of a race, the voters can take the person out of the race very quickly, but a court shouldn't be doing that and the

Supreme Court saw that very well, and I really do believe that will be a unifying factor.


QUEST: Now, the court did not say, it was not required to say whether Donald Trump was an insurrectionist or engaged in that. What they agreed

upon is that the states cannot enforce that part of the Constitution by themselves.

Five of the justices, the Conservatives say it is a matter only for Congress. The court's liberal three disagreed, and then in a concurring

opinion, but they went on a frolic of their own to an extent: "The majority shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement. We cannot

join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult decisions unnecessarily."

Joan is with me in Washington.

All right, let's do the obvious bit first, if we may, because we pretty much knew that they were all going to go to keep him on the ballot. Is that

the story today?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's part one. And by the way, I just have to return to your use of the word "frolic" for those

liberal justices, and we'll talk in a second about what Amy Coney Barrett said about that.

But yes, Richard, just as a threshold manner, nine-zip, saying that states cannot block Donald Trump from the ballot. The decision has a lot of

clarity in that regard, especially since we're on the day before Super Tuesday.

QUEST: If that is the case, so he will be on the ballot. Is there any other way this comes back? I mean, never mind all the other cases that might end

up at the Supreme Court. Is there any other way that this 14th Amendment issue comes back? Or is that done, dusted, finished, over and done with?

BISKUPIC: Actually, Richard, your question goes right to the five-four split among these justices, as I said it was nine-zip bottom line to

reverse the Colorado Supreme Court decision that had disqualified Donald Trump from the ballot, but the justices split five four on your question.

The majority said this cannot come back at all unless Congress passes specific legislation that would allow for enforcement of this Section III

of the 14th Amendment which is casually known as the anti-insurrectionist ban for candidates.


But the four justices who wrote separately and in different ways, the liberals doing their part and Justice Amy Coney Barrett saying her part

said there was no need to break ground that way. You didn't need to say how this amendment might be enforced. The important part was to say that states

on their own cannot enforce it. And as I said, the majority said only Congress with specific legislation.

QUEST: So why did they? I mean, I understand in the wider course of their jurisprudence, their job is to interpret the Constitution and to create

clarity for future cases on the 14th Amendment, they have a wider duty in a sense, but was it necessary?

BISKUPIC: According to the four others, it wasn't necessary, and according to, frankly, the way they normally rule, they try to rule just on the

question presented the key, the key issue before them, but maybe, I mean, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they want to resolve the

kinds of questions that you just raised there, Richard, you know, like, is there a chance this could come back in November in some way or in January

in some way when the vote is being certified in 2025?

But as I said, the five-justice conservative majority, and it was all the folks to the far right, were the ones who wanted to shut the door on any

other challenge that would allow some enforcement of Section III of the 14th Amendment beyond what Congress would do.

QUEST: Joan, grateful as always, thank you.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

QUEST: David is with me, David Schwartz is expert in constitutional law, professor at University of Minnesota's Law School. All right, so in the

great scheme of these things, they're laying -- the justices are laying down markers on their jurisprudence. What do you take from the fact -- I

mean, it is -- on one level, it's a little bit depressing, isn't it, that the split in the Supreme Court between liberals and conservatives just will

never go away and always comes back in some shape or form?

DAVID SCHWARTZ, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL: You're absolutely correct that at the end of the day, the court is still split,

but they were united on a very, very narrow question of which I don't think any of us were surprised by in terms of the court ruling, but to your

broader question here is that American politics is so divided. Congress is divided, the president is divided, the parties are divided. The court is

just another one of those sort of cracked or divided institutions.

But there's something I want to really say about this divide here right now, and the reason why I think the majority went where they did and the

dissenters were where they were is that they said that the majority, there's only a specific way that Trump can be removed from the ballot and

it is through what Congress does.

What it forecloses is the fact that Trump is still facing criminal trials and what if he were to be convicted in the next months? And if he were to

be convicted, this decision now precludes a judge from saying he is now, as a convicted felon, ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

And so I think that's the real significant part that most people are missing right now, in terms of how this decision was laid out.

QUEST: Right. So because there is a part of the 14th Amendment for convicted felons.

SCHWARTZ: Well, basically, across the United States, if you've been convicted as a felon, you generally can't serve in office. And here, here

by specifically saying that only Congress can invoke this clause, it is foreclosing a possibility that a judge could have invoked the Insurrection

Clause to preclude him from staying on the ballot if convicted of a felony.

QUEST: What about the immunity case? Where are we with that at the moment?

SCHWARTZ: Well, that's why I think it's interesting here because the Supreme Court accepted last week the immunity argument. It's going to take

briefs this month, oral arguments in April, decision expected by let us say the end of June.

In some sense, what the court tried to do was take two issues, which are really I think, joined -- immunity issues, the insurrection clause issue,

did he commit insurrection and trying to crowbar them apart and address them separately, and if the Supreme Court rules as I think they're going to

rule and say, he doesn't have absolute immunity, there's a possibility that he can go to trial, possibility he could be convicted before election day,

then the opinion that came out this morning precludes a judge from saying you've been convicted of a felony, you can't serve as president of the

United States.

So there really is, what I think is some type of deeper structure that's potentially connecting this decision and the one that will be coming out in

the next few months.

QUEST: All right, so let's -- just humor me if you'll be as kind.

So we've just had this decision on the 14th.



QUEST: We've still got the immunity decision to go.

Let's assume that Donald Trump wins, but wins on that one as well. He is on the ballot, he becomes a convicted felon in some shape or form. How far has

the Supreme Court prepared itself? I know you say about the five majority saying, you know, only Congress, but can you see ways in which Donald

Trump's presidency comes back again and again and again, before the court?

SCHWARTZ: Oh, I see this happening several times as possibilities, because again, if the immunity case decision goes the way it is, that's not going

to completely foreclose him from going to trial. Additionally, that basically only involves the case in Washington, DC surrounding events of

January 6th.

We also have the Mar-a-Lago case involving the government documents, which is alleged illegal behavior after he became president, and then we have the

case that is going to start later this this month in New York City.

So I can see the court eventually perhaps being dragged into these other court proceedings with Donald Trump, as well as perhaps depending on what's

going to happen with the Georgia case regarding his efforts to try to interfere in the election there.

So I think the court is far from done in terms of addressing the 2024 presidential election as it has Donald Trump.

QUEST: And I'm guessing the significance of the day is we've got a good idea of where everybody stands on these bigger issues.

Glad to have you with us, sir. We will talk more. I am grateful. Thank you.

Apple has been fined $2 billion for thwarting competition in the App Store. The European Commission sided with Spotify and said Apple used its dominant

position to hurt its music streaming rivals.


MARGRETHE VESTAGER, EUROPEAN COMPETITION COMMISSIONER: Apple did so by restricting app developers' ability to inform users of Apple devices about

alternative cheaper options to purchase music available on the internet outside of the Apple ecosystem.

This is illegal and it has impacted millions of European consumers. They were not able to make a free choice.


QUEST: Now Apple shares are down sharply, two-and-a-half percent in a rising market. The company says its App Store is a level playing field for


Anna is with me. Anna Stewart is in London, I'm a Spotify user. What are you?

ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER: I'm Apple Music. Boomer versus millennial, Richard, there we go.

QUEST: What is it? What's this really all about?

STEWART: Well, this is interesting. It's not just Spotify, although Spotify brought the original claim in 2019, but this is all to do with Apple's App

Store and whether or not it's fair, clearly the EU says it's not to have developers not be able to talk about their subscription offers outside of

the App Store.

So for Spotify, to be able to say, hey, you can get at certain price on the App Store, but you can also get it cheaper somewhere else.

There is also an issue here for the EU about the commission fee the App Store charges developers, 30 percent in many cases, which gets passed on to

the consumer also saying that is unfair.

So while Spotify brought the case, it's not just about Spotify, and Apple is appealing. They don't believe in this ruling at all. They've actually

had a bit of a go at Spotify saying it's clearly too dominant player, and it's the main beneficiary of this case.

QUEST: We have to put this in a wider context in terms of Apple, because Apple has changed its app store policies, hasn't it, as it relates to when

doing business in the EU, where you -- well, you can have other App Stores.

STEWART: I mean, it is fascinating. They have to in many ways, and lots of different companies will have a very different operation here in the EU or

we're not in the EU anymore, the UK, but in the EU versus for instance the United States.

Now that is because of the Digital Markets Act, which comes into effect on Wednesday. It essentially means that any kind of company can't serve --

can't favor its own services over someone else's.

Now in the case of Apple, if you've got the latest iOS in the EU, you can actually download an alternative App Store if you want. So you could buy

apps from elsewhere. You don't have to use Apple App Store. It's not easy to do.

I was actually having a go at this earlier today. You had to plug in your phone into a computer, you have to change all your settings. You're

changing the settings of your phone, you had to restart it. It's not simple, but this is the feature within the EU to try and break down some of

those walled gardens, I suppose.

QUEST: Finally, it seems -- I don't know, it seems the EU is more on the front foot in anti-competition issues when it comes to digital and tech at

the most at the moment than say for example the DOJ in the US.


STEWART: I think, they have been for a really long time. What's most surprising I think about this case is this is actually Apple's first fine

from the EU. Everyone else, all the other tech giants have had multiple fines at this stage.

They are ahead in terms of the digital markets, and they are probably ahead when it comes to the EU's AI Act as well.

So the EU kind of leads in this area. It will be really interesting to see whether Apple has to change its practices in the US as well at some stage.

Will they follow?

QUEST: Anna, good to see you. Thank you.

No comment on Apple Music versus Spotify.

We took a vote in our morning meeting.

STEWART: Oh, yes.

QUEST: And most -- yes, most were Spotify users. I couldn't --

STEWART: I just love a walled garden, what can I say?

QUEST: I'm old enough to remember the original one of AOL, so there you are. Thank you. Anna Stewart in London.

She's kind enough not to beat me up on that.

Former Twitter executives -- breaking news -- including the former Twitter CEO, Parag Agrawal are now suing Elon Musk for $120 million in severance

payments, as a result, of course, they lost their jobs when he took over.

As you and I continue together, controversy in Washington, one of Netanyahu's biggest rivals is meeting the US vice president, in a moment.


QUEST: The Israeli War Cabinet member, Benny Gantz is in Washington. There, he is meeting the US officials including the Vice President Kamala Harris.

He is one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's main political rivals. The visitor is causing controversy back home.

An official telling CNN that Gantz does not represent the Israeli government on this trip. The White House has defended the meeting with the

vice president. Here is what the vice president said will be on the table.


KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to discuss a number of things in terms of the priorities that certainly we have, which

includes getting a hostage deal done, getting aid in, and then getting that six-week ceasefire.


QUEST: Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv.

Jeremy as a former White House and whatever your sort of, you can put this into both Israeli and US political context. Double duty, if you will.

Meeting Gantz at one level is perfectly reasonable. Former alternate prime minister, senior member of the Cabinet and at another level, sending a

message to Netanyahu. How do you read it?


JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think that's right, Richard, and I also think that it just kind of encapsulates this marriage of convenience

between Benny Gantz and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I mean, these two men have been political rivals for years now. And frankly, they

still are despite the fact that Benny Gantz joined this emergency wartime unity cabinet.

Since the war started, these two men remained political rivals, and frankly, every poll now shows that Benny Gantz is more popular than

Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, if the elections were to be held today, Gantz would likely be the next man to become prime minister of Israel.

He knows that, Netanyahu knows that's and the Americans also know that, and so as the United States is looking to the future, particularly as Benjamin

Netanyahu has repeatedly thumbed his finger in the eyes of the United States, as they've been pushing to establish a Palestinian state, once this

war is done, the White House is looking for another partner for the future. And it knows that Benny Gantz might very well be that partner.

Now, that doesn't mean that the US is going to put its finger -- you know, put its thumb on the scale or try to influence Israeli domestic politics,

but they know that Benny Gantz could be the next man and they also think that he might be someone they could work with perhaps even more than

Netanyahu going forward.

QUEST: Where are we on the ceasefire issue?

DIAMOND: Well, the negotiations are still ongoing, but Israel decided not to send a delegation to the latest round of talks in Cairo. A Hamas

delegation did arrive there, but the Israeli government said that it did not send that delegation because Hamas is yet to provide a list of the

hostages who would actually be released.

They've also yet to provide the ratio of Palestinian prisoners that they would like to see released in exchange for those Israeli hostages. So the

negotiations are ongoing, but Israel for now withholding its participation, while it waits for some of those key items from Hamas.

And the key thing here and this is also why Benny Gantz's visit to the White House is important right now is that it comes at such a critical


We have less than a week until the start of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, that is the deadline by which Benny Gantz himself has said a deal

needs to be reached because if not a deal, then he has said, and other Israeli officials have said that a military offensive into the southernmost

city of Rafah where one-and-a-half million Palestinians are currently living will be in the offing -- Richard.

QUEST: Jeremy in Tel Aviv, grateful. Thank you, sir.

Damage to data cables in the Red Sea has caused major global telecommunications disruption. As much as a quarter of the internet traffic

between Asia and Europe and the Middle East has had to be rerouted. It follows weeks after official Yemeni government warned of a possible attack

by Houthi rebels on the cables.

Since November, Iran-backed militants have been repeatedly targeting -- well, as you know, you and I have discussed many times the vessels, the

ships in the world's busiest shipping route.

With me is Arsenio Dominguez, the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organization. So do we know what happened with these data cables,


ARSENIO DOMINGUEZ, SECRETARY GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION: No. At present, we're actually focusing the efforts first on protecting

shipping in particular the seafarers that travel on ships around the world, in order for all the commodities to continue to trade.

We need to continue to work with the countries in the region in order to gather further information.

QUEST: The Houthis seem to be impervious, this idea of the ships that they are sending missiles are not Israeli per se, they have no connection with

Israel. They may have a connection with the United -- I mean, their logic defies logic. There's not -- what more do you want now?

DOMINGUEZ: Well, right now we're actually working with other countries in the region in particular, to see what further assistance we can provide,

and how we can continue for them to enhance the maritime safety and security capabilities.

At the same time, as a member of the United Nations, I continue to approach all the country members of the organization, as well as those working with

the Security Council in order to see what further assistance we can provide, and also how we bring them on to the table to focus on solutions.

QUEST: Yes, but I mean, how do you do that? At the end of the day, how do you get them to stop firing missiles?

DOMINGUEZ: We need to reach out to other countries, to all the member states in order for the message for everyone to actually speak the same

voice in order to send the message right down there.

But again, we also need to focus on what advice and what assistance we can provide to shipping in particular right now for the operations to continue.

QUEST: Surely, the safest advice is don't go there. Don't go at the Red Sea.


DOMINGUEZ: We need to look into all the aspects because the Red Sea is open and if we need to defend the freedom of navigation and of course the

countries around that region that are also suffering the negative effects, you can look at how the Suez Canal has dropped transit by more than 60


And then if you look around transiting around Africa, of course, that increases CO2 emissions by more than 70 percent.

QUEST: Isn't this a good example of how the Houthis -- the main -- I mean, except for perhaps of those, God forbid, people on a ship that gets hit by

missiles. Well, there haven't been that many of them, but the main victims are the people who live in the region who are affected either by the lack

of trade, or the lack of the Suez Canal, or the thousand and one other reasons economic.

DOMINGUEZ: Look, the affected -- that's all of us, starting with the seafarers that are innocent people working on board. Then you have all

those around the Red Sea, but if you look at the way that trade freights have tripled in routes like from China to Europe, then even you and I are

actually going to start feeling the squeeze and the impact of these attacks.

QUEST: Secretary-General, I'm grateful to you sir. Thank you. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

MH 370, a mystery in aviation that has kept us all transfixed. I can't believe it's 10 years since the plane disappeared, and now the Malaysian

government is suggesting it is open to restarting the search for the Boeing 777. In a moment.



QUEST: It's hard to believe it's 10 years since MH370, the missing Malaysia 777 that you all remember him, but so much so. And I even wrote a book

about it and being covered, but ultimately, it's 10 years ago since all this took place. And as the 10th anniversary looms later this week,

Malaysia's government now says it could, it is open to restarting its search to a third party. In talks with Ocean Infinity who did some of the

last searches.

A U.S. company that tried twice to find the plane. The transport minister says there's potential for a no fine, no fee operation. I spoke to the CEO

of Ocean Infinity back in 2019 when they -- Malaysians were not going to renew the license to go and search. And he explained the reasons why.


OLIVER PLUNKETT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OCEAN INFINITY: Minister Loke from Malaysia actually makes a very serious point when he says that the

government doesn't want to engage unless there's a credible reason to do so. The other way of thinking about that is he says I don't want to expose

the families to the emotions of hope on a wild goose chase. And we feel that that's very important because ultimately, it's the families who are at

the center of all this.


QUEST: So, what's changed? Mary Schiavo was with me in Arizona and for full disclosure, Mary's involved in litigation against Boeing. Boeing, of

course, not related to this but Boeing is the manufacturer of the 777. So, Mary, this new idea to go out and search. What do you think they've --

what's changed?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN TRANSPORT ANALYST: Well, some of the technology has changed. I mean, in terms of international air flight and now the ICAO, the

International Civil Aviation Organization wanted flights to report in every 15 minutes. The NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board in the USA

still asked for longer flight recorders, longer protected flight recorders, et cetera.

There have been many ideas that have changed. But in terms of finding the - - this airplane underwater, not a lot has changed. And I think the contract which they're proposing is a no find, no fee which is a pretty big

undertaking, a very expensive undertaking, as you remember from the early searches and in 2014. And so, that part hasn't changed. It'll be a very

expensive undertaking, but they do have over 50 to 60 pieces of the plane that washed up on, you know, the shores of the western shores of the Indian


So, they know for a fact it's down there somewhere. And of course, they didn't have those pieces in 2014 and '15.

QUEST: The reality is -- I mean, and this is the fascinating part. Technology may have shifted, so that we can look further and deeper down

intuition but we -- every strip it back to its bare essentials, Mary. We are no wiser today than you and I were back in 2014, 2017, 2019 about what

actually happened.

SCHIAVO: Oh, that's exactly right. And I was involved in this case for and -- literally just finished up the last of the cases this year. And we

didn't get discovery from the Malaysian government, which was, you know, quite surprising, but good. And on that discovery that we did get, of

course, it showed that the plane did exactly what they predicted and figure it out back in 2014 that it did.

So then of course that led to various criticisms that why didn't you scramble the jet? Why didn't you follow it? Why didn't you do more? And why

did you allow the search to go on in the South China Sea for three to four days while the oil Swick and the flotsam and jetsam where the plane had

really gone down was now being flung to the four corners of the ocean. Those are the same criticisms that, you know, we had back in 2014.

So, there's certainly not a lot of new information on the plane's whereabouts other than I guess I would say the flapper on, the piece of the

wing washed up did show according to some experts, not according to all that it was violently ripped from the plane which would suggest that no, as

some people theorize the pilot did not commit suicide and let it settle peacefully and gently on the ocean to sink down intact. This plane was

ripped apart as it fell from the sky. I guess that's what the pieces have told us.

QUEST: No. This is -- last question here. Where do you stand all these years later?


I'll nail my colors to the mast first. I can see the obviousness that the captain did it. I can see that argument. And I can see -- but I don't buy

it. And I don't think we can convict Captain Zaharie without better evidence. I just don't think it's fair to say the captain walked in it.

SCHIAVO: I couldn't agree more. And I painstaking over the nine on now almost days short of 10 years I worked on the case for families in court.

Now is different than searching for it. But there was not one thing that they could say that definitively showed that people just had a lot of

suspicions. And I remember when we were working on this, you know, well, 10 years ago, there's oh, the FBI has analyzed the data and they say there

were suspicious things on the pilot's computer.

That's simply not true. It just did not happen. And so, this, you know, a decade later, yes, there's nothing that says the pilot did it. And I still

go back to the lithium-ion batteries in the cargo hold. We don't allow that. And there's a reason.

QUEST: And there's a whole chapter in my book on which you can no longer get by the way. So I'm not plugging a book that you can buy. It's out of

print now. But there's a whole chapter on lithium-ion batteries. Thank you, Mary. Good to see you out in Arizona.

SCHIAVO: Thank you.

QUEST: Now, Taylor Swift is touring in Singapore and where she goes the Swifties follow and follow with their wallets. One economist estimates the

concerts could put in about $300 million in revenue for Singapore, 300 million. It's our only stop in Southeast Asia. And that is not by accident.

That's exclusivity as a price. Thailand's Prime Minister says it could be as much as $3 million a show that the Singaporeans paid the Swift deal --

well, with Taylor Swift.

And the Singapore culture minister says the number is much lower but he didn't give a number. Kristie Lu stout on Singapore swift media.


KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): Taylor Swift Eras Tour is wrapping up its Asia lake in Singapore. The pop star's only Southeast Asian

star. And fans across the region are making a pricey pilgrimage to the city state including the head of Swifties Philippines.

CHARLYN SUIZO, HEAD, SWIFTIES PHILIPPINES: I'm so happy, I was very excited to see Taylor later on. And he really, you know, overwhelmed with the

amazing (INAUDIBLE) around me and very excited for the experience.

CHRISTEL KAYE KUAN, TAYLOR SWIFT FAN: Oh, we came from the Philippines and we are super fan since we were in grade school. Like we're 10 years old. We

love Taylor Swift.


STOUT: But nearby Asian governments are seeing red amid allegations that Singapore paid up to $3 million a show for an exclusive deal to secure

Taylor Swift and her Eras Tour. This is the backstory. Last week a lawmaker in the Philippines called on his country to pressure Singapore for an

explanation. Joey Salceda said this "This isn't what good neighbors do. It was at the expense of neighboring countries which could not attract their

own foreign concert goers and whose fans had to go to Singapore."

But the allegations were made public earlier by the Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin at a business forum in Bangkok on February the 16th. He

said that Singapore paid Taylor Swift up to $3 million per show allegedly on condition of exclusivity of a Singapore-only arrangement in Southeast

Asia. And Srettha added this, "If I had known this, I would have brought the shows to Thailand."

Now Singapore said it did award Taylor Swift a grant to perform there but it did not confirm the exclusivity clause. And on Monday, its culture

minister Edward Tong made new comments about the grant speaking to Parliament, he said this "there has been some online speculation as to the

size of the grant. I can say that it is not accurate and not anywhere as high as speculated."

Citing confidentiality reasons, he did not reveal the size or the conditions of the grant. This week, Swift is playing six sold out nights to

300,000 fans in Singapore. Her only stop in Southeast Asia. And according to an economist at Maybank, seven intent concert goers are coming in from

overseas spending up to $370 million in this city state.

SUIZO: For me this is now the biggest amount that I have spent for a concert. I never really ran big like six-digit amount for someone else's.

Just Taylor Swift.

STOUT: Singapore is getting a big economic boost from Swiftonomics which its Asian neighbors know all too well.

Kristie Lu Stout, CNN, Hong Kong.

QUEST: You know, before I love you and leave you, Wall Street's struggling to build on last week record. The Dow is flat. In fact, we've just gone

down again. The triple stack is a little bit higher than I thought. I mean, everybody's flat just at the moment. I think it's large leap because is all

the gains of recent weeks and times you take a bit of a breather.


That as it may be as QUEST MEANS BUSINESS at the top of the hour, together you and I will have a dash to the closing bell. Coming up next, Connecting

Africa. This is CNN.



QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. Together now let's have a dash to the closing bell. There's exactly two minutes to go. Bitcoin is flirting with

record highs. The cryptocurrency has been trading of more than 67,000. Look at those numbers out of 604,000 today. And that's helping exchanges where

it's traded like Coinbase, which is up nearly 12 percent. Wall Street is struggling to build on last week's record and today's -- and highly

unlikely to do so.

We've fallen quite choppy back as you can see on the Dow. We did an hour or two ago, look like we might even go positive but that's now reversed below

than 100 points. Look at the triple stack. The S&P 500 is down as indeed the NASDAQ, that is pretty much flat.

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that Donald Trump can remain on the 2024 ballot. I spoke to the constitutional law professor about the decision

and the divide.


DAVID SCHULTZ, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: That at the end of the day, the court is still split but they were united on a very, very narrow

question of which I don't think any of us were surprised by in terms of the court ruling it. But to your broader question here is that American

politics is so divided. Congress is divided, the president is divided, the parties are divided. The court is just another one of those sort of cracked

or divided institutions.


QUEST: And I'm Dow -- and the Dow, well, that's divided half and half as pretty much as you can see. And that's why we're seeing such a way

(INAUDIBLE) Techs leading the way. Intel and IBM are at the top. Boeing's edged into the green. American Airlines has ordered 85 Boeing planes to

meet travel demand. Apple's down After the E.U.'s antitrust fine nearly $2 billion. You're up to date. Dash to the closing bell. I'm Richard Quest in

New York.


Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable. The closing bell is ringing on Wall Street. "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper is just

ahead. This is CNN.