Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

Maersk CEO: Very Pleased with Result of Project Freedom; Iran Says it is Still Reviewing Messages from the U.S.; Hantavirus-Hit Cruise Ship Bound for Spain's Canary Island. Mayor Mamdani Backs "Pied-a-Terre Tax for Luxury Second Homes in NYC; Recent Contentious SCOTUS Rulings Decided by 6-3 Majority; A Model for Predicting the World cup Champion. Aired 4p-5p ET

Aired May 07, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:16]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Closing bell is ringing on Wall Street, and it is Corning ringing the closing

bell. They received a multi-billion dollar investment from NVIDIA in the last few days and you see the market is down. The Dow has been down all

session. Well, except for a bit of green at the beginning. Otherwise, all the markets are lower, not by a huge amount and one -- oh, dear! He

just used one gavel.

Oh well! Never mind that. That was all rather tepid way to end the trading world a rather tepid sort of day. Those are the markets and the

main events that you and I will talk about.

The shipping giant, Maersk on the impact of the crisis in the Straits. The chief executive says the disruptions costing the company half a

billion dollars a month.

The billionaires versus the New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani is proposed "Pied-a-terre" tax is ruffling feathers.

And meet the analyst who successfully predicted the winner of the last three World Cups. Will he do it again?

We are live in New York. It is Thursday, it Ismay the 7th. I am Richard Quest and I mean business.

Good evening.

Maersk is one of the world's largest shipping companies. And tonight the CEO tells us he would send more vessels through the Straits of Hormuz,

but only if -- and it is a big if -- President Trump were to restart Project Freedom.

The Maersk chief executive is Vincent Clerc, who joined me earlier and Maersk owns one of the two ships that the U.S. guided out of the Straits

this week under Project Freedom.

Clerc says he is very grateful for that operation and the Straits closure, he believes, is unsustainable. Maersk can no longer absorb the

massive costs by this disruption and is passing them on to customers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VINCENT CLERC, CEO, MAERSK: Since the beginning of the hostilities, we have had ships that were stuck on the wrong side of the Gulf, if you

will, unable to get in or to get out. We, out of an abundance of caution, never felt that it was worth trying, that the security

situation was there for us to try, but when we were approached by the U.S. Navy around Project Freedom and they basically gave us the layout

of the plan that they had.

We felt that the means that they put at the disposal of the Alliance Fairfax, they were so significant that they could really ensure the

safety of the ship. Therefore, we agreed to the crossing, performed it here at the beginning of the week very safely, and are very pleased with

the result to have the ship in the Arabian Sea today.

QUEST: If that were to be able to be repeated -- I mean, I know that Project Freedom has been suspended for the moment, but if that were to

come back, would you be interested in participating again?

CLERC: Yes. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to all the people who have been involved in making it happen. I think there has been

significant resources committed to making this happen safely.

And therefore, if we were able to get the same level of protection, definitely we would be willing to take more of the ships across the

Strait of Hormuz.

QUEST: How many ships do you currently have there?

CLERC: We still have six ships. We have one U.S. flagged, one Danish flagged, and four chartered vessels and that's basically where we are at

this stage. And as long as the situation is what it is, they will stay in the Gulf until there is either another Project Freedom or a political

resolution to the problem and a reopening of the Strait so that we can sail safely.

QUEST: I know you're not able to get the ships out, but are you able to rotate the crew? Are you able to send any smaller tenders or whatever to

the ship? Because obviously it needs resupplying with food and water and those sort of things. Are you able to relieve the crew?

CLERC: Yes, that's a really good point. Actually, we have had fantastic cooperation with the Saudi authorities with respect to visas and being

able to take some of our crew off the ships when their turn was up, get through the country, get to the airport in Riyadh and go home, and we

have also been able to get visas and support to get people who needed to check into the ships to come through Saudi Arabia and then find the

means to make it to the ships so that we can continue to have full staff, the staff that we need on board the ships.

With respect to food, necessities and everything else, we've also had the collaboration of the Saudi Navy, and we've been able to keep those

ships reprovisioned as needed.

QUEST: Assuming you can get the six ships out at some point and these are all different versions of cargo ships, aren't they, of one sort or

another, or container ships of one sort or another, how many ships do you have waiting to go in?

[16:05:20]

CLERC So none of the ships are waiting to go in. We have actually found solution to serve our customers in the region, either through the ports

of Salalah or Khor Fakkan on the Arabian Sea side or through Jeddah and then land bridge into Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Riyadh and the Eastern

Province of Saudi Arabia.

So right now, we have basically rerouted our network so that we can serve those markets without having to go into the Gulf.

QUEST: How are you now noticing on this point the costs of all your activities? Now, at its most basic, the cost of all your other ships

elsewhere in the world, the cost of fueling them has gone up, obviously because of this, but the cost of wages, the cost of everything in your

own business, which you then have to pass on to your ultimate consumers. Are we seeing a significant rise in the price of container traffic?

CLERC: I think what we are seeing right now for us is with the changes that there has been as a result of this war, the increase in oil price

and the dislocations that there has been in the markets overall, we are looking at an extra cost bill of half a billion dollars a month that we

are going to face basically from April and for as long as this lasts.

Obviously, this is a significant amount and there is something that we can do on cost mitigation, which we will do, but the rest of it is

really a commercial conversation with customers about having to pass this cost on, because otherwise this is completely unsustainable for us.

QUEST: The well-being of the seafarers who are stuck, some are being rotated out, some are not able to be. From what you know, is their

mental and physical health good?

CLERC: From what I know, I think everybody is in good spirits. The ships that are there are, for the most part, not sitting idle, but they are

actually providing transportation solutions within the Gulf by moving cargo around between different ports wherever this is necessary.

We have over 6,000 colleagues in the affected countries, some on board ships, some working in our terminals in Bahrain and in Salalah in Oman,

which facilities that have been under attack earlier on in the war.

We have people working in warehouses and in offices. Everybody is safe and accounted for and throughout this, we have really taken the safety

of everybody very close to heart and that is why also, you didn't see us take any chance with respect to safety when it came to attempting a

crossing except for the great security we had provided by the U.S. military here on Project Freedom.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: That is the CEO of Maersk. At the same time, Tehran has now laid out new rules for ships that want to pass through the Strait.

On your screen is what is called the Vessel Information Declaration. Now, Iran says ships must fill it out to ensure their safety. At the

same time, Iran is reviewing the latest U.S. proposal to end the conflict. A source in the region had told CNN, Tehran would likely

respond today.

Markets are still hoping out for a diplomatic solution. The price of Brent crude. It has been bouncing around and barely changed on the day,

but that doesn't really reflect the way because Brent at one point went down to 96 and then came back up again.

Nic Robertson is in Islamabad.

Everybody is just waiting. I mean, you can't put it any more bluntly than that. It is looking for direction. It is looking for who makes the

next move or where the next move comes from in any event.

ROBERTSON: Yes, I mean, President Trump has expressed in the past, sort of 24 to 48 hours both optimism that something is close, that sort of

one-page memorandum appears to be close. I think that's the narrative that we still hear in Washington and still here in Islamabad.

But the perhaps the optimism is misplaced. Perhaps it isn't. Obviously, there are conversations we understand that go on between the mediators

and Iranian and us officials on a daily basis. There is a lot of conversations going on, but at this moment, it is Iran that is still

considering its response to the position that the U.S. gave them last weekend.

It was expected to land today, today here was an hour ago, we are in tomorrow, but that's today. So, you know, at this moment, you know, I

think when that document does land, when the Iranian response does land, it is going to provide insight for the mediators here about how close

the U.S. and Iran may still be.

I mean, their job as mediators is to look at the two positions. You've got this sort of incoming from the U.S. and this incoming from Iran.

[16:10:10]

One is the Iranians' response to the U.S., and can further bridges be built? And this is why everyone sort of listens to everything that is

being said on Iranian state and other media trying to gain insights. And I don't think really anyone has been able to get stronger clues on that

today.

I think everyone's attention, all sort of heads swiveled south to the Strait of Hormuz about an hour ago. There were reports on Iranian state

media that there was some kind of explosions going on there, and IRIB, main Iranian state media had said that there was fire by the enemy, but

it is not clear and that just seems to have spiked up and gone away.

But it does speak to the tensions and the sort of knife-edge that everyone feels that they are on. Can the Iranians get a response in? Can

it make talks happen? Or will the ceasefire break down for any number of all the reasons that we talk about.

QUEST: I don't know whether you were listening just then or you could hear very clearly the CEO of Maersk, he is talking about being willing

to send ships again through if Project Freedom were to be restarted or something similar, and he was highly complementary at the way in which

the U.S. did offer this guaranteed safe passage.

ROBERTSON: That was Monday, wasn't it? And two ships did get out, and as he said, one of them was a Maersk ship and he still has got six stuck

and they are able to sort of rotate the mariners in and out. So there is some sort of humanitarian relief going on. The Saudis obviously helping

out with that, but yes.

I was struck by the fact that he said he would try that again because the President has put it on pause and it did seem to come at the cost of

a huge spike in hostilities. That was the night that Iran decided to fire 19 different missiles at different types into the UAE and one oil

facility in the UAE was put on fire.

So even though, you know, there is a red, white and blue dome of a hundred aircrafts and 15,000 U.S. service personnel and the guided

missile destroyers that have all been involved, we heard that from the Secretary of Defense at the beginning of the week, Pete Hegseth, all

involved in providing that security, it is a huge security input.

It makes it passable, but what do we understand from Pete Hegseth on Monday it was 1,550 commercial vessels stuck in the Gulf. Two got out.

It is a help, but one would imagine this bubble would have to expand to make it more viable and that appears to be at cost because Iran would

respond, they have shown that as well.

QUEST: You're right. You talk about viability, meaningfulness and all of that.

Nic, very grateful. It is late for you. Thank you, sir. Grateful you stayed with us.

The conflict may push Gulf nations to reshape their economies. Becky Anderson, of course, is you're well aware is based in Abu Dhabi where

"Connect the World" has been anchored for some years now.

Becky joined me a moment or five ago to talk about how Gulf nations like the UAE are handling the situation, and diversification is the key.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Over the last couple of decades, the UAE very specifically has built itself a non-oil economy.

More than 75 percent of the UAE's economy is now non-oil, which means, frankly, it is not a petro state like some others are at this stage and

doesn't therefore need the sort of wrapper of OPEC these days.

And frankly, it wants to pump more to pay for everything else that it is up to, including, you know, the building of the sort of renewable energy

portfolio here, A.I. and advanced technology, tourism and financial services.

There are some very specific programs that have been released to address the short-term issues. UAE has just released a national program to boost

supply chain resilience and scale up domestic production of a number of critical sort of products.

I spoke to the CEO of Burjeel Holdings, for example, a leading health care provider who told me about his plans to expand pharmaceutical

manufacturing, just one example of what is an Emirati initiative. And we've spoken about the fact that they've pulled out of OPEC.

There are strains in terms of sort of other alliances around this region, you know, the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

But I think the bottom line is, we shouldn't see this gulf region as monolithic. These are very different countries. All, frankly, with sort

of, you know, country first sovereign visions.

[16:15:13]

And they are at different stages of those visions and the sort of oil money for some is very important. The oil money for others at this

stage, only important in that it provides funds to really expand on visions, which are sort of non-oil based, as it were.

QUEST: All right, taking that idea, how are they rethinking plans for the future?

ANDERSON: I think that is -- it is about not rethinking plans, but I think its doubling down on already existing plans built over the past

couple of decades. And again, take that UAE lens, the focus is very specifically on building the UAE out as a global hub for, for example,

A.I. and advanced tech; for example, for financial services, tourism, real estate play very big roles in the development and vision for this

economy.

And you see similar stories to varying degrees. You see a similar story, perhaps in Saudi as well, but it is when you look at what is going on

now, there is no doubt that this is tough. Nobody around this region wants this war to continue by any stretch of the imagination. Nobody

wants an Iran that is a threat. It is such a close neighbor geographically.

But all of these countries have these visions to sort of see beyond this period for what many of them describe as navigating a new Middle East, a

new Middle East cannot be a Middle East that is in this cycle of escalation, de-escalation. It needs a peaceful environment for these

countries who have invested not just billions, but trillions in these visions for new growth and what these countries will look like going

forward, they cannot compete on those visions, execute on those visions if they don't have a peaceful environment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: Becky Anderson, joining me earlier from Abu Dhabi.

So, now to the cruise ship at the epicenter of the hantavirus outbreak, now well underway to the Canary Islands and the authorities in multiple

countries. Everybody who was on the ship, those who have left now tracing and containing and basically seeing who is infected and who

might be showing symptoms. We will show you after the break.

QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:17]

QUEST: Nearly 150 passengers are still on board the cruise ship that's been hit with the cases of hantavirus. Their symptoms are being

monitored as the ship moves to its next stop, which is the Canary Islands in the Southern Med.

CNN's Melissa Bell is following the story closely.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): After three days docked off the coast of Cape Verde, the MV Hondius is on its

way to the Canary Islands, where the World Health Organization is saying that it does not expect a widespread outbreak.

DR. MARIA VAN KERKHOVE, EPIDEMIC AND PANDEMIC THREAT MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: This is not SARS-COV-2. This is not

the start of a COVID pandemic. This is an outbreak that we see on a ship.

BELL (voice over): The first passenger died some 10 days after the ship left Argentina. The captain's announcement, filmed by one of the

passengers on April 12th.

MV HONDIUS CAPTAIN: Well, good morning everybody. Oh, yes, it is my sad duty to inform you that one of our passengers sadly passed away last

night.

BELL (voice over): Only later, with the virus be identified, according to Oceanwide Expeditions, which operates the ship. "At the time of the

announcement, there was no evidence of a virus or contagion present on the vessel. The case was believed to be isolated following medical

review." The operator adding, that "... as of Wednesday, the man was not confirmed to have been infected with hantavirus."

The wife of the man who died was one of at least 30 passengers to disembark at Saint Helena, traveling on to South Africa, where she

collapsed and later died after she was taken to hospital.

Several more passengers were evacuated from the ship whilst it was docked off of Cape Verde. Two are now being treated in The Netherlands

and a third in Germany, after a convoy accompanied them to hospital.

The ship is now on its way to Tenerife, where it is expected to arrive on Sunday and where dock workers have threatened to strike.

JOANA BATISTA, TENERIFE PORT WORKERS UNION REPRESENTATIVE (through translator): Right now, the workers are really worried because they

basically haven't been given any information at all. They haven't been told anything about what safety measures are going to be put in place.

BELL (voice over): But for those on board of what became the cruise from hell, the end may finally be in sight.

Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

QUEST: So containing the spread by monitoring passenger symptoms and tracing their movements, as Melissa was saying, let's look at this in a

bit more detail. This is the way the cruise ship left Argentina just around about a month ago. So it leaves from over there.

Now, 11 days later, you have the first victim who comes on board, and some passengers do get off around about Saint Helena. Others were

medically evacuated as we heard in South Africa, and now we have the situation where the ship is up here, the passengers who have left the

ship.

The problem or the challenge is those passengers who have left the ship seem to have come from 12 different countries. If you look at those

different countries, now, I mean, you can't say that there are -- they are potential cases, either suspected cases or former passengers, they

are being monitored for the incubation period, which is between one and six weeks and they include the U.S., U.K., Canada, Netherlands,

Switzerland, South Africa and as you can see from this graph over more.

The problem is in all of these cases that it is a case of exposure to the virus, but so far no one seems to be showing any symptoms and Andrew

Pollard is with me, the Director of Oxford Vaccine Group and the Professor of Pediatric Infection and Immunity at the University of

Oxford.

Professor, the difficulty here is the terminology. I want to be precise. We have lots of people who have disembarked the vessel and have gone

home or have gone to their home country, and they may now be in quarantine or isolation, but that does not mean, if I understand it

correctly, that they are symptomatic or that they've got it. Is that correct?

ANDREW POLLARD, DIRECTOR OF OXFORD VACCINE GROUP AND PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRIC INFECTION AND IMMUNITY, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: That's

absolutely correct. I guess, there are two categories of people -- those with symptoms, who are being cared for by the medical staff and wearing

appropriate protective gear and being hopefully looked after very well in different locations around the world at the moment, and then a much

larger group of individuals, some of whom may not ever develop this respiratory illness. In fact, most of whom who won't, but are

potentially exposed.

And so they are in a sort of a quarantine during a period of time, which is being set by the public health authorities with World Health

Organization, and to ensure that they are not coming into contact with other people until that period has ended and hopefully none of them will

be infected.

[16:25:06]

QUEST: So when the lady that we just heard on the dock in Spain, in the Canary Islands says we've had no information and we are very worried

and, and this, that and the other. It is understandable at one level, but people like yourself tell me or tell us, no, you can't get it. It is

not like catching the common cold. There has to be prolonged exposure at close quarters. What that means, of course, I leave to the experts.

POLLARD: Well, I mean, what that essentially means is that it is very close face-to-face contact for a prolonged period. But I think the

important thing here is that we know who has been exposed and we know who has got symptoms. And so in both of those scenarios, it is possible

to make sure that no one they come into contact with is at any risk. If there are no symptoms, they are almost certainly not shedding any virus.

But anyone who is symptomatic will be looked after by people who have got protective equipment. So I think the risk is near to zero and it

stays like that unless there has been other cases that have already transmitted that we are not aware of, but I don't think there is any

evidence for that at this moment.

QUEST: So if -- hypothetically, if you're sort of in your office and somebody says, Professor, XYZ has got a case of hantavirus or XYZ has

got a case of Ebola or something like that, I gather with the latter, you'd be much more concerned than the former.

POLLARD: Well, I think it is not really quite the case because in each of those scenarios, we understand the virus and what is required in

order to make sure that staff and their contacts are protected. So in the case of Ebola, it is spread by body fluids and direct contact with

those and in the case of hantavirus, it is very close contact.

This is not like COVID where even someone who is well can be transmitting it and they could be in your office, as you say, and

transmitting it without even knowing that they are unwell and without them knowing it.

This is not a virus that is likely to be causing a prolonged outbreak. It needs containment, it is not over yet, but it shouldn't cause

anything very much further than we have already.

QUEST: And that, I think is an important point, Professor, that essentially this will play itself out in short order, relatively short

order. I am not saying there won't be more misery and tragedy, but in relatively short order, this should come to an end.

POLLARD: Yes, it is about detecting cases, detecting contacts, and making sure that all of those are kept safe and very quickly, it will

burn itself out. But, you know, there is obviously always the risk that something goes wrong, but that should be near to zero. Once you know who

all of the people who are potential contacts are, and they're all isolating until they've got to the end of the incubation period.

QUEST: Professor, grateful for you, sir, tonight, common sense. Good, good, solid common sense putting us on the right track and I am

grateful. Thank you.

Now, as we continue tonight on QUEST MEANS BUSINESS, some of this city's -- New York City's priciest homes are empty much of the time. The mayor

wants the owners of those vacant spaces to pay up.

It is tax the rich or at least a version of the tax the rich from Mayor Mamdani and it is all around the "pied-a-terre" tax.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:31:48]

QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard quest. There's a lot more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

We're going to discuss the brouhaha between the mayor of New York and the wealthiest residents of the city. And we'll speak to the economic

analyst whose model had predicted the last three World Cup winners. So who's he backing this time?

Only after the headlines because this is CNN, and here the news comes first.

Health officials all over the globe are on alert for signs of the deadly hantavirus as the cruise ship where the outbreak has happened has now

left Cape Verde and is heading to Spain's Canary Islands, where passengers hope to disembark and head home. It's being stressed time and

again that the virus does not spread easily, but they are monitoring everyone who has disembarked that ship so far.

Despite the optimism that the U.S. and Iran may be nearing a deal to end the war, oil prices have remained volatile. Global Brent crude at one

point was below 100. And then it popped back up again. Iranian officials are still reviewing the latest proposal from the U.S. and are expected

to give their response soon.

President Trump is again threatening the E.U. with tariffs. He says he spoke to the E.U. president, Ursula von der Leyen, and he is giving her

until July the 4th to deliver on promises made in the trade deal or he says he'll raise tariffs on European countries.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul says state leaders have agreed to the framework of a $268 billion budget that allows New York to have a new

tax on luxury second homes. The legislative leaders cautioned the deal is nowhere near done, and many elements still need to be hashed out,

including the size of the final budget.

New York's mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has pushed to tax multimillion-dollar second homes as one of the goals to bring in half a billion dollars. the

so-called "Pied-a-Terre tax."

CNN business senior writer Allison Morrow is with me now.

Let's just go, first of all, first of all, we always knew his tax-the- rich policies of the mayor was going to have to pass via Kathy Hochul, who was going to, obviously, in Albany, decide whether he could do it.

How far is what's happened with the "Pied-a-Terre tax" moving towards that?

ALLISON MORROW, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR WRITER: I think there's a lot of details still to be worked out. You know, as you mentioned, there's

going to be a lot of lobbying and a lot of debate over this provision in the budget. And I think the thing that gets lost in some of this debate

is how much of political theater this is. You know, half $1 billion would be great. Don't get me wrong. New York City absolutely needs that.

But, you know, I don't think there's going to be a lot of crying for the billionaires who, by the way, don't actually live here. This is for

second homes. And, you know, it's for the benefit of the people who live here and pay income tax unlike the people who own these apartments and

do not pay income tax in New York City.

QUEST: Yes, but hang on, hang on. They -- the people who own those pieds-a-terre may well pay property taxes.

[16:35:05]

They may well pay maintenance charges on those condos or co-ops. And within that, there is a property tax element. And if I'm sounding

relatively knowledgeable, because before I moved to New York, I did have a pied-a-terre here in the city.

MORROW: They're coming for you, Richard. I think that's a very important --

QUEST: Not the first time.

MORROW: It's a very important point. And it's something that critics point to with this tax is that, you know, they're saying the problem is

the arcane tax system. Everyone agrees that the tax system on property tax in New York City is insane. And this is something my colleague

Nathaniel Meyersohn reported on today. And essentially, when you look at the controversy between Ken Griffin, the hedge fund manager at Citadel,

and Zohran Mamdani, it's over Ken Griffin's $238 million apartment, most expensive apartment ever sold in America. Most expensive home ever sold

in America.

And it's taxed because of these arcane laws. It's taxed as if it were only worth about $9 million. So there's a kind of inherent imbalance

there. I'm sorry for you if you're pied-a-terre gets taxed again.

QUEST: Oh, no, don't worry. Don't worry. I'm living in it now. I'm living in it now. It's my main --

MORROW: Well, then you have nothing to worry about.

QUEST: Nothing about it. Oh, well, now -- but how much more does he want to take in terms of raising of taxes? Because we already have a -- we

have the state income tax. We have a city income tax. Where does he -- where does he want to finish this?

MORROW: I mean, that's a great question for Mamdani. But I think it's worth also noting that he was elected in a landslide with a mandate to

fight for working class New Yorkers who are struggling to live here. You know, you've got people like Ken Griffin who can afford a second home

here or multiple homes here, but regular New Yorkers are struggling to pay their rent and rental property gets taxed at a higher rate than a

lot of -- than luxury properties like this.

So I think the Mamdani administration is just trying to pick a low- hanging fruit for like a very politically sellable idea.

QUEST: Excellent. We'll talk more about it. Good to have you, Allison, as always putting it straight.

MORROW: You too.

QUEST: Now from abortion access to using race and redistricting, the U.S. Supreme Court issuing controversial rulings, very often it's a 6-3,

the conservatives in the majority, the conservative justices. And President Trump's push to stop the Justice Department with loyalists.

But how true is this? By and large, don't they always agree? In a moment, Jeffrey Toobin is with me.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:17]

QUEST: In Tennessee, Republican lawmakers have approved a new congressional map that splits up the state's sole majority black

district and could help the GOP keep control of Congress in the midterms. The new map is in response to last week's decision by the U.S.

Supreme Court that gutted the landmark Voting Rights Act.

It was the latest in a string of contentious 6-3 rulings by the high court, with the conservatives being in the majority. Presidential

immunity, abortion, affirmative action, gender affirming care. As the U.S. senators are considering a number of President Trump's judicial and

law officer nominees, during a recent confirmation hearing, a top Democrat grilled one of the president's picks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Mr. Mark, is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?

JOHN GEORGE EDWARD MARCK, TRUMP JUDICIAL NOMINEE: Senator, with a -- without considering all the facts and looking at everything. depending

on what the situation is, this to me strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be.

COONS: It's not a hypothetical. Has President Trump been elected president twice?

MARCK: President Trump has been certified the president of the United States two times.

COONS: Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?

MARCK: I would have to review the --

COONS: Oh, I need to tell you the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that no, he is not eligible to run for a

third term? Anybody else brave enough to say that the Constitution of the United States prevents President Trump from seeking a third term?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

QUEST: Jeffrey Toobin, former assistant U.S. attorney. He joins me.

Let's, Jeffrey, you wrote a "New York Times" op-ed called Trump's shockingly unqualified U.S. attorney picks and essentially these are

people who've never -- they may be lawyers, but they've never done a criminal case and they're being U.S. attorneys, which is a prosecutorial

role. How shocked are you that these people have A, being put forward, and B, have the chutzpah to accept the nomination?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think, you know, what's important for our international audience to understand is that

even though this is the United States Department of Justice, the local law enforcement officials who are known as U.S. attorneys who are in

charge of prosecutions within a state, have enormous discretion about which cases to bring and whom to prosecute. So it's a really big deal

who is the U.S. attorney in Wyoming, in North Carolina, in Alabama.

And what's shocking about these nominees in those three states is that they have no qualifications except, to my eyes, loyalty to President

Trump. And that's really the touchstone of what we've seen of this Department of Justice. It's loyalty to Trump over qualifications and

experience.

QUEST: But the failure in the system, Jeffrey, is the checks and balances of what we just heard then in Congress. I mean, you could

arguably say, look, the president is going to have a good run at it, but it's really other people not doing their jobs.

TOOBIN: Well, one of the big stories of these past year and a half, you know, of President Trump's second term is the absolute failure of the

Republicans who control the Senate to exercise any sort of check and balance as the Constitution requires them to do.

QUEST: Right.

TOOBIN: Donald Trump has been able to nominate anyone he wants for any job, whether it's Robert Kennedy to run Health and Human Services or

judges or U.S. attorneys. This Senate has proved to be a rubber stamp, and the Democrats, as in the clip you played can, you know, can make

nominees look bad, but they don't have the votes to stop anything.

QUEST: On the court itself, these 6-3 decisions, they are highly -- they're always on the most controversial or, if you will, social

touchstones and touch points in a sense. But the reality is that most of the cases are either unanimous or there is quite a lot of crossover

between. But the big cases get this 6-3, and it creates an impression of judicial bias.

TOOBIN: But, I mean, I think the impression is not wrong. I mean, these cases are big for a reason because they are enormously consequential to

how, you know, to how Americans live their lives, whether they have the right to get an abortion, whether they have a right to marry the person

they love.

[16:45:01]

I mean, these are big deal issues. Yes, it is true that in many cases the court is either unanimous or close to it. But these political

divisions on the court are real.

QUEST: OK.

TOOBIN: And they reflect political divisions in the country.

QUEST: Right. But I guess what I'm forcing down the road of is that they're not making -- the judges and the conservative wing, maybe most

of them, let's say, are not making those decisions because they want to vote for Trump. It's because they agree with that conservative, unitary

government philosophy that he's putting forward. Am I or am I sort of going too far here?

TOOBIN: Well, Richard, you are putting your finger on the great question that all of us who cover the Supreme Court ask ourselves and try to

figure out, is how much are what the justices doing out of genuine ideological and philosophical belief, and how much of it is simple

partisanship. I don't think that answer can be arrived at simply. But, you know, I don't think you need -- you can write off a simple

partisanship at least as part of the justification for what we see from the Supreme Court.

QUEST: Bearing in mind that there are new -- you know, many of them are young-ish and will be there for years to come because they're lifetime

appointments. What do you favor as the solution? Obviously some have suggested increasing the number, changing the terms, if that were

possible. What is your preference to actually deal with this?

TOOBIN: Term limits. 18 years. There is a proposal that's been out there for a long time, which would -- have two justices turnover every two

years. So every president would get two appointments for, you know, during each presidential term, and 18 years to me is plenty of time. You

know, our Constitution was written in the 18th Century when people weren't expected to live as long as they do now.

So the idea that 30 and even 40 year terms become routine on the court is really, I think, a mistake.

QUEST: Right.

TOOBIN: But it would take a constitutional amendment to change that.

QUEST: Which we -- you know, you and I stand more chance of getting to the moon than that at the moment. But on --

TOOBIN: That's true. But you asked me.

QUEST: I did, I did, but then, all right, let's continue down in the world of this -- of make believe in a sense. Assuming you go for 18

years and you can get it through, would you be in favor of grandfathering in the existing lot? Because if you go for an 18-year

limit overnight, you're basically going to wipe out a good number of them.

TOOBIN: Yes, you would have to grandfather in and I think it would be unconstitutional to force out the nominees who have been confirmed under

one set of rules, to force them out under a different set of rules. So, yes, the current group is not going anywhere.

QUEST: Are you surprised? My producers are shouting at me, we've got to finish. But I just want to get your thoughts. Are you surprised that

Clarence Thomas -- I mean, I covered the whole thing when his hearing in all those years ago. Oldest, the longest serving member of the bench. He

ain't going -- doesn't seem like he's going anywhere anytime soon.

TOOBIN: Absolutely not. He's having the time of his life because his side is winning. He spent a long time in the wilderness when the

moderates and even the liberals had a chance of winning cases. Now, with 6-3 conservative majority, Thomas has the chance to write majority

opinions, has the chance to make the law of the land views that seemed outlandish when he was appointed in 1991.

QUEST: I'm so glad we had you, Jeffrey. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you.

TOOBIN: All righty, Richard.

QUEST: Football fans have some ideas about who will take home this year's World Cup. A market strategist who's developed a proven formula

for predicting it. But is it going to work this time? I'll tell you about it after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:02]

QUEST: Who will win the World Cup? Well, the whole thing starts off in 34 days. Predictions are galore. Everything from -- there's all sorts of

ways that you can predict who's going to win and who will advance the knockout stage and claim the title. So the next guest has, says

economics. Yes, good old economics. His model predicts using GDP per capita, population, temperature, FIFA ranking, the home country, the

whole bloody lot. All of this is considered.

Joachim Klement thinks England, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands will advance the semis. Netherlands will defeat Portugal for the World Cup.

Joachim is with me. He's the head of strategy at Panmure Liberum, the British investment bank.

You say, sir, it helped you correctly predict three winners so far. Why are you confident this time it's going to work?

JOACHIM KLEMENT, HEAD OF STRATEGY, PANMURE LIBERUM: Well, to be perfectly honest, this all started 12 years ago as a bit of a joke as

you might imagine. As an exercise in showing to the world that economists think they can predict absolutely everything, even if they

have no clue. And then the worst thing happened. I got it right three times with that model that you just kind of sketched out.

QUEST: So as you look at the model, what is it? I'm just calling it up now. Let's have a look at the various criteria. What is it about those

various bits? So for example, GDP, population temperature, blah, blah, blah. Which is the one that's crucial? And what is it about them?

KLEMENT: Well, in a sense they are all crucial. Obviously, the most important one is the recent form as reflected in the FIFA world ranking.

But in general, these economic variables like GDP and population and in particular population is important because if you have more people in a

country, you automatically have a bigger talent pool. And that gives a country the opportunity to develop more world class players.

But to do that, you also need the money. And that's why in very poor countries, you might have a lot of talent, but not enough infrastructure

to find them, develop them, and kind of turn them into world class players. And that's a problem, particularly for African countries.

QUEST: Right. But if we take a look at the predictions for the semifinals and the finals that you've just done, those are all wealthy

countries that would, or most of them are, that would score highly on your -- and I get your logic. So when you get to discussing between

Netherlands and Portugal, what tips, what tips it for Netherlands?

KLEMENT: Well, any economic model can only approximate the outcome of any given match. In fact, it's only about 50 percent that the model can

actually forecast.

[16:55:02]

The other 50 percent are, quite frankly, luck or kind of like the form on the day of the match. And what I do in the model is I add a component

of luck to each team to simulate the form on the day. And the closer two teams are in quality, like the Netherlands and Portugal in the final,

for example. There's very little qualitative difference between those two teams. They're both excellent.

So even a little bit of a lucky day for the Netherlands tips it in favor of the Netherlands. A lucky day in favor of Portugal would tip it in

favor of Portugal. And, so that's kind of how every match is decided. Then you go through the tournament and as I said, it just turns out that

I seem to have been lucky three times in a row and hopefully, at least when I -- when it comes to my neighbors in the Netherlands, a fourth

time in a couple of weeks' time.

QUEST: I'm grateful to you, sir. And if you happen to know who might win, who might win the race in the 4:30 at Newmarket by the same way,

please let me know and I'll have a quick bet either way, because you're the sort of people we need. Right. Thank you. sir. Good to see you.

A last look at the markets. Just want to show you quickly before I love you and leave you. The Dow was off. It's A.I. stocks that led a rally

with Salesforce, IBM, Nvidia, Microsoft. Caterpillar is down 3 percent. Let's not cry too much. They've had a tear lately. Bit of profit-taking

going on there. And we will take a "Profitable Moment" after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

QUEST: Tonight's "Profitable Moment." I've chosen tonight to finish on the thought of the Supreme Court. Any system requires a final arbiter.

Someone or something that says this is the way it is, and that's the way it's going to be. And in most democratic institutions, it does end up

being the highest court in the land. It defines, determines and rules.

The problem in the United States is that it's also highly political. So you end up with presidents, highly partisan political, appointing

justices, highly partisan political who may be very good jurists but are there for life. And that's what we've got at the moment.

But let's remember the Warren court 1953 to 1969, which was a highly liberal time in U.S. jurisprudence, arguably some would say that the

Roberts court is merely redressing some of the balance from previous decades. And that's the problem because when you have 6-3 decisions on

highly contentious rights, as Jeffrey Toobin says, that define the relationship of citizen to state, then that becomes problematic if it

always seems to be one thumb on the scale. There's no easy quick or simple answer.

And that's QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight. I'm Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you're up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable.

Guess what? You and I can do it all over again this time tomorrow. Have a good day.

END