Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump and Harris Camps Feuding Again Over Debate Rules; Justice Department Seeks to Revive Trump Classified Documents Case; Trump Allies Face High-Stakes Hearing in Arizona Election Subversion Case; Ukraine: Air Defenses Activated In Kyiv Region; Telegram CEO Pavel Durov Detained In France. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 26, 2024 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, we are tracking the drama over the debate as the Trump and Harris campaigns clash over critical details, why Trump's team wants microphones muted while the candidates aren't speaking and why the former president himself appears to disagree. This hour, I'll be speaking with a top Harris adviser.

Plus, the breaking news tonight, federal prosecutors making a new push to revive the classified documents case against Donald Trump. We have details on a new brief that was just filed in court. Stand by for more.

Also tonight, Ukraine is reeling after a massive Russian missile and drone attack aimed at Ukraine's energy infrastructure all across that country. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy now vowing to respond as officials say that at least seven people were killed.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and all around the world. Wolf Blitzer is off today. I'm Alex Marquardt and you're in The Situation Room.

We begin this hour with the race for the White House, the Trump and Harris campaigns feuding over debate details as the former president throws a wrench into negotiations.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is on the campaign trail with Trump in Detroit. CNN's Eva McKend is tracking the Harris campaign here in Washington.

Kristen, I want to go to you first. What is Trump now saying about the debate? And then what is his campaign saying?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Okay. So, this is essentially a now a new debate over the debate. Both sides had agreed that they would show up at for this ABC debate on September 10th, and now they seem to be at an impasse. Originally, when Donald Trump had agreed to this debate with President Joe Biden, they had agreed to these same rules at the CNN debate, which was when the other candidate is talking, the mics are muted. Now, interestingly, at that point, Donald Trump's team didn't like that rule, but as it got closer to the debate, I spoke to a number of advisers who thought it might be helpful to Donald Trump.

Well, Donald Trump's team thinks that debate went well, that first one with Joe Biden, and they want to mimic those results. So, they are saying going into this ABC debate that they want the same rules as the Biden debate, and that's what they say they agree to. Well, the Harris side says that's not what we agreed to. I'm new at the top of the ticket. This is a different debate, and we want those mics open.

Then you have Donald Trump, who, as always, tends to say something that is not completely in line with what his campaign is saying. Here's what he said in Virginia earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: So, we're thinking about it. We're thinking about it. They also want to change the rules. You know, the deal was we keep the same rules. Now, all of a sudden, they want to make a change in the rules, because she can't answer questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, a lot of this is just posturing to see what they can do to make the best for their candidate up on the stage. I will remind you that just a few weeks ago, it was the opposite, that, essentially, Harris was on the top of the ticket and Donald Trump backed out. Harris said, you already agreed to this debate. Donald Trump said, no, I agreed to a different debate. Now, they appear to have swapped sides. But it's not that surprising because, again, they are just trying to get the best for their candidate in these circumstances.

So, whether or not Donald Trump shows up on the stage on September 10th remains to be seen, but we do know one thing. He is ramping up his campaign, at least this week. I'm going to several battleground states. He's in Michigan, or he was in Michigan today, back in Michigan later in the week, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. They say this is going to be the new norm for the campaign. We shall see. Alex?

MARQUARDT: Trump on steroids, I believe was the quote from one of his top advisers. Kristen Holmes, thank you very much.

Let's go to CNN's Eva McKend for reaction from the Harris campaign. So, Eva, what's the Harris campaign saying about this debate over the debate?

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alex, the debate is the next race defining moment on the calendar, and that's why we see both campaigns trying to jockey for the best conditions possible for their respective candidates.

We see the Harris campaign needling Trump, trying to get under his skin. In a statement, a Harris adviser says, in part, our understanding is that Trump's handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don't think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own. And they put this up on social media, continuing to mock him. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not debate her?

TRUMP: We'll wait. But because they already know everything. They say, oh, Trump's, you know, not doing the debate. It's the same thing they say now.

[18:05:01]

I mean, right now I say, why should I do a debate? I'm leading in the polls. And everybody knows her. Everybody knows me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKEND: But, ultimately, the reason why the Harris campaign, Alex, is pushing this is because they think Trump without muted mics will interject, rant, rave, air grievances, and they want that contrast up on that stage. Trump, separate from his advisers, does seem open to this idea, though.

Meanwhile, the vice president has a lighter public schedule as she prepares for the debate and a sit-down interview she said would occur before the end of this month, but we still have no details there, and, of course, a bus tour of Georgia on Wednesday and Thursday. Alex?

MARQUARDT: All right. Eva McKend, thank you very much.

Let's get more now from our political experts. Scott Jennings, I want to go to you first. This debate about the debate, why do you think Trump is saying one thing, undercutting his own campaign, saying another thing, and to what extent do you think that plays into Vice President Harris hands?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't know. I mean, look, they're going to debate. Trump needs to debate. Harris needs to debate. They both have something to prove. Trump needs to prosecute a case against Harris. That's not -- I mean, he's not going to get any help. Let's be honest. I mean, he's going to have to do it himself pointing out all the discrepancies between the supposed moderate today Kamala Harris and the extreme liberal that she's been for her whole career. So, he's going to have to do it himself. He needs to show up and she's got to show up too.

Honestly, it's pretty rich for her campaign to be using chicken noises against Donald Trump when you consider that all this time she's been in the race, her campaign has been too scared to put her in front of even one journalist so far. But my belief is they'll both show up on the 10th and it's going to be a pivotal moment for the fall campaign.

MARQUARDT: And we did hear Eva McKend there saying that she is getting ready for an interview with an as yet unnamed interviewer. Let's see if that happens.

Ana Navarro, in terms of these rules, the Harris campaign had insisted that the debate take place on September 10th as had been agreed to between the Biden and Trump campaigns, but now they're trying to change the rules about these microphones. So, what do you make of this back and forth?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, when Donald Trump is allowed to speak unfiltered, he oftentimes comes across as unhinged, crazy, and obnoxious. So, I can see why they would want that. But on the other hand, you've got Trump tweeting out attacks against ABC journalists that have nothing to do with this debate and ABC commentators that have nothing to do with this debate, kind of setting the stage, as he always does, in the event that he does not do well in the event that he loses, he can then blame it on the journalist, he can blame it on bias, he can blame it on nonexistent aspects that just are not the case. This is, you know, Trump at his best.

Look, on September 10th, I'm going to tune into ABC. If Donald Trump shows up and Kamala Harris is going to show up, great. If he doesn't, I hope ABC gives Kamala Harris the time and that she takes it to answer questions that address the American people.

MARQUARDT: Yes, Trump appearing to try to work the refs ahead of this ABC debate.

Maria Cardona, you just heard Ana mention one of the benefits to those mics being unmuted, to create that contrast between the two candidates, but what risks do you see, Maria, to Harris debating an unfiltered Uninterrupted Trump, especially as we think he'll go after her on things, like the economy, on the border, two persistent issues that Republicans have attacked Harris for?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, absolutely, he will go after her, and she is -- and her campaign is, no question, preparing for all of that. But I also think that, you know, all the jokes and the chicken noises aside, which is kind of funny, and we know, you know, what a thin skin Donald Trump has and we know that does get under that thin skin, but I do think that there is a strategic reason why the Harris campaign does not want muted mics.

We know that, at least in the CNN debate and possibly this, the ABC debate as well, the moderators are not going to act as -- they're not going to fact-check, right? And so I think that Vice President Harris has got to be free to be able to speak up when Donald Trump does say something false about her, which will probably be every three seconds.

And so I think that will give her the ability to control what comes out of both of his mouth in terms of being able to fact-check him on the spot, right? As well as being able to prosecute the case. Let's remember, she's a prosecutor. He is a 34 times convicted felon. I think that's going to be a very interesting and rich matchup for the country.

And I think that by having the mics unmuted, it's going to give her the ability to control both what she says and not letting him interrupt her as well as fact-checking him on the spot, which we know is absolutely necessary for somebody who lies every three seconds when they're speaking.

[18:10:09]

MARQUARDT: Scott, let's broaden out this question. We now know that Trump is getting onto the campaign trail, battleground states, in a way that we really haven't seen much of this summer, so voters are going to be hearing a lot more from him. So, whether it's the debate, or on the campaign trail, do you think hearing from the candidate a lot more, certainly when it comes to undecideds and independents, is actually going to be a benefit for the campaign?

JENNINGS: Well, I mean, it depends on the audience, right? I mean, if I could just go back to the debate for -- I thought Jake and Dana did a great job.

MARQUARDT: So did Trump.

JENNINGS: I know everybody is complaining that they didn't do something. I thought they did a great job. I thought CNN did a great job with it and it was fine. But on this question, look, it depends on the audience.

The way for Trump to win is to turn out low propensity voters who are not that engaged in politics, right? I mean, that's the point here. Everybody else is polarized. Everybody else has an opinion about Donald Trump. But the lower propensity voters tend to like him more but they turn out less. And so his appearances, his media, everything they're doing has to be aimed at expanding the electorate, changing the composition of the electorate.

So, to the extent, Alex, that everything they do is aimed at bringing in these low propensity, a lot of male, young male voters, that'll be a good thing. And I suspect that's sort of going to be the travel strategy and the messaging strategy is how do I change the composition of the electorate, get myself a little bit of an advantage going into the fall.

And, by the way, that's also the reason you shouldn't -- you know, some of this polling has gotten pretty close, but these are the kinds of people that tend not to be captured in the polling. And if they're able to turn them out, you could see a miss on Election Day.

MARQUARDT: Ana Navarro, we're not seeing Harris much in the days following the DNC. She's got a lot of momentum and wind at her back, but she's taking a couple of down days to prepare for this debate and that expected sit-down interview. How important do you think it is for Harris to deliver, to answer the tough questions in these unscripted moments, unlike what we've seen in the past few weeks?

NAVARRO: You know, she hasn't been the top of the ticket candidate for very long. It's been a little bit over a month. She's been a little busy doing things, like picking her vice president and like preparing for the DNC and actually being at the DNC. I can tell you, I'm a little younger than Kamala and I had to lay down for two days after the DNC because it was a party and it was a lot. I expect Kamala Harris to give an interview I expect her to answer the questions, but I'll also tell you, Alex, I have spoken to literally thousands of people. I saw thousands of people say hello, I said hello to thousands of people at the DNC. I do it at airports. I do it at supermarkets. I haven't heard one person say to me, you know what? I really want her is to do an interview. It's important for the media. It's important for our industry, and we rightly so talk about it and want one immediately. And I know she's got to give one. She's going to give one. But I don't think this is as much top of mind for voters as it is for us, frankly. You know, we do tend to think we are the center of the universe.

MARQUARDT: Let's talk about one of the policies or questions over policy that will be very important to voters across the spectrum. That's reproductive rights. This is what J.D. Vance said earlier. He's talking about the former president, Donald Trump, vetoing a federal abortion ban. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would he veto it?

SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I think it would be very clear he would not support it. I mean, he said that --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But would he veto it?

VANCE: Yes, I mean, if you're not supporting it as the president of the United States, you fundamentally have to veto it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So he would veto a federal abortion ban?

VANCE: I think he would. He said that explicitly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So, Maria, if he vetoes a federal abortion ban, does that counter what will probably be a key line of attack from Harris from Democrats?

CARDONA: Absolutely not, Alex, because you are assuming that he is to be believed, he, both Donald Trump, as well as J.D. Vance, J.D. Vance, who, not too long ago was calling Donald Trump America's Hitler, and Donald Trump who lies every single time his lips are moving.

So, no, he is not to be trusted. J.D. Vance is not to be trusted. Donald Trump brags every single chance he gets in front of his MAGA audiences, in front of the Christian evangelists, who are pro-life, who are pushing him on this, that he's the one who chose the three judges on the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. He says it with pride.

So, talk about something that is not being measured in the polls. It is women, it is men, it is Americans across the board who believe that women should not have less rights than men, who believe that women should not be second class citizens, who believe that women should have bodily autonomy.

[18:15:07]

That is a vote that is going to help Kamala Harris and Democrats in November, and it is a vote that does not get measured well in the polls.

MARQUARDT: So, Scott, when you hear that from Senator Vance, distancing Trump from the question of a federal abortion ban, how do you see that playing with the Republican base, who, you know, to Maria's point, has been applauding all of those moves that he's made on the Supreme Court and elsewhere to make abortion tougher in this country?

JENNINGS: First of all, I'm surprised to learn that Maria thinks that pollsters don't call women. I think that's not true. I think women get polled every day and they're represented in every poll. So, that's number one. Number two --

CARDONA: 2022 midterms, Scott.

JENNINGS: But you're saying they don't get polled. I mean, they get polled.

CARDONA: No, I'm not saying they don't get polled. They perhaps don't get polled well.

JENNINGS: Okay. So, look, I think, first of all, this question to Vance is kind of fantastical because there's no chance that the United States Senate is going to find 60 votes to do anything against abortion or for abortion. And so the idea that the next president, whether it's Trump or Harris, is going to be faced with signing or vetoing any abortion laws is just a fantasy. Everybody asks this question all the time, but nobody stops to ask, what are the mechanisms by which this would actually reach the president's desk?

So, the way around this for Trump is very simple. The court case has happened. This has been left up to the states. My personal views are basically what Ronald Reagan's were. I'm pro-life. I believe this should be left to the states. I believe in the three exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. And, oh, by the way, I and my entire party are strong supporters of IVF and other technologies that help people start families. That's his position. That's what's going to be his position. He just has to clearly state that.

And for the Republicans out there who might be annoyed with J.D. Vance or Donald Trump on this, my advice would be, look at the situation in Washington. You're not passing any laws in Washington. Your fight's at the state level.

MARQUARDT: All right, we have to leave it there. Thank you all for joining me.

NAVARRO: Well, you know what the problem is? The problem is that -- let me just say this, Alex. The problem is that Donald Trump has been everywhere on this issue and you can't just be a little bit pregnant on the reproductive rights issue. We know where Donald Trump is. Women are.

CARDONA: That's right.

MARQUARDT: All right. Thank you all.

CARDONA: Thanks, Alex.

MARQUARDT: I appreciate it. Just ahead, we will hear straight from the Harris campaign on that debate controversy. A senior adviser will be joining us next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

MARQUARDT: More now on our top story tonight, the clash over next month's presidential debate. The two campaigns feuding over muting microphones, as Donald Trump now suggests that he might not even show up.

I want to bring in senior adviser to the Harris campaign, Ian Sams. Ian, thank you so much for joining us on this busy day.

The Harris campaign is now pushing for different rules than the ones that were used at the end of June in that CNN debate between President Biden and former President Trump. This is what the vice president said last month when Trump floated the possibility of changing the debate schedule. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I'm ready to debate Donald Trump. I have agreed to the previously agreed upon September 10th debate. He agreed to that previously. Now, it appears he's backpedaling, but I'm ready.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So now both candidates agree on September 10th, but when it comes to this issue of microphones, it appears that Vice President Harris is the one who is backpedaling when it comes to the debate rules.

IAN SAMS, SENIOR ADVISER, HARRIS CAMPAIGN: Well, that's not entirely accurate. Let's take a step back. When she became the nominee, she agreed to the September 10th debate. We're looking forward to debating President Trump. I think she wants to share her vision for the future.

As part of that, there's been back and forth discussions with ABC about how they want to format that debate. And President Trump has been all over the place. He backed out. He attacked the debate. He said we should go to Fox News before he decided to come back to the debate. But then, we suspected, unbeknownst to him, his handlers were pushing to keep the microphones muted. And I think today, we've actually settled this. Today in Virginia, President Trump was asked about it, and he said, quote, it doesn't matter to me, I'd probably rather have them on.

And so, as far as we're concerned, this debate is over, and we look forward to the September 10th debate.

MARQUARDT: So, is this matter resolved? Have you heard from the Trump campaign that they're actually happy to keep the microphones on?

SAMS: Well, we've heard from the horse's mouth, right? We've heard him say that he's happy to do that. I think it's really important. The vice president thinks that it's really important that there be open and frank exchanges between the two candidates, where they can get engaged with each other to talk about the issues that matter to the American people.

And I think more importantly, the vice president wants the American people to see an unfettered Donald Trump, because that's what we're going to get if he becomes president again, now that the Supreme Court has basically said, he has unfettered power.

And so I think it's important that in this election, in this moment, that the American people get to see the choice between the two candidates on stage, someone who's dangerous, someone who's wanting to take us back, someone who's pledging a dark vision for the country that rips away our freedoms and the things that we care about, and a candidate who's got an optimistic, patriotic, new way forward for this country that puts people's money back in their pockets, helps them get affordable housing, the things that people actually care about. And she wants to have that frank debate on stage where they can exchange each other in a real debate for the American people.

MARQUARDT: And one of the places that she may be able to speak to her views on a variety of issues is in an in-depth interview with a journalist. This is something that she has not done since President Biden stepped away. I admit, as a member of the press, this is something that we place a priority on. But I think there are a lot of anxious Democrats or a lot of independents and undecideds across this country who would like to hear more from her in more depth on specific issues. When is that going to happen?

SAMS: Well, as the vice president said, and I think you all know, she said that she's going to schedule an interview by the end of the month. I think everybody can look at a calendar. But I think it's also important, I know it's lost sometimes in the discussion about an interview, the vice president has been taking questions from reporters who are covering her on the campaign trail.

[18:25:07]

She's been traveling all across this country to all the battleground states with her running mate, Governor Walz. And she's been taking questions from reporters who are asking her about her plans, who are asking her about the race, who are asking her about her vision for the country, and she's been answering them. And she's done about 80 interviews this year. I know that maybe now people are just now paying attention to her, but she's been doing sit-down interviews all year and you can expect that she'll be doing an interview. As she said, she'll schedule it by the end of the month.

MARQUARDT: All right, just a few days left before the end of the month. Ian, before I let you go, I just spoke with Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell from Michigan, and she told me that she is hearing, quote, a lot of anger from her Michigan constituents about the DNC's decision not to have a Palestinian-American speaker at the DNC. In hindsight, do you believe that was a mistake?

SAMS: Well, I think the DNC really enjoyed engaging with the uncommitted delegates and talking to them about the important issues that are happening in the Middle East. And I think for the vice president, and you heard her talk about this in her address on Thursday night, she believed that we need to get an end to this war, a permanent ceasefire, self-determination for the Palestinians. Israel protected their right to defend themselves. She's focused on the solutions, even during the convention, working on this issue with the president to try to come to an agreement that'll end this war and stop this suffering, the humanitarian suffering, the pain that you're seeing in Israel and Gaza. These are the things that she's focused on trying to end and hopefully we make progress on that.

MARQUARDT: All right. Ian Sam's from the Harris-Walz campaign, thanks so much for joining me.

And coming up, the Justice Department launches a new fight to reinstate the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. Stand by for new details right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

MARQUARDT: Breaking news, the classified documents case against Donald Trump could have new life after the Justice Department asked a federal appeals court to revive the charges.

CNN's Jessica Schneider is joining me now with an update. So, Jess, how is the Justice Department trying to get this case reinstated?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: They're appealing this directly to the 11th Circuit, as we expected they would. And they're saying that Judge Cannon, she got this wrong when she dismissed this case against Donald Trump and his co-defendants. You know, they're saying that this case should once again be allowed to move forward. And they're saying specifically that Judge Cannon's decision was novel and that it lacked merit. And what they're really doing is they're pointing to several other court opinions, including a Supreme Court opinion from 1974, U.S. v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court said that the attorney general has the authority to name a special counsel.

You know, of course, Judge Cannon, just a month ago on July 15th, she overturned that. She said that precedent wasn't binding. She said that the attorney general was unlawful when he appointed Jack Smith, and also saying that Jack Smith's office was unlawfully funded. Jack Smith is now appealing that decision and the Justice Department is arguing that not only was Judge Cannon's decision wrong here. But they're also pointing to how this could possibly -- if her ruling holds, how this could really affect the Justice Department and other departments. They're putting it this way. If the attorney general lacks the power to appoint inferior officers, that conclusion would invalidate the appointment of every member of the department who exercises significant authority and occupies a continuing office. Other than the few that are specifically identified by statute, they also point to other agencies that could be affected. You know, Department of Defense, State Treasury, Labor.

So, what happens now? Well, Trump's team will likely respond to this filing and then the 11th Circuit will likely set an argument schedule. Who knows if that will be any time in the next few weeks before the election, because, of course, if Donald Trump is elected, he could completely quash this entire case.

I will note that although the 11th Circuit, it's based in Atlanta, it's you know, known as a conservative court, but they have overruled Judge Cannon before when she appointed a special master, way at the beginning of this case. So, who knows when this will move forward, or how they might rule, and it could go to the Supreme Court ultimately.

MARQUARDT: But they are not paying attention, or at least being dictated to by the political calendar.

SCHNEIDER: Absolutely not. They're on their own schedule.

MARQUARDT: Jessica Schneider, thank you very much.

Let's bring in our Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. So, Elie, how strong do you think Jack Smith's arguments are? Do you think this case will ultimately be reinstated?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Alex, I just read the brief, and I think Jack Smith's arguments here are rock solid, and here's why. So, Donald Trump argued to the district court that special counsel, in its entirety, is unconstitutional because the argument was Congress has never passed a specific law authorizing special counsel. But the problem, as Jack Smith, I think ably points out in this brief is there are a variety of laws that give the attorney general very broad powers to delegate his powers, to oversee prosecution at the Justice Department. And as Jessica points out, there are several prior decisions that have gone essentially Jack Smith's way and against Donald Trump's position.

So, I think Jack Smith has the upper hand here. We are in uncharted territory, but I think he's likely to prevail.

MARQUARDT: And as Jessica was just touching on, the question of the timeline. You've got the appeals, this could go to the Supreme Court. What does that timeline look like, and how soon could we see, if it goes to trial, when could we see that happen?

HONIG: Yes, it's the all important when. So we are in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals right now. That's the mid level court in the federal system. We're not going to get a ruling from the 11th Circuit until at least two to three months from now, probably more than that. So, we probably won't even know as of Election Day, whether this case is revived. Whoever loses here is then going to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

[18:35:02]

We don't know if they will or not, but that's going to tack on some more time.

So, we're not going to get a trial anywhere near before the election. And if this case does get revived and we do see a trial, it's likely to be well into 2025.

MARQUARDT: Elie, I also want to discuss the election interference case in Arizona. Trump is not directly implicated. It's about his supporters, the judge today setting a January 2026 trial date, so about a year-and-a-half from now. Walk us through the significance of that case.

HONIG: Boy, that's a far off trial date. So, Alex, this is a case in Arizona, a state level case, where 18 individuals have been charged with essentially the fake elector scheme. They're charged with various conspiracy-type crimes. The biggest headliners here who've been charged are Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows. And the key for prosecutors here is they have to show a knowing scheme to defraud, a knowing scheme to trick somebody. And to that end, they've now taken, prosecutors have now taken guilty pleas from two of the defendants, including Jenna Ellis. And if they can give truthful testimony that these other folks knew this was a big fraud, that'll bolster the case. But as you said, with that date, we are a long way off from trial in this one.

MARQUARDT: And the prosecutors in that case, they urged the Arizona grand jury not to indict the former president. Why did they do that? And what does that mean for this case going forward?

HONIG: So, this is a really unusual circumstance, and the prosecutors actually wrote about it in one of their briefs. Essentially, the grand jury wanted to indict the people who they indicted Plus Donald Trump. That almost never happens. Prosecutors ended up talking them out of it. Prosecutors apparently either didn't believe they had the evidence to indict and convict Donald Trump, or they deferred to the fact that Donald Trump is charged with this fake elector scheme in at least two other cases, in Jack Smith's other DOJ case and in the state case in Georgia.

So, it's a really rare circumstance, but in the end, Alex, Donald Trump gets labeled as co-conspirator one, but not defendant.

MARQUARDT: All right. Elie Honig, as always, thanks so much for breaking that all down for us.

Just ahead, as we wait for the September 10th presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, a deeper look at exactly how consequential debates can be when Americans decide which candidate will get their vote. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MARQUARDT: With the Trump Harris debate now just around two weeks away, Democrats are hoping that the vice president can pull off a much better performance than her boss, President Biden, whose disastrous showing ultimately forced him out of this race.

Brian Todd is on this story for us. So, Brian, as we've all seen, these presidential debates can have huge consequences.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They really can, Alex. You know, analysts say that a bad moment at a debate can hurt you more than a good moment can help you. That's been the case throughout debate history and was especially true on June 27th.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I've been proposing that everybody -- they pay -- the millionaires pay 1 percent.

TODD (voice over): It was the debate performance that changed the dynamic of this race, ultimately ending President Biden's candidacy for re-election.

BIDEN: For what I've been able to do with the with the COVID -- excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with -- we finally beat Medicare.

TODD: Biden after a disastrous debate, leaving top Democrats looking for a way to get him out of the race or openly questioning his fitness for office.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I think it's a legitimate question to say, is this an episode or is this a condition.

HANS NICHOLS, POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: Did the debate changed the race? The debate just laid bare for the American public, and more importantly Democratic members of Congress, that Joe Biden could not be their nominee.

TODD: From Biden to Nixon, a period spanning more than 60 years, fraught moments in debates have often been decisive. September, 1960, in the very first televised presidential debate, Richard Nixon, who was ill, was visibly sweating while his opponent, John F. Kennedy, looked youthful and composed.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: When the two were viewed side by side and you asked yourself whose finger would you like to be on the nuclear button, it became clear, you didn't want the sweaty guy from California.

TODD: In the vice presidential debate in 1988, Dan Quayle characterized himself as a Republican version of a young John Kennedy which teed up his opponent, Lloyd Benson, perfectly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.

TODD: That election season, Benson's running mate, Michael Dukakis, in his debate with George H.W. Bush, was asked a fateful question referencing his wife by CNN's Bernard Shaw.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I don't, Bernard. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life.

NAFTALI: It was terrible. This was the opportunity to show humanity, and instead, he made himself look like more of a humorless, emotionless robot than he had seen before.

TODD: There were the wordless missteps, the body language gaffes. At a debate in 2000, Al Gore audibly sighs.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: There's differences --

TODD: And in another debate that year, Gore gets a little too close to George W. Bush on stage.

BUSH: And I believe I can.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (on camera): Analyst Hans Nichols believes if the September 10th event is the only debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, there will be more pressure on both of them to perform well at that debate and really more pressure not to mess up. Of the two, Nichols believes there's more overall pressure on Vice President Harris because she's had a lot fewer unscripted moments recently, Alex.

MARQUARDT: All right. Brian Todd, if this debate comes to pass, it's going to be a fascinating moment. Thanks very much for that report.

Coming up, the latest on the deadly missile barrage that's being called the biggest air attack on Ukraine since the war with Russia began.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:49:05]

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, it is almost 2:00 a.m. in Kyiv and Ukrainian air defenses have just been activated in the region around the capital.

Joining us now to discuss this and more are retired General Wesley Clark, a CNN military analyst, and Jill Dougherty, a CNN contributor on Russian affairs.

Thank you both for joining me. So, General Clark, we may be seeing a second night in a row of missile and drone attacks. Of course, that has nothing out of the ordinary, but last night, we saw the biggest one ever, according to the Ukrainians. What more do you think Ukrainians need to defend themselves against these extraordinary attacks? And do you think the U.S. needs to be lifting the restrictions on allowing Ukraine to use whatever it wants in terms of U.S. weaponry, wherever it wants?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think they need to delivery of the Patriots systems and the IRIS-T systems, and other air defense systems that have been promised.

[18:50:00]

You know, when you're sitting back here, you read the promise as it sounds pretty encouraging. But if you were on the other end of it and you look at what's actually delivered, I get report after report of not workable, too slow, never showed up, et cetera.

So, they need a number of Patriot batteries, a dozen, 18, maybe to really cover this. And then they need the intermediate range systems underneath that.

As far as what's going on now, I would certainly hope that this administration would allow them to use whatever means they have to further their efforts to undercut Russia's offensive capability that's attacking them and Ukraine.

And that means letting them use ATACMS to strike into Russia. It's clearly within international law. They have every right to defend themselves against the attack of Russia. We should support that.

MARQUARDT: Yeah. Let's just remind our viewers, the ATACMS is a long- range missile system that can reach hundreds of miles. And this is the one system we believe that the U.S. has not allowed Ukraine to fire into Russia with.

And, Jill, the U.S. has only allowed them a lot, allowed the Ukrainians to use those American weapons just across the border in western Russia. But we have seen this pattern throughout the war of U.S. holding back then, ultimately giving Ukraine the weaponry and the permissions that it needs, but months later and there's been a lot of griping and complaining from the Ukrainians on that front.

So do you think we could see something similar here?

(CROSSTALK)

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the calculus is really, really difficult on this. Sorry.

MARQUARDT: Go ahead, Jill.

DOUGHERTY: I think the calculus is very difficult because, you know, were seeing red lines being crossed constantly. I mean, that incursion by the Ukrainians into Russia was a huge red line. But I think for the U.S., they are still worried and some could say

legitimately about what Putin would do if there are attacks on the Russian homeland with U.S. weapons? Because you're seeing right now, we knew that there would be a reaction by Putin and you're seeing the attacks massive missile and drone attacks today.

And the worry, of course with the United States and countries that are farther away from the fighting, I should say is that Putin will go nuclear and that seems that he's not reacting much to these red lines, but that doesn't mean that he won't.

MARQUARDT: General Clark, there's been this fascinating operation by Ukraine across the border into Russia. They've taken a significant amount of territory. Meanwhile, the Russians are pushing forward in Eastern Ukraine.

What do you think the Ukrainian intentions are? What are they going to use that territory to achieve?

CLARK: As best I can see, they're going to create a buffer zone. They're going to use it as a bargaining chip if it ever goes to the negotiations and they're also going to use it as a killing field.

You know, in this conflict, if you can take ground offensively that's not well-protected, and then protected the very strong and forced the enemy to come at you, then you gain an advantage. You could call it offensive defense. So you go in, you sweep, and then you set up your strong defense, and then you make them come at you. So I think it's got these three things.

Will it go further, will they widen it?

MARQUARDT: Right.

CLARK: Can't tell.

MARQUARDT: All right. General Wesley Clark, Jill Dougherty, thank you so much for joining me this evening.

And coming up, new questions over the arrest of Telegram's CEO and whether he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. We have an in- depth look, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:57:59]

MARQUARDT: The Russian-born CEO of these social media app Telegram is under a microscope after his arrest in France this weekend. We've taken a closer look at the allegations against him and whether he recently met with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT (voice-over): He's been called the Mark Zuckerberg of Russia.

Tech billionaire Pavel Durov, the creator of the globally popular messaging app Telegram.

PAVEL DUROV, TECH BILLIONAIRE: Twelve billion messages delivered daily.

MARQUARDT: Now in custody in France after French police arrested him at a Paris airport. French authorities say that Durov's arrest is part of an investigation of charges that Telegram was allegedly complicit and aiding money laundering, drug trafficking, and distributing child pornography.

French prosecutors also say that Durov refuse to comply with demands to help intercept potentially elicit communications. In a statement, the company said, Durov has nothing to hide. It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.

DUROV: I truly believe that privacy of our users and their trust to us and our responsibility for them is the most important thing in our business.

MARQUARDT: Durov was flying to Paris from Azerbaijan, where Russian President Vladimir Putin also visited last week. The Kremlin has denied that Putin and Durov met.

Durov had also created the Russian app VKontakte, known as Russia's Facebook. He fled the country in 2014 after refusing to turn over user data from the app to the Russian government.

Russia tried to ban Telegram in 2018, but lifted the ban in 2020. With 900 million users worldwide, Telegram is used by everyday people, governments, and companies to send official messages, but the apps encryption also makes it popular among criminals and terrorists. In France, it was found on the phones of the terrorists who attacked the Bataclan concert hall in Paris.

DUROV: They're also using iPhones and Android phones and microchips. It's kind of misleading to say that we responsible or any other tech company is responsible for that.

MARQUARDT: Durov's arrest has revived questions about the responsibilities of social media companies to moderate their content and assist law enforcement, versus protecting their users' privacy and freedom of speech.

French President Emmanuel Macron said statement on social media, France is deeply committed to freedom of expression and communication, and that the arrest is in no way a political decision.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: I'm Alex Marquardt in THE SITUATION ROOM. Thank you very much for watching.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.