Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Taylor Swift Announces New Album; CDC Shooting Investigation Continues; Will Supreme Court Overturn Legalized Same-Sex Marriage?; Interview With Washington, D.C., Councilmember Brooke Pinto. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired August 12, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: But, as you know, there are plenty of neighborhoods here in Washington where they don't necessarily feel safe, especially at night.

BROOKE PINTO (D), WASHINGTON, D.C., COUNCILMEMBER: I think that's true.

And I am the first to say we have to do more when it comes to public safety in Washington, D.C. That's why I have championed all the efforts that I have through secure D.C., through Peace D.C., through leading the last couple budget cycles to increase the police force size.

I mean, I will stay laser-focused on those efforts. But having federal law enforcement who's not trained in understanding our neighborhoods and our challenges here locally is not the best use of their resources.

BLITZER: The D.C. police union chairman, as you know, says his group agrees with this move by President Trump and that -- quote -- "Every aspect of our criminal justice system in D.C.," he says, and I'm quoting him now, "is broken."

He blamed radical activists on the City Council for that. I want you to respond to him.

PINTO: So I work very closely with our police department. I'm a big supporter of our police department. I think they're the best in the country.

And I also do agree that there were some laws that went too far several years ago. And I became the chairwoman of the Council's Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety in 2023. I looked at our entire ecosystem. I worked with the police, with the U.S. attorney's office, with our courts, with D.C. residents in all eight wards and put together this legislative package to fill many of those gaps.

And so I'm proud of the progress that we have made leading to this 30- year low of violent crime. But I am also the first to say we have to do more. Reality and safety have to be true for everyone in D.C. And we take seriously our responsibility here that we're also the nation's capital. And so you have to be safe whether you have lived your whole life, you're having an internship on Capitol Hill for the summer, or you're a tourist from anywhere in the world.

That is not lost on us. And that's why collaboration with the federal government is important to accomplish those goals.

BLITZER: So, so important indeed. And you make good points.

Thanks so much for your service. Thanks so much for joining us, D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto. Appreciate it very, very much -- Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right, Wolf, some new developments this morning.

A decade after the Supreme Court's landmark Obergefell decision extending the right to marriage to same-sex couples across the country, the Supreme Court could soon consider whether to take up a case asking them to overturn it.

Joining us now to discuss is Tom Dupree. He served as the deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration and is a constitutional law attorney.

So, if you would, Tom, just to start off here, can you explain to our viewers who this petitioner is in this case, what her argument is for overturning the ruling that granted same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide, and why that is so significant here?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Sure.

Well, the person involved is Kim Davis, and she's a clerk in Kentucky who basically disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage and essentially refused to comply with what the Supreme Court said. In other words, she wouldn't issue same-sex marriage certificates and that sort of thing.

So there was a lawsuit involving that. She lost the lawsuit. She is now asking the United States Supreme Court to get involved and hear her case and she's asked the court to reconsider the Obergefell decision. That's the one that legalized same-sex marriage and invited the court to take her case and reverse that decision.

BROWN: What is the likelihood that the High Court would take this up? Sorry. I have a fly on my face. Go ahead.

DUPREE: I think it's unlikely.

Anyone can ask the Supreme Court to take their case, but the Supreme Court actually takes very few of the cases that it's presented with. Here, I think it's unlikely they're going to take it. There certainly are some justices who I think would vote to overrule the same-sex marriage decision.

Justice Thomas, for example, has been very up front about he thinks it was wrongly decided and should be reversed. I suspect Justice Alito feels the same way. There are also other conservative justices who may not be big fans of that decision, but I think it's quite another step to say that they're going to take this case and reverse the decision.

I think the likelihood outcome is they will take a pass on this case and possibly revisit this issue in future years.

BROWN: All right, so I want to read the argument from Davis' attorney.

He writes: "This court should revisit and reverse Obergefell for the same reasons articulated in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center. Obergefell was wrong when it was decided and it was wrong today because it was grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process."

What do you make of that argument?

DUPREE: Well, I think if you are trying to get the Supreme Court interested in taking this case, that's probably the right way to frame the argument.

The case that he's talking about, the Dobbs decision, is that was the one where the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. And they basically said that Roe v. Wade, which recognized the right to abortion, rested on this concept of substantive due process, that the Constitution basically gave you a substantive right to choose an abortion.

[11:35:01]

The Obergefell decision, the same-sex marriage decision, was also grounded in this concept of substantive due process. So what they are saying is that the same logic, the same rationale that led you to reverse Roe v. Wade should apply equally here and should also lead you to overrule the same-sex marriage decision.

BROWN: And after the Dobbs decision, as we know, one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, had this call to revisit the Obergefell case.

Tell us more about your thinking there. Do you think that there are other justices who could be on the same page as him? If so, which ones?

DUPREE: I think there are other justices who, if they were deciding the same-sex marriage question today, writing on a blank slate, might well say the Constitution does not protect same-sex marriage.

Certainly, Justice Alito feels that way. Obviously, Justice Thomas feels that way. Justice Roberts, I think, probably feels that way. He was one of the dissenters in the original Obergefell case. It's possible that the other justices, some of the conservatives, including Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, Justice Gorsuch possibly, they may also disagree with the rationale.

But, to my mind, there's a big difference between disagreeing with the outcome in that case and being poised to overrule it. There's that concept of stare decisis, that if the Supreme Court decides a case, you let it rest on the books in place unless there are incredibly compelling reasons to revisit it.

And there may be conservative justices who aren't the biggest fans of the substantive due process, but they're not poised to overrule the same-sex marriage case so soon after it was decided.

BROWN: What is your message to families who see these headlines about the fate of same-sex marriage and worry their own marriages, both past and future, could be invalidated?

DUPREE: Well, I totally understand how it could be disconcerting, to say the least, to see your rights or something that appeared, at least a few years ago, to be well-settled constitutional law being revisited or at least questioned from some quarters.

But I would say a few things. One is that the likelihood of the Supreme Court taking this case and reversing Obergefell I think is unlikely at this point for the reasons we have discussed. The other thing is that Congress also passed a law that basically would make any situation where this decision gets reversed apply prospectively only.

So, even if the Supreme Court were to take this case, reject same-sex marriage, that wouldn't automatically have the effect of invalidating marriages that are already on the books, but it would be something that would only apply going forward.

BROWN: All right, Tom Dupree, thank you so much -- Wolf.

DUPREE: Thank you.

BLITZER: All right, Pamela, just ahead, an agencywide meeting under way after the deadly shooting at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, as last week's deadly attack adds another level of anxiety for agency workers preparing to return to work.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:42:16]

BLITZER: Happening now, we're learning new information about the deadly shooting at the Centers for Disease Control, the headquarters of the CDC in Atlanta.

Investigators now say they found documents in the government's house detailing his discontent with the COVID vaccine. Police recovered five firearms at the scene and said that the shooter fired over 500 rounds, including 200 rounds striking six CDC buildings in Atlanta.

Authorities have also revealed the shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Many CDC employees, understandably, are calling for tighter security at the CDC headquarters.

Joining us now is Dr. Anne Zink, a lecturer and senior fellow at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Zink, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for your important

work.

First of all, what's your reaction to this awful shooting at the CDC headquarters?

DR. ANNE ZINK, YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: Yes, thank you so much for having me.

I think that getting the information and news out there about this targeted, tragic attack on the CDC employees is critically important. My first reaction was a series of things. The first was just heartbreak and sadness. There's nothing more primal than feeling the fear of your life, being hunched under tables and chairs in a place that you call home and in work with a day care nearby.

I am heartbroken for the officer, Officer Rose, who died trying to protect the CDC employees and others, father, expectant father as well on the way, who died in this terrific and horrific event.

But I'm also just heartbroken for public health and health care in general, as we have seen more and more aggression, both online, verbally and also physically, against people who are showing up every day just to try to do their best to serve each other.

I'm angry. I'm angry that words matter and that we have so much anger at systems that are directed at people. There are ways that we can fix our systems. It's very valid to have really important conversations about things like safety of vaccines, which is fundamentally important, but targeting our system's failures at each other doesn't get us anywhere.

And, unfortunately, I am not surprised. I have just really seen the rhetoric really turn up. I have seen online and in conversations and a real sense of othering between each other. And one thing I know about every CDC employee that I have ever worked with is just their deep and true commitment to trying to serve other people.

And so to see this just very physical, personal, aggressive attack is heartbreaking.

BLITZER: Yes, these people at the CDC, they're all working to keep us healthy and to prevent death.

Are we seeing, though, an environment now, here in the United States where anyone with a grievance against public health entities feels empowered to attack, whether it's online or in this case in person?

[11:45:12]

ZINK: Yes, I'm a practicing emergency physician. And so I oftentimes see that one, when the headlines and the news starts to ramp up and we start to utter each other that people, particularly people who are ill, mentally ill, can take that and take those words as truth. Sometimes, our words ignite a fuse that we didn't even know that we

meant to start. And so I think it's very important that we are cautious with our words and that we are mindful and that we continue to share kindness. But, as you mentioned, I see every day health care workers, public health workers who show up.

There was a story that was shared with me yesterday. A public health worker had talked about the fact she's traveled all around the world, put herself in immense danger to really promote and protect the public. She talked about the fact she never was really called to public health, but she knew that she wanted her life to have purpose and she knew she wanted to serve.

And she didn't see or experience any place better to do that than the CDC. And she felt incredibly proud to be a part of the CDC community. But when security asked her to take off her sticker decal to say that she worked at CDC, this is when she broke down in tears. This is when she shared what a true tragedy this is.

She wants to display with proudness the fact that she has chosen her life to serve others. And now it's not even safe for her to put that decal on her sticker. We can put our football teams, we can put all sorts of sayings on our cars, but she can't even display that she works for the federal government to serve and protect each other. And I think that just really hit home.

BLITZER: Yes, on...

ZINK: Yes.

BLITZER: On that point, how concerned are you that this kind of incident potentially could put a chill on public health workers and organizations as they try to do their critically important lifesaving work?

ZINK: We have already seen a chill come to place. We have seen it much harder to get jobs, see people not as interested in jobs. I heard many people yesterday to say, this is the final straw. I can't take this anymore. I have to choose something different.

And that is a huge loss for our entire country. There's expertise there that the entire world looks to that we will be lacking when they leave.

BLITZER: Yes.

All right, Dr. Anne Zink, thanks so much for joining us.

ZINK: Thank you so much.

BLITZER: And a giant in the intelligence and law enforcement community, sadly, has died. William Webster was the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is the only person in history to have held both critically important positions. His family confirmed his passing on Friday. He was 101 years old. A

long time federal judge, Webster was selected to lead the FBI by President Jimmy Carter back in 1978 amid revelations of corruption. He is celebrated for restoring public confidence in the agency. William Webster served for nine years before President Ronald Reagan asked him to head the CIA, which was in the middle of the Iran-Contra scandal at the time.

And through his leadership, Webster cleaned up the CIA's image as well, once again restoring public trust in American intelligence. I was privileged to interview him on several occasions right here on CNN. He was widely respected by both Democratic and Republican administrations for his lifelong commitment to public service, integrity, and his leadership.

Webster was a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a patriot. My thoughts, of course, are with his family and loved ones at this time. May he rest in peace and may his memory be a blessing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:53:10]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, it may have been a fortnight since Taylor Swift's last album, but she is shaking it off and releasing her 12th.

The 14-time Grammy Award winner is hoping you will be enchanted by her new project, titled "Life of a Showgirl." And whoever wrote this script is clearly a Swiftie.

BLITZER: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: Swift loves mystery all too well, so we will still have to wait for a track list. But this is a look at the preorder site.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Good look indeed.

I want to go live right now to CNN entertainment correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister.

Elizabeth, this might surprise you. It might surprise some people, but I am an actual Swiftie. Did you know that?

BROWN: Wow. I didn't actually know that.

BLITZER: I'm a Swiftie, but never in my wildest dreams did I think we'd be doing a segment on Taylor Swift right here in THE SITUATION ROOM, but here we are doing it.

BROWN: I think you wrote the script that I read.

BLITZER: I didn't write it, but I know that I'm going to shake it off.

(LAUGHTER)

BROWN: OK. OK, shake it off.

BLITZER: Are you going to shake it off too?

BROWN: Shake it off as the life of a showgirl.

BLITZER: I want you to shake it off, all right.

Elizabeth, you ready to shake it off? Go ahead.

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: I am ready, and this may be my favorite segment of all time.

We know one thing. It's no longer a cruel summer because of this announcement. How was my pun, Wolf? How was my pun?

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: I think you're good.

WAGMEISTER: OK, so here's what happened.

Yesterday, Taylor Swift was leaving all of these clues or Easter eggs, as her fans, the Swifties, know them. And then there was finally the announcement that we're getting a new album. She announced it on her boyfriend Travis Kelce's podcast. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAYLOR SWIFT, MUSICIAN: So I wanted to show you something.

JASON KELCE, FORMER PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER: OK, what do we got?

SWIFT: We got...

J. KELCE: A briefcase.

SWIFT: Yes.

J. KELCE: Mint green with T.S. on it.

SWIFT: Yes. Yes.

J. KELCE: What's in it?

SWIFT: This is my brand-new album, "The Life of a Showgirl."

TRAVIS KELCE, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS: TS12.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WAGMEISTER: So there is the announcement. And Taylor is going to be a guest on their podcast tomorrow. She's a genius, by the way, announcing this album just weeks before football season gets under way with the Kelce brothers.

[11:55:10]

Now, you showed that landing page on her Web site, which has some merch. So that's where you can have presales. We see it right there. There's a vinyl. There's a cassette. Of course, most of this sold out in minutes. The Web site actually crashed, which is to be expected.

But as I said, there were many Easter eggs. And fans are looking at a Spotify playlist. I want to pull it up. Now, there are 22 songs on this Spotify playlist. And if you know Taylor, you know what 22 means. And all of these songs are actually produced by two producers that she's previously worked with who are responsible for her transition from country music to pop music.

So, now the Swifties, myself included, are clued in that this may be a pop album, not a somber album. So there's a little, little Swiftie tea for you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm ready.

BROWN: You must be picking up on those Easter eggs as a Swiftie, Wolf.

BLITZER: I know.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: You're a Swiftie too.

BROWN: Wolf is tracking it.

BLITZER: All right, we're going to be monitoring this and staying on top of the breaking news.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: Thank you.

BLITZER: And, to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media @WolfBlitzer and @PamelaBrownCNN.

We will see you back here tomorrow morning, every weekday morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

BROWN: "INSIDE POLITICS WITH DANA BASH" is next after a short break.