Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

GOP Hardliners Threaten Shutdown If Border Demands Aren't Met; Israel Confronts Accusations Of Genocide At World Court. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 11, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN), VOTED TO OUST KEVIN MCCARTHY AS HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I was one of the eight prior to it, and Chip was not. So, yeah, I don't know what's in his heart. But it's a reality, and we have to look at it. If Speaker Johnson doesn't deliver on the conservative credentials that he promised us, then I suspect we will be looking for a new speaker. That's always an option, but that was a rule that was put in place many years ago. It's been voted on and it's been approved by this Congress. So, yeah, that is an option. If we don't like our boss, or we don't like the person that's in charge, we have the ability to remove them.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: If that moves forward, if there's a potential shutdown, don't you think that'll hurt Republicans going into an election year?

BURCHETT: I think we better stop worrying about political expediency and we better start worrying about our country. You know, it's these folks that are more worried about their portfolios than they are, the people of this great country that have gotten us into this mess.

You know, we want to blame the left and Congress, and I want to blame that noise that's coming over. Somebody's like drilling back there. But the reality, Boris, is that we've got our national chambers of commerce to blame for this thing. They've pushed for this. They want the cheap slave labor in our country. They don't care how they get it, and you know, again, they're the ones that, when you see the president rolling in, you always say, who's that out there on the tarmac?

Well, I guarantee you, Boris, it's not going to be me, and it's not going to be you. It's going to be the big boys and girls that write those huge checks that don't give a rip about this country or they all -- when the country's doing great, they'll wave the flag but the reality is, the deep state is real. It's both parties. They don't see black or white, they see the color green, and they will wreck this country to get it. And they do not care, because they'll still have it. They'll be in great shape. Their money will be overseas somewhere, and I'll show her account somewhere, and they'll survive and the rest of us will not. And they really don't care.

So, to me, the fight is much bigger than the Republicans or the Democrats. Because in the history of this world, I doubt that we'll be a footnote. But I'll tell you, this great country, if we let it fall, we will be at fault for it, before just mainly for our own greed. SANCHEZ: Congressman, I will put a pin on your reference to cheap

slave labor. I'm not sure if that was a reference to immigration, but I want to move on to something else and we could pick that up some other time. The drama unfolding at the Oversight Committee yesterday, you were on hand for Hunter Biden showing up during a hearing, leaving after a few minutes, seemingly trying to show that he's unafraid of answering lawmakers' questions.

Chairman James Comer, back in October, offered to let Hunter testify publicly with a transcript to be -- or rather, he offered to let him testify publicly months ago. Now, he wants him to testify privately. Why not just let him answer your questions in front of the world?

BURCHETT: I don't have a problem with that, Boris. Honestly, I don't. I'm not a lawyer. But what they tell me is, this is the procedure that's been done in the past. And the reason they do that is so that if somebody's innocent, say, if your name is mentioned in there, that it doesn't need to be. It's not part of the -- it's not -- it doesn't have anything to do with it. But you were casually mentioned in it or maybe some confidential bank records. Those are the type of things they filter through and they don't do in the public, and that possibly is the reason why.

But really, I don't give a rip, Boris, get him in there. He's in contempt. He knows he is. Yesterday was just a show for both sides. You and I both know it. If we didn't have these things and the X or Twitter or Facebook or any of the others, that wouldn't have been a big deal. But it was, because it's instant gratification from both sides of the aisle, and you and I know it. It's a game they play, and it's unfortunate.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, one last question. Given that so much of our conversation was focused on your description of greed and the way that corruption can influence politics. Former President Donald Trump acknowledged last night during a town hall that his businesses made roughly $8 million from foreign business dealings, one of them, a bank in China that has allegedly helped North Korea skirt sanctions, is that appropriate?

BURCHETT: If that's the truth, and no, it's not, Boris. I don't, you know, endorse that kind of thing. That's not the league I run in. And no, of course it's not. I would like to get all the details on it. I didn't see it. Probably, unlike the rest of Congress, I generally don't watch the news, the left or the right. I just live it. So I would have to see that, what he was talking about and what reference. But to me personally, that's disturbing.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Tim Burchett, we got to leave the conversation there. Despite what a lot of people say, there is work going on in Congress, some drilling, apparently.

BURCHETT: Yeah, apparently. I'm not sure. They need to be careful. It might wake somebody up, up here.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate the time, sir. Thanks so much.

BURCHETT: Thank you, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

So Israel right now is at the international Court of Justice accused of showing genocidal intent towards Palestinians in Gaza. Israel calls the claims false and baseless.

[13:35:05]

Coming up, what that could mean for the war against Hamas?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: A high stakes court case is playing out overseas. The International Court of Justice at The Hague, it is the legal arm of the U.N., hearing arguments about whether Israel has committed acts of genocide against Palestinian civilians.

During a hearing today, South Africa making its case that Israel's intentions are to destroy not only Hamas, but the Palestinian population inside Gaza as it continues its war there. Israel will be responding tomorrow and obviously forcefully pushing back before the court. But made a prebuttal at a press availability. Here are comments from both countries.

[13:40:08]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEMBEKA NGCUKAITOBI, SOUTH AFRICA'S SENIOR COUNSEL: Israel's special genocidal intent is rooted in the belief that in fact the enemy is not just the military wing of Hamas, or indeed Hamas generally, but is embedded in the fabric of Palestinian life in Gaza.

LIOR HAIAT, ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SPOKESPERSON: Today we were witness to one of the greatest shows of the prophecy in history, compounded by a series of false and baseless claims. South Africa, which is functioning as the legal arm of the Hamas terror organization, utterly distorted the reality in Gaza, following the October 7 massacre, and completely ignored the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped, and abducted Israeli citizens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: More than 23 ,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas, but whose numbers are used by international organizations that say they largely reflect the reality of the death toll, even if there are some inaccuracies in the numbers.

Israel is set to respond in front of the world court tomorrow. And joining us now, we have Law Professor at Rutgers University, also the author of Law and Morality at War, Adil Haque. Professor, thank you so much for being with us. What did you think about South Africa's argument today? ADIL HAQUE, LAW PROFESSOR, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: So I think South Africa

made a very powerful argument that if the International Court of Justice follows its prior case law, established in cases like Gambia versus Myanmar, then it should find for South Africa, it should find that South Africa's claims are plausible, that there is a direct link between South Africa's claims and the measures that it's seeking, and that those measures are urgently needed to prevent irreparable harm to Palestinian civilians.

I also think South Africa made a powerful moral argument that the court should follow the law established by its prior cases without fear or favor, even though this is obviously a very controversial case with high stakes and the court is likely to face criticism and even condemnation should it rule in South Africa's favor.

KEILAR: We'll talk about those measures here in just a moment. I do want to ask you about what Israel is saying, which is that this is hypocritical. They say to hold them to a standard that the court does not apply to Hamas because Hamas is not a state actor. And what's more, it says that South Africa, we just heard it in that soundbite from the representative from Israel, is effectively operating as a legal arm of Hamas. What do you think of that?

HAQUE: It's very disappointing, frankly, to hear that kind of language from the Israeli delegation. South Africa is trying to prevent the large-scale loss of human life. Whether you think it is genocide or not, this is a humanitarian crisis of horrific proportions that South Africa is trying to stop.

So to suggest that it is somehow acting as the legal arm of Hamas is really just not appropriate. South Africa actually addressed this criticism in its argument today. And it explained that because the International Court of Justice only has jurisdiction over states, it cannot adjudicate Hamas' responsibility under international law.

But there is another body that can, and that is the International Criminal Court. And South Africa has referred the situation in Palestine to the International Criminal Court, giving the prosecutor the power to investigate Hamas as well as the Israeli defense forces.

Technically, the court had that jurisdiction already, but South Africa has supported the International Criminal Court in investigating individual criminal responsibility by Hamas as well as by members of the Israel Defense Forces. So I think this particular charge of hypocrisy is misdirected and not founded, in fact.

KEILAR: Adil, you mentioned the measure that -- or measures that South Africa is seeking here. South Africa claiming, of course, that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians and Gaza something that obviously would take years to adjudicate. But what they're also asking for is what's really akin to a temporary restraining order against Israel something that would have more immediate impact. Do you think that they will prevail and if so, what would that mean in the near term?

HAQUE: I think South Africa will prevail in part. Some of the measures they're asking for are very straightforward, that Israel not destroy evidence, that it allow fact finding missions to enter Gaza to actually uncover the facts and find out what is really going on, on the ground.

South Africa is also asking the court to order Israel to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief, something that Israel is already legally obligated to do under international humanitarian law.

[13:45:05]

Now, of course, South Africa's big ask is that the court direct Israel to immediately suspend its military operations in Gaza. This is a big request, but there is a precedent for it. That is what the court ordered Russia to do, to suspend its military operations in Ukraine.

I do think that you will hear Israel tomorrow argue that a similar order would not be appropriate in this case. And my own view is that the court will stake out a middle position, that it will order Israel to negotiate in good faith to achieve a bilateral ceasefire with Hamas, conditional on Hamas also stopping rocket fire into Israel.

And in doing so, the court would essentially align itself with the U.N. General Assembly, which by an overwhelming majority called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. So I think that is what the court ultimately will order. Not quite what South Africa is asking for, but something that could potentially allow a humanitarian crisis to be averted. As South Africa argued very powerfully, there is no way to prevent the humanitarian crisis from escalating or rather descending into famine and disease without a ceasefire.

And so I think the court will find a way to achieve that, even though, strictly speaking, it does not have jurisdiction over Hamas and cannot order Hamas to do anything. But I think they can find a way to craft an order that can achieve a ceasefire despite that jurisdictional limitation.

KEILAR: So much writing on this. Adil Haque, great to have you. Thank you so much. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:51:25]

SANCHEZ: Two major announcements from two football titans. Bill Belichick is parting ways with the New England Patriots after 24 seasons and a record six Super bowl titles. Belichick, who's well known for his unemotional, stoic news conferences, actually got emotional while saying goodbye to the Patriots.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL BELICHICK, LEAVING PATRIOTS AFTER 24 SEASONS: So many memories of the fans, the send offs, the parades, the Sundays, whatever the situations are, the letters of support, and I'll always be a Patriot. I look forward to coming back here, but at this time, you know, we're going to move on. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And in the world of college football, Nick Saban retiring after more than 30 seasons on the sidelines, most of them with the University of Alabama, where he won six of his seven national championships.

Let's discuss this now with Sports Analyst and the host of "The Right Time with Bomani Jones" podcast. Bomani Jones himself, what do you think of this? What you heard just then from Bill Belichick?

BOMANI JONES, SPORTS ANALYST AND PODCAST HOST, "THE RIGHT TIME WITH BOMANI JONES": Well, I mean, I don't think it was terribly surprising that Bill Belichick, I mean, ultimately got fired. I think they dressed this up pretty nicely, but that didn't sound like a man, (inaudible), right? Like, I'm pretty sure this man got fired.

And given his performance this year over the last couple of years, if a player had analogous performance to Bill Belichick, Bill Belichick would have fired him with a heartbeat. In a heartbeat, it wouldn't matter. If he was the man, all the Patriots held me with that hat on, he'd have fired that dude.

So, I mean, I think it's just fine. Like, I had nothing emotional about seeing Belichick go because he had been successful for that long and it was incredible. And when he stopped being successful, he moved on with Saban. I had been kind of expecting this one for a year or so, and I don't think most people did, but I think that coaches of his generation and his level of accomplishment are looking around at the current landscape of college football and are saying to themselves, why am I doing like? Like this is a lot more stressful than it used to be. I got all my money. I got all my accomplishments. There's got to be a better way to live.

SANCHEZ: He had complained about name, image, and likeness being a factor in his ability to recruit all the best players to Alabama, as he did for almost like 20 years. There is, Bomani, a really interesting symmetry in both of them moving on at this moment because both of them were kind of integral in their careers to each other. But it may not be over for Belichick. He's just 15 wins shy of breaking Don Shula's all-time record. Do you think he's going to try?

JONES: I mean, I'm sure that he will try, but I'm not sure who it is that's going to turn over their entire front office to Bill Belichick, which is probably going to be what he wants. But it's also probably why he doesn't have a job right now because of the job that he did running the front office basically got the coach in him fired.

So I want to see what happens. Like, I don't think with Tom Landry got put out to pasture in 1989 that his thought was, OK, well, I could never coach again. He didn't -- I don't know how hard he tried, but I'm also not sure how interested somebody was going to be at hiring a coach of that age at that time. So let's see what happens with him. But I'm not as convinced as other people are that there's just an easy landing place for him.

KEILAR: How do you think this is going to change things for Alabama? You know, how do you think with Saban gone, things will?

JONES: Oh, this is going to be great for those of us who are not fans of Alabama. Saban has been so successful, and I want to say by my count, finished in the top 10, 16 straight seasons. At Alabama, that's not viewed as, wow, way to go and exceed our expectations. That's viewed as, the way things are supposed to be.

[13:55:01]

So if somebody comes into Alabama and does what is reasonably considered to be a good job, which is win 10 games every two or, you know, every few years, win a national championship here and there. That's not what those people are here for. That job is a crazy house and those of us who are old enough to remember before Nick Saban know about Bill Curry getting fired after starting the season 10 and 0 and then losing to Auburn and losing to the Individual National Champion and then basically being fired. This a couple years after having a brick thrown through his window.

This is a different kind of place and you're going to find out what the highest standard is in college football. You thought it was Alabama. Wait until you see what happens to whoever the hell gets this job next because he just got the single most difficult job in American sports.

SANCHEZ: Never fill the great man's shoes is a bit of wisdom. Bomani, really quick, is Saban the greatest college coach of all time?

JONES: I think it's hard to argue against it, particularly given the circumstances under which he won. Like it was a down Alabama that he inherited. And anybody can win at Alabama a little bit. Very few people can withstand that job for as long as he did.

You add to that the fact that the LSU Football Program that currently exists is a byproduct of Nick Saban and it does not resemble at all the program that Nick Saban inherited in the year 2000, which was a program where quite honestly, LSU's reputation with black players in the state was so poor that it can never reach its fullest potential.

The class of 2001 recruiting class that he brought in, that changed everything at that place. So when you think about what role he played in turning the SEC into the juggernaut that it currently is, I think that you will make the argument that he is probably the greatest college football coach this ever been.

KEILAR: And that makes it a very sad last 24 hours or so.

SANCHEZ: For some.

KEILAR: For our colleague, Kaitlan Collins.

SANCHEZ: For Kaitlan Collins, yeah.

KEILAR: For sure. Bomani Jones, you are welcome back any time. Thank you so much for joining us.

JONES: Thank you.

KEILAR: And we're waiting right now to hear from former President Trump. He is attending court today for these closing arguments in his civil fraud trial, $370 million at stake, and political implications, as the Iowa caucuses are just four days away. Stay with us. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)