Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Arguments in Court over Texas Immigration Law; World Leaders React to Deadly Airstrike; Artists Write Letter Concerning AI. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired April 03, 2024 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Certain documents are personal. Even the 11th Circuit, in considering the special master claim, made it very clear that Donald Trump has no possessory interest in these documents and that they do not belong to him. This is just completely off the wall.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Completely off the wall as an argument. But if you read the subtext, I think the subtext is, completely off the wall that you are even considering this, that this is even an issue. And that's on you, Judge Cannon.

AKERMAN: Oh, absolutely. I mean Jack Smith makes it very clear that there is no connection to reality with the Presidential Records Act and the case that's before her. I mean he does that by the law and also by the facts. I mean there would be a factual issue here if Donald Trump could claim that he really thought that some of these documents were personal and could raise that as an intent defense in his case. But the fact of the matter is, Jack Smith points out that he never thought that these documents were covered by the Presidential Records Act. He's on tape saying that these are classified and he shouldn't have them.

BERMAN: So, this filing that Kate just read from, is this the type of filing you would do if you thought things were going OK with the judge overseeing your case?

AKERMAN: Of course not. I mean he is basically setting up this judge for the fall before the 11th Circuit. He made it quite clear that she is totally, absolutely wrong on the law. And, two, she's wrong on the facts that underlying any defense.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: After receiving a filing like this from, you know, in - in - in your court, what are the options for how Judge Aileen Cannon responds to this?

AKERMAN: Well, I would hope that she goes back to the law books and realizes she's just dead wrong. I mean that's -

BOLDUAN: Do you think that's a possibility she should say, actually, I meant, after further review, I meant I would like to see jury instructions that have nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. AKERMAN: That's -

BOLDUAN: Could that happen?

AKERMAN: No, that can't - possibly, based on what she has said already, I mean, it was such a preposterous requirement that she gave both council on this because it wasn't based on anything in the law in the Presidential Records Act. So, she's just got to come back and say - acknowledged she's wrong. And if she doesn't, she's got to decide this so that Jack Smith can take this up to the 11th Circuit.

BERMAN: In either case, what are the chances that this case goes before a jury before the election?

AKERMAN: I'd say it's pretty slight at this point because -

BERMAN: And getting slider I would say.

AKERMAN: I think so, yes, because unless she does something pretty quickly and acknowledges that she made a mistake here, this case is going to just drag on. And if it goes up to the 11th Circuit, I'm sure they're going to act extremely quickly on this, as they did with the special master issue.

But still, it's going to make this case drag out a bit long.

BOLDUAN: You know, Nick, Karen Friedman Agnifilo was on with us earlier and she said, the way this is written, what she sees in this, the simmering frustration I think is how she described it. She sees this as suggesting Jack Smith is setting up to ask that Aileen Cannon be recused.

AKERMAN: I'm not sure if he would go that far, but he's certainly setting her up to take it to the 11th Circuit. When he gets to the 11th Circuit, sure, one option is to say that this judge is inexperienced, doesn't know what she's doing. This is the second time we've had to take her up to the 11th Circuit on what is really basic elements of law. And for that reason she should be recused. Sometimes appeals courts will do that.

BERMAN: This is not a filing from a happy special counsel, that's clear.

AKERMAN: By no means.

BERMAN: All right.

BOLDUAN: When have you met a happy special council? I'm just - I'm just kidding.

BERMAN: That's a good point. You only - they're only grumpy.

BOLDUAN: I'm just kidding.

BERMAN: All right, Nick, thank you very much for that. This morning, a federal appeals court will hear arguments over the

controversial Texas immigration law. This is the one that would allow Texas law enforcement to arrest people suspected of crossing into the state legally and allow state judges to deport them. The legal issue is, is this - are they usurping the role of the federal government?

CNN's Rosa Flores following this case this morning.

Good morning, Rosa.

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, John.

In about 30 minutes there will be oral arguments that are going to be heard in the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court.

Now, this case has gone in some court ping pong. It's been going through multiple layers of the court system and it is just going back to the - to the appeals court after this same appeals court issued an order last week that blocked SB-4. And here's why this is significant, because it's the same justices who are going to be hearing the oral arguments today. And each side is expected to have about 30 minutes.

But if we glean from what the majority opinion that was issued last week, and this was a two-to-one vote, the majority - in the majority opinion, that chief justice made very clear that she had concerns about the constitutionality of this law.

[09:34:55]

And if you take a look at the history of this law, I want on a dial back because in the Texas Senate, when this law was being argued and debated on the Texas senate floor, there was a Texas Republican senator who was also the prior author of this law who stood on the senate floor and said that this law had been - this bill had been taken get away from him, there were clauses that were added that made this law unconstitutional. And he said he was very concerned about those measures and that he was voting no for SB-4. We, of course, know that SB-4 still went through, but here's what he said on the senate floor.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN BIRDWELL (R), TEXAS STATE SENATOR: And we are sitting a terrible precedent for the future by invalidating our obedience and faithfulness to our constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FLORES: Now, these are some of the same concerns that the chief justice at the appeals court raised. And this senator went on to say that one of the concerns that he had is that the state of Texas, in this law, gives judges the power to deport migrants. And he says that under the U.S. Constitution it's very clear that that is a federal power. Well, the appeals court judge said exactly that. I want to read a

portion of her majority opinion. She said, quote, "the Texas removal provisions bestow powers upon itself that are likely reserved to the United States." And, John, this is going to be the center of the oral arguments today, is this law constitutional or not? There are concerns, both by the chief judge, as I've mentioned, by Democrats, by this Republican was the prior author, and many other civil rights organization who are very concerned about this law potentially going into effect.

John.

BERMAN: I know you'll be there watching these arguments. It will be very interesting to see the questions that these judges ask. Maybe tip us off as to where they're headed.

Rosa Flores, thank you very much.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: So, right now, Secretary of State Tony Blinken is meeting with his NATO counterparts in Brussels as the critical question over more money for Ukraine weighs on both the U.S. Congress and very clearly international allies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:52]

BERMAN: New reaction from world leaders after that Israeli airstrike killed seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak from the United Kingdom told Benjamin Netanyahu, quote, "far too many aid workers and ordinary civilians have lost their lives in Gaza, and the situation is increasingly intolerable."

The Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, warned Israel, quote, "the vast majority of polls showed full solidarity with Israel after the Hamas attack. Today you are putting this solidarity to a really hard test."

With us now, former U.S. defense secretary and CNN global affairs analyst Mark Esper.

And, Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for being with us.

These leaders, Prime Minister Tusk, Rishi Sunak of the U.K., sending a message, it seems, that the actions you are taking is real, are pushing you further away from success.

What do you think?

MARK ESPER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes, first of all, good morning, John.

Look, I think that assessment is correct. What happened was a - was a terrible tragedy. It should be completely avoidable. It appears that the World Central Kitchen personnel on the ground did everything possible, everything right to avoid such a calamity. For example, marking their vehicles, providing details on where they're traveling and when.

And yet, the IDF somehow got this wrong, screwed this up. I mean you would think after six months of conflict they would have figured out how to deconflict these types of things, how to do proper coordination. So, look, it was good to see Prime Minister Netanyahu on TV yesterday acknowledging the mistake was made. The Israeli president apologized for it. The IDF came out and noted that they made a mistake, they're investigating. But I think we need to know what the results are from that investigation, who's going to be held accountable, and what will happen going forward to make sure that this never happens again.

BERMAN: I guess the question is, is this symbolic of something larger? The idea that how Israel is conducting this war is no longer something that certain countries and people around the world can support.

ESPER: Yes, I think after six months of conflict there's something bigger here that - that's unclear, which is why I think this really needs to be investigated thoroughly. And not just the tactical incident itself, but the broader nature of things. So, in other words, is this just poor coordination? Was it somebody made a mistake? Or is it just a recklessness on the part of IDF commanders that taken care and avoiding civilian casualties isn't as important as we think it is.

So, I think there's something more there. Again, after six months of conflict, I would have expected them to do a whole lot better than this.

BERMAN: So, what can you do about that if you are the United States, Mr. Secretary? You've been in rooms that most of us will never be in, right, with Israeli defense leaders, the people who are conducting this war. How would you deliver this message to them, again, not specifically about this incident, but the broader war conduct overall?

ESPER: Yes, look, and not just from my previous experience as secretary of defense, but from my time as an Army captain in the Gulf War, I know what it means to deconflict fires and to - and to manage these things.

So, look, I - my view is, first and foremost, we should offer to bring American officials, generals, officers in to assist them with the coordination.

[09:45:06]

And I think - and to kind of, you know, be there with them, with looking over their shoulder, trying to help out, trying to improve liaison on the ground. I think offering that type of expertise and assistance, since we have a lot of practice and - and a good tracker with - track record with it would be quite helpful.

BERMAN: Well, that's a carrot. What about the stick? I mean at what point do you tell Israel, if you believe that, that the way you're doing this is leading you further away from success?

ESPER: Well, the Biden administration has been saying that for months now. And, look, they're right. We've said all along that you've got to make sure that in conflict you - for every terrorist or militant that you kill, you don't create two or three more by being sloppy in how you conduct your operation or killing civilians.

So, I don't know what the stick is right now. You don't want to deny Israel the arms it needs to defend itself from, not just Hamas, but really Hezbollah. And now, given what happened in Syria the other day, the possibility of an Iranian conflict if things escalate.

So, I wouldn't put restraining or restricting arms and ammunition on the table. But, look, I do think it - this needs to be - continue to press the Israeli government, the Netanyahu government, to do better. And I think offering up the officers is one way to do it. Whatever other assistance we can give them, or others in the international community.

BERMAN: From where you are sitting today, do you think Israel is closer to a successful outcome, whatever that is, than they were say a month ago?

ESPER: Well, they're not in a sense that they're losing ground on the international support front, which was thin to begin with. And I think this is a reason why Hamas really isn't coming to the table and making the compromises that I think Israel, Egypt, Qatar, the United States would want to see them make because they know that if they - they, Hamas, gives up the militant - the, I'm sorry, the hostages, then they lose their leverage. And why should they make those steps now when it appears that events are trending against the Israelis, that international support and - against them is slackening and pressure on the Netanyahu government continues to increase. So, I think they're sitting back and saying, Israel continues to dig a deeper hole when it comes to not letting civilian aid and humanitarian aid in and preventing civilian casualties

BERMAN: Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, you've got a perspective that few of us have. So, thanks so much for being with us today. I really appreciate it.

ESPER: Thank you, John.

All right, we are standing by for updates on the ongoing rescue mission for well over 100 people still believe trapped by the rubble from a devastating earthquake.

And Billie Eilish, Katy Perry, and hundreds of other artists teaming up against AI. They call the technology an assault on human creativity.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:30]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am the champion and you're going to hear me roar.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm the bad guy. Duh.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, don't get stressed (INAUDIBLE). Oh, the conversation that (INAUDIBLE).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Katy Perry, Billie Eilish, and the Jonas Brothers.

BERMAN: The Jonas Brothers were there. I got really excited. They were the Jonas Brothers.

BOLDUAN: Did you know who that was? Did you know?

BERMAN: This must be a big deal.

BOLDUAN: Yes, obviously.

A group of notable artists joining -

BERMAN: The Jonas Brothers.

BOLDUAN: Joining forces now in speaking out about the threat they see in artificial intelligence. I need to get through it, so stop messing with me. In an open letter to AI developers, more than 200 singers and songwriters are now laying out their concerns about deep fakes and voice cloning.

CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister is here to save me from John.

Elizabeth, what are these artists asking for?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: I'm so glad to know that John is a huge fan of the Jonas Brothers. This made my morning.

So, the Jonas Brothers are among a group of many a-list artists who are calling out the threats of AI. This comes in a new letter that we obtained yesterday. And there's many artists, songwriters, and music companies saying that they understand that this technology is here and that there are many benefits of AI, but they are saying that the use and the misuse, particularly of AI, can take away compensation for artists.

There are no minced words in this letter. This comes from artists like Billie Eilish, John's favorite, the Jonas Brothers, also the estates of Frank Sinatra and Bob Marley. Stevie Wonder is another one who has signed this.

And I want to read you part of this letter. They say, quote, "this assault on human creativity must be stopped. We must protect against the predatory use of AI to steal professional artists' voices and likenesses, violate creators' rights and destroy the music ecosystem." This goes on in no small terms to say that if AI continues to be unregulated, that many jobs are going to be lost across the music industry.

BOLDUAN: Elizabeth, it's great to see you. Thank you so much.

BERMAN: It's an existential threat to a lot of different art forms here. And music, boy, that -

BOLDUAN: And Hollywood needs to deal with it, like so many industries, of how they're going to work with it or against it.

BERMAN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: They need to decide.

BERMAN: You can see why they're doing this.

OK, the total eclipse, it is coming. It is Monday. And eclipse mania, it's a big deal.

[09:55:00]

BOLDUAN: It's a true thing.

BERMAN: It's a true thing. People trying to plan where they will be able to get the best view of the eclipse on Monday. Make the final travel plans. You have to get safe glasses. Checking the weather for cloudless skies.

Canada's Niagara region has declared a state of emergency ahead of tourist arrival. I think that's just to prepare because they know so many people are going to show up there. I know in Vermont they're expecting so many people to show up they're doing things like closing roads. They're telling people you can't park here, you can't park there.

If you are going to look at the eclipse, the safe way is through ISO compliant glasses. ISO, of course, means -

BOLDUAN: International Space Station. No, it's the International Safety or - standards. Let's go with it.

BERMAN: I don't know, but ISO compliant glasses. If you know what ISO means, get those glasses. If you can't get the ISO glasses because you can't find out what it means, you can watch the eclipse right here. CNN has it all covered for you. Special ISO live coverage begins Monday at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You can also stream it on Max.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely.

And until then -

BERMAN: And until then -

BOLDUAN: It's been great having you here today.

This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

"CNN NEWSROOM" with Jim Acosta is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)