Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Biden to Sign Bill with Crucial Foreign Aid, Possible TikTok Ban; Any Moment: Judge May Rule on Whether Trump Violated Gag Order. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired April 24, 2024 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: And I think that there is an argument to be made there, but it's not going to work until you get up on an appeal.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Real quick, before I let you go, David Pecker was on the stand for two-and-a-half hours yesterday. He'll be back on the stand. He's expected to be on Thursday. After everything you saw from David Pecker and from the line of questioning from prosecutors, what do you think -- what do you think he needs to do or they want him to do come Thursday? How much damage do you think he's going to do?

PARLATORE: He's telling a very interesting and compelling story, but everything he's told so far, while certainly immoral, while certainly dishonest, is not illegal. He's talking about things that are, unfortunately, legal. They are, unfortunately, part of campaigns. The idea that people would pay money to create false information to make their opponent look bad, other campaigns have done that. The Steele dossier is a good example of that with the so-called Trump pee tape, and everything else. So it is the unfortunate reality.

What they need to do is then tie that to the false business records, and I don't think that they're going to be able to do that with this witness. I think he's doing a very good job of setting the scene and giving all the background and he's going to be able to corroborate a lot of what Michael Cohen said, but it's not going to get to the ultimate issue.

BOLDUAN: We are at the very beginning of prosecutors laying out their case, and he still also hasn't yet had the defense stick him up to give him questions either. So we will see it all. Tim, it's good to see you. Thank you very much.

A new hour CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: A major abortion case at the Supreme Court this morning. Can state abortion bans keep women from getting emergency care?

And we are standing by for a judge's decision on whether Donald Trump violated the gag order in the New York criminal case. He could be held in contempt at any moment.

And a controversial bill that would allow teachers in Tennessee to carry concealed guns at school. It is now headed to the governor's desk.

I'm John Berman with Sara Sidner and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BOLDUAN: All right, what you're looking at here is Washington, D.C., a live look at the U.S. Supreme Court right now, where very soon oral arguments will begin in one of the biggest abortion cases since Roe versus Wade was overturned. The justices are going to be our weighing a case brought by the Biden administration against the state of Idaho. The key question here is how far can state abortion bans go when it comes to a woman suffering a medical emergency? The eventual decision here could very well set an important precedent for all of the states now pushing restrictive abortion bans now that Roe is no longer in place.

CNN's Joan Biskupic, she has much more from us from Washington outside of the Supreme Court. Joan, the -- it seems that the state of Idaho, the argument they're making in pushing back against the Biden administration's case here is that they say that the Biden administration is essentially crying wolf when it comes to their restrictive abortion ban. But what is at stake here?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: So much is at stake here, Kate. And you can see that we're right back where we were essentially two years ago when the Supreme Court reversed nearly a half-century of abortion rights and triggered this political, legal, and social fallout. Shortly after the Supreme Court announced that decision in the case known as Dobbs, Attorney General Merrick Garland came forward and said there is a federal law that can protect women who are in emergency situations from complications of pregnancy, who go to emergency rooms, and where death is not imminent, as would be the case for the one exception in Idaho, where death is not imminent, but there are all sorts of other life-threatening conditions, health-threatening conditions that need to be addressed in that emergency situation.

And that's what the government is trying to keep in place here. And what Idaho is saying is that no, the federal government cannot displace state laws that want to nearly ban all abortions. And today, right at 10:00 eastern time, people are already lining up to here this in two hours. We'll hear from the state of Idaho trying to defend its ban and saying that the law cannot be displaced, that no woman in Idaho should be able to get an abortion unless her life is truly threatened.

Defending the state will be Joshua Turner, a constitutional litigator, saying essentially what you said, is that there's no reason for the federal government to come in and control the law in state emergency rooms.

[08:05:00]

On the other side will be Elizabeth Prelogar, the solicitor general of the United States, saying no, this federal law preempts state bans in certain situations. This is a narrow kind of health situation where a woman might have a ruptured membrane, might be at risk for organ failure, but as I said, not be completely on death's door. And what the government is saying is that this law that traces to 1986 that was essentially designed to prevent patient dumping in emergency rooms, would require physicians to try to care for women, and if required, help her terminate a pregnancy. Kate?

BOLDUAN: All right, oral arguments set to begin in just a couple hours. Joan is there. Thank you very much. Sarah?

SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: All right, with me now is the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Nancy Northup, to continue this discussion. Thank you so much for coming in this morning for us.

So I want to start with this. If the justices decide that the state law stands over what the federal law says, what will the consequences be in your mind?

NANCY NORTHUP, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: Well, what we are talking about here is something so basic, which is your right and ability to get emergency health care when you show up in an emergency room and you're pregnant and something has gone terribly wrong. We know what the consequences are, because we're seeing it already. The Center for Reproductive Rights has brought lawsuits against Texas with their extreme bans and Idaho and Tennessee, and talked to so many more women across the nation who are already suffering. They're going to emergency rooms. The doctors there are afraid to give them the emergency health care they need, which can be abortion when it's indicated.

And so what we will see is more of what we have now. What the Biden administration has said is that federal law requiring emergency care also applies to you when you're pregnant.

SIDNER: Is there any other federal law on the books that protects abortion rights, or is this sort of a singular law in and of itself? And if it goes away or is trumped by state law, what does that mean?

NORTHUP: Right, well, this is a general law about emergency care, and the Biden ministration is saying that applies to pregnant women when their life is threatened in an emergency. There isn't a general law. We need to have federal regulation of abortion rights, a federal guarantee of abortion rights. Such a law has passed the House twice. There's a lot of support in the Senate. We need that to happen because in state after state after state -- we filed a brief pointing this out to the Supreme Court -- women are suffering because they cannot get emergency care when they are pregnant.

SIDNER: Is there a particular patient's case that sort of stands out to you to illustrate the impact this may have?

NORTHUP: Well, there are many cases, and again, we outlined them in our brief, but we think about Amanda Zurawski, who is the lead plaintiff in the challenge to Texas. Amanda had a much-wanted pregnancy. Into her 17th week her water broke. She lost all her amniotic fluid. This is something that a 17-week fetus cannot survive. And yet she was turned back from the hospital. They were afraid to give her an abortion because Texas, among other things, has a 99-year prison sentence for committing abortion.

And so she was sent home. She was sent home to suffer until she in fact got an infection. She got sepsis, and she was in the intensive care unit for three days fighting for her life. This is what happens when doctors are afraid legitimately of criminal laws on abortion. And that is why it is so important that the Supreme Court say yes, the Biden administration is right. When you shop in an E.R. and you are pregnant and you're in a health crisis, you deserve emergency care.

SIDNER: How will doctors decide, when you're talking about physicians being afraid to perform abortions when it could save the life of the mother, how will they decide it's time to take immediate action? And what is the potential chilling effect here?

NORTHUP: Well, if the Supreme Court upholds the Biden administration's policy that this federal law that emergency care applies to pregnant women, then the doctors will know, I'm protected by federal law. That law overrides the state abortion ban, and I can use my best medical judgment to give my patient right in front of me the care that she needs. That's how they'll know. Without this protection, a federal law for emergencies, they don't know. And it has just been impossible for them to make the decision to risk their lives in prison to provide the care to the patients that they need. It is just unacceptable.

[08:10:07]

SIDNER: Nancy Northup, I know you'll be watching as these arguments are played. We are playing them live in just a couple of hours here from the Supreme Court. And maybe we'll get back to you as soon as we get some sort of decision from them, however long that takes. Appreciate you coming on this morning. Appreciate it. John?

BERMAN: So is time running out for TikTok? President Biden ready to sign a bill in hours that includes a possible ban on the popular app.

And it is highly unlikely, but what if a judge decides Donald Trump should be jailed for violating a gag order? The Secret Service is making plans just in case.

And two workers say Boeing -- two workers for Boeing say the airline retaliated against them for raising concerns about work on certain planes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:00]

BERMAN: A truly big moment at the White House, President Biden will sign the long awaited aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan into law. After months of delay and debate in the House, the Senate finally passed a $95 billion package overnight. Now, when the bill is signed, it also starts the clock for TikTok's

China-based parent company. They are going to have nine months to sell or have the app kicked off US app stores.

Let's get right to CNN congressional correspondent, Lauren Fox. This really is a big moment. I mean, for months, the idea of aid to Ukraine and Israel has consumed Congress and now, it is finally happening.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, this is a monumental moment and it does say a lot about congressional leaders ability to work together for months behind-the-scenes.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they were really a united front as Speaker Mike Johnson was grappling with whether or not he could put this bill well or any Ukraine aid package on the floor of the House.

Ultimately, he made the decision that he was going to move forward despite the threats against his job, and I will say, I talked to a number of Republican senators yesterday who were supportive of this package, and were applauding Speaker Johnson, arguing that this was a really brave move that this was a move that showed that he was growing as the leader.

But it is also a testament to the fact that Schumer and McConnell behind-the-scenes were continually having conversations trying to figure out a way forward, trying to figure out the best package possible, and ultimately, what they passed last night, despite the fact there are some changes from the original Senate bill, it really largely reflected the bill that was passed in February.

There were additional Republican votes that they were able to get some Republicans view Donald Trump's comments as not really against this package, instead, saying that they felt like there was room to vote yes on this package. Obviously, we have talked repeatedly in the past about Donald Trump's grasp over the Republican Party in the Senate.

But this was a huge moment for lawmakers and really a huge moment to show what can happen when lawmakers work together across the aisle.

BERMAN: Bipartisanship, it is quite a thing when it works.

How did TikTok end up in the final package?

FOX: Yes, I mean, if you remember, the House had already passed their own version of a TikTok ban. What happened however, is there were some discussions and the Senate about whether or not the time that ByteDance, the Chinese parent company, ByteDance would have to divest TikTok. Whether that time frame should be longer.

So there is an additional runway for the time that they have to sell off this company. Otherwise, it will be unavailable on US apps. Now, I will say that this was kind of interesting vote for lawmakers.

You know, if you think about the Senate and it is an older body, lawmakers were really grappling with what to do here and it is kind of funny, I talked to Senator Mike Rounds about this and he said his granddaughter was actually texting him a couple of weeks ago when the House passed this asking her grandfather, are you going to vote for that? Trying to figure out what he was going to do.

And ultimately, senators decided that this was the right step. Obviously, the president is expected to sign this bill today, but it will be we really interesting to see what unfolds in the months ahead.

BERMAN: Absolutely. No, the clock is ticking. I mean, there could be more maneuvering here to be sure.

Lauren Fox, great to see you. Thank you very much for that -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, thank you, John.

We are seeing of the war come home. Division exploding over the war in Israel on college campuses this week, how is it impacting the support politically for President Joe Biden?

What's more frightening than those robot dogs? How about one with a flame thrower? That's really a thing. Yikes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:23:35]

BOLDUAN: This morning, Donald Trump and his legal team are waiting to see what, if any, consequences he is going to face for allegedly violating the judge's gag order in the hush money criminal trial.

Now, during a hearing yesterday, that was heated at times, Trump's attorney told the court, the former president was just defending himself from political attacks. The judge did not seem to be buying it in large part, even saying to Trump's legal team at one point, "You are losing all credibility with the court."

Joining us right now is Elie Honig, CNN's senior legal analyst and former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Elie, when do we expect a ruling or do you expect a ruling from the judge on this gag order? And how do you see this coming out?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Kate, there is no scheduled time, but I strongly expect we will see a ruling either today or first thing tomorrow when court resumes.

The judge has to understand, time is of the essence here, and frankly, we've seen Donald Trump re, re, re-offend almost on every six or eight hours or so. So, I think he has got to do something here.

I expect to see the following. I do think the judge is going to find that most or all of the 11 violations alleged by the DA were in fact violations of the gag order. I expect to see the judge imposed the maximum fine under the law, which is only $1,000.00 per violation.

I do not expect to see the judge imprison Donald Trump, but I also think it could happened that the judge will either expand the gag order or clarify certain pieces of it that maybe have some ambiguity.

[08:25:04]

BOLDUAN: And you're talking about re-offending. I mean, Trump then did an interview, then has this new interview going after Michael Cohen again, this is what CNN affiliate, WPVI.

The interview was conducted before the contempt hearing yesterday, but it aired afterward. And Tim Parlatore told me last hour that he thinks the only thing helping Trump with this one, this re-offending is maybe that Trump did the interview before he sat before the judge yesterday. Do you agree?

HONIG: That's a good job by Tim, I guess, to come up with something, but it was a violation of the gag order before the day started and after the hearing as well. I mean, this whole defense that we heard from Todd Blanche of, well, he doesn't think that the gag order is fair or he is just defending himself. That's fine, but it is still an order of the court.

You don't get to violate it because well, I thought it was necessary to violate it or well, I felt the need to violate it. None of that is going to fly to me, so I think Tim is right, I guess that's the best argument Donald Trump could have about why it was not as flagrant, maybe as it would have been if he had done it after the hearing.

But either way, I think this will probably be added to the list of violations.

BOLDUAN: And you mentioned that you don't think that the judge is going to tell Donald Trump now he has to be put in custody behind bars because of this.

But John Miller -- CNN's John Miller has some new reporting about the what-if of it all, if the judge would hear or eventually order Trump to be in custody for violating the gag order, how does it work considering that Donald Trump's Secret Service is with him at all times?

Miller reports that the Secret Service, court officers, and the New York City Corrections Department officials have already been quietly discussing this and trying to find a solution.

What do you think of it?

HONIG: Yes, it makes sense that they are thinking about that, Kate. I mean, what the Secret Service does is they deal in contingencies, what ifs. I do think there is no way Donald Trump gets locked up based on his first batch of violations.

But you do have to think ahead. I mean, what if Donald Trump continues to violate, what if the judge continues to reprimand him, continues to fine him, and what if this happens four, five, six times?

So it is possible there could come a moment where this is a reality. I think it is the right thing for the Secret Service to think about those possibilities. They certainly plan for more remote possibilities than this.

But I don't think it is on the horizon immediately as we sit here now.

BOLDUAN: It also kind of speaks to -- it really does speak to the unprecedented nature of all of it, right? That there could be a defendant who may need to be reprimanded to custody, but that defendant also needs to have access to the Secret Service in case of an emergency, it is all just a lot. It is good to see you, Elie, let's see what happens tomorrow.

HONIG: Thanks, Kate. Indeed.

BOLDUAN: Sara --

SIDNER: Best description ever, it's a lot.

All right, ahead, airlines may soon have to do more to make you happy if your flight ends up getting delayed.

Also, millions of Medicare patients are now gaining access to a wildly popular drug that helps with weight loss. That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:00]