Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Hunter Biden's Ex-Wife Testifies in Federal Gun Trial; President Biden Faces New Criticism Over Age; Climate Warning; Biden's New Asylum Restrictions at the Border; Florida Judge Delays Trump Classified Documents Case. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired June 05, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Hunter Biden's ex-wife takes the stand as the prosecution makes their case against the president's son on federal gun charges. Riveting testimony about the first time she realized that he was using drugs and found a crack pipe in their home. And while the president is abroad, the White House is defending him against a story that suggests he's slipping as he gets older. We're going to speak with one of the reporters behind the story about what lawmakers told her about what they've seen in meetings and what the president's defenders are saying today.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: And a stark warning. What are climates that we are, quote, playing Russian roulette with our planet as the record heat of the past year could be nothing compared to what scientists say is about to come. We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN News Central.

KEILAR: Emotional testimony in Hunter Biden's federal gun trial as the prosecution calls his ex-wife and his former girlfriend to take the stand. Both shared intimate and disturbing details about dealing with Hunter Biden's past drug use.

SANCHEZ: Kathleen Buell, who was married to Hunter for more than two decades and shares three children with him, described how she found drugs and paraphernalia in Hunter's car on multiple occasions, including in 2018. That's the year that prosecutors say he illegally purchased a gun while being addicted to drugs. Let's bring in CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid, who's been following the action inside court. So, Paula, did the jury react at all to these two women's testimonies?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Oh, yeah, Boris. After kind of a slow start to the morning, the jurors were sitting up, leaning in and hanging on almost every word from these women. Now, his ex-wife was only on the stand briefly. She talked about the first time that she found a crack pipe in their family home back in 2015. She also talked about how she would search his car for any drugs or drug paraphernalia before their children would use it. But on cross- examination, she also said, look, she wasn't sure what he was doing with his life in 2018. By that point, they were divorced.

And, of course, 2018, that's the year that he bought this firearm at the center of this case. Abby Lowell, the defense attorney, also got her to concede that she never actually saw Hunter Biden using drugs. She was only on the stand for a short period of time. And then after her was a young woman that Hunter Biden met in late 2017 at a gentleman's club and then subsequently spent long spans of time with at various hotels on the East and West Coast. And she testified how often she would see him smoking crack. She said he was doing that about every 20 minutes.

Now, her testimony is not done. She's still being questioned by prosecutors. But Boris, she was a very compelling witness, very articulate, clearly had a lot of warm feelings for Hunter Biden. Talked about how charismatic he was, how much people liked him and how his demeanor did not change even after he smoked crack. So she will continue her appearance on the stand. Unclear how long she's going to go, but definitely some captivating witnesses for the jury.

KEILAR: And Paula, earlier in the day, the defense tried to discredit the prosecutor's timeline of Hunter Biden's drug abuse as it relates to when he purchased the gun. What can you tell us about that?

REID: So the trial kicked off with prosecutors bringing in a lot of evidence. They had an FBI agent on the stand who helped them bring in the infamous laptop, various phones and other bank records, all this evidence. So what Abby Lowell was trying to do is to show that this evidence doesn't necessarily prove that Hunter Biden was addicted to drugs when he purchased that firearm. He tried to show gaps in the text messages. He tried to show that the bank records where he was withdrawing cash, large amounts of cash at that time, that there was no direct evidence that he was using that to buy drugs.

[14:05:09]

Now, when the prosecutors had a chance to get back up, once again, they tried to point to circumstantial evidence showing that for most legitimate purchases, Hunter Biden was using his regular debit card and he was mostly using cash for drugs. But it was interesting, on the stand, one of his romantic partners said that, yes, at one time he gave her $800 to go buy clothes for his kids. So there's a lot to work with, but on both sides, I will say that during the evidentiary dispute between the defense and the prosecutors, the jury was struggling to stay attentive. They are clearly focused on their task, but as they were going through the bank records, once again, at least one juror, his eyes were sort of closing, which is why it was such a contrast. And we came back after the break and they put the women on the stand and they were sitting up straight, leaning in and listening to every word.

And the purpose for those women to be on the stand is just to talk about Hunter Biden's addiction, specifically in 2018. And it's unclear how much the second woman will be able to offer about his addiction status in the fall of 2018. When we left court right before lunch, they were in about April, May of 2018. So still have a ways to go.

KEILAR: Yeah. A personal story is more interesting than a bank record, for sure. Paula Reid, live for us from Wilmington, Delaware.

REID: Always.

KEILAR: Always. Thank you so much for that.

SANCHEZ: So right now, President Biden is on a high-profile trip overseas, marking the 80th anniversary of the Allied invasion of France in World War II. Back at home, the White House has a new fight on its hands, pushing back on a story just published in the Wall Street Journal. The title of this piece says it all, quote, behind closed doors, Biden shows signs of slipping. Polls have shown that at 81 years old, the president's age has been a persistent concern with voters anxious about having the oldest president in U.S. history serve another four years. The journal says the article is based on interviews with more than 45 people, both Republicans, and Democrats, over several months. Those people had either participated in meetings with Biden or were briefed on them at the time.

KEILAR: To be clear, that group also included administration officials and Democrats who did not find fault with the president's performance. The journal also said that most of those who were critical of Biden's performance were Republicans, but some Democrats did say that the president is showing signs of his age. And the White House responded.

They said, quote, congressional Republicans, foreign leaders, and nonpartisan national security experts have made clear in their own words that President Biden is a savvy and effective leader who has a deep record of legislative accomplishment. Now, in 2024, House Republicans are making false claims as a political tactic that flatly contradict previous statements made by themselves and their colleagues. Wall Street Journal congressional reporter Siobhan Hughes is one of the two reporters on the byline of the story, and she's with us now. Siobhan, thank you so much for being with us. This story, obviously, is making a lot of waves, as you know. The headline, Behind Closed Doors, Biden Showing Signs of Slipping. What does slipping mean? And is the picture that is painted here different from what voters are seeing in public?

SIOBHAN HUGHES, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: The picture that's being painted here is one of a president who, behind closed doors, is very much the same as what you see in public, somebody who has good days, good moments, but also bad days and bad moments. And the reason that's significant is the White House position has been that if only you could see the president behind closed doors, if only you could see what we see, he's absolutely sharp as a tack. And so this aims to find out, well, what is the president like behind closed doors? It's what's happening there, different from what the public sees. And the answer is not very much.

SANCHEZ: Siobhan, you write that most of those who said that Biden performed poorly were Republicans, but you noted that some Democrats said that he showed his age in several exchanges. Not to repeat Brianna's question, but I'm wondering what showed his age entails, because there are several instances in the piece where different encounters can be read different ways, and people came away from meetings with different impressions of what happened. So I'm wondering how you navigated that in your reporting.

HUGHES: So it's fair. That is very, very tricky terrain. But we focused on three meetings in particular all over the course of the past year, and there were things like mumbling, speaking in such a low voice that people could only hear every other word or couldn't understand what he was saying, this over-reliance on note cards, using note cards to make what were very obvious points and using them in ways that affected the spontaneity of the conversation. Having a loose command of the details, things like in the Ukraine meeting we talked about in January of this year, using note cards to make the point that Ukraine aid needed to be on the table when everybody in that room by and large agreed that Ukraine aid needed to pass. That wasn't the question. The question is, how do we do this quickly? And so it is the preponderance of the detail that we gathered that led to that headline.

[14:10:09]

KEILAR: Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy went on the record with you guys for the story. He said, quote, I used to meet with him when he was vice president. I'd go to his house. He's not the same person. You also in the story mentioned some of the differing things that McCarthy has kind of said about Biden. So I wonder how you can kind of make heads or tails of that. It was reported, of course, by The New York Times and Politico last year that he would publicly skewer Biden, but then privately he would tell his allies that he found Biden to be sharp in their meetings.

HUGHES: So we heard from administration officials that McCarthy did say that the president was sharp in meetings. Our reporting also suggested that McCarthy was doing that tactically because he had to get along with President Biden at a time when the country was at really risk of a debt default if there was not some type of a deal. So you can take that for what it's worth. You can decide McCarthy is not credible or that he is, but that's what our reporting showed.

SANCHEZ: I want to give you an opportunity to respond to several Democratic lawmakers who said that they were interviewed for the piece. Senators Coons, Murray, Speaker Emerita Pelosi, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. They said that they were interviewed for the piece, but their quotes weren't included. Some of them are arguing that there is a slant to this story. What's your response?

HUGHES: So it's true that we interviewed a number of people. And all of the Democrats saying that they were spoken to. Yes, we spoke to a number of people. It's true that their views of the president were represented. Maybe their quote was not the quote that was selected, but other people's were. And it's also true that my job here is to be the agent of the reader. I am not here to publish the quote provided to me or us by every single Democrat. I just can't do that.

SANCHEZ: And what about the accusation that the piece is slanted?

HUGHES: Democrats feel the piece is slanted and I would encourage folks to get away from the politics of this. And before we jump to a conclusion about motivation or slant, read the story and look at what the facts say and you decide for yourself.

KEILAR: I would too encourage people to read the story. There's also a lot about former President Trump and just looking at this issue overall. It is a long and involved piece that is certainly worthy of a read. I wonder, and you talk about it a little bit in the piece, the White House reaction to this. And of course, there is sensitivity because this is something that is on voters' minds. How did the White House react?

HUGHES: The White House reaction, I think you can see for yourself, the White House disputes what is in the story. They dispute that Biden has these bad moments. They insist that he is sharp. But what's not really at dispute is a lot of what we're seeing in these meetings. And when we talked to administration officials, frequently there was not a difference over what was happening. There was a difference in cast. If Biden had a loose command of detail, well, that was because the principal is supposed to be above the fray. He's not supposed to be engaged. If in the January 17th meeting, the president, for example, is standing back, letting lawmakers do the talking, well, that's just because that's an appropriate way to run a meeting to give somebody else a chance to have their say. So there's not a dispute about the basic facts here.

SANCHEZ: There were disputes about whether people could hear him, right?

HUGHES: Well, it's fine if you say you want to hear him, but the overwhelming evidence that we gathered is that many, many people did have trouble hearing him. And on balance, we felt it was important to put that in the story.

SANCHEZ: Sure. One quick question to trail off something that Brianna said, the reported mix-ups on President Trump's part, did you find similar concerns with his mental acuity among the lawmakers you spoke to?

HUGHES: So President Trump's mental acuity is an extremely important issue, as are other issues. Frankly, about President Trump in terms of his overall approach. But that's not what this story focused on. This story was about President Biden. There will be a place to focus on President Trump.

SANCHEZ: Siobhan Hughes, great to get your perspective on the story. Thanks for being with us.

HUGHES: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still ahead this hour on CNN News Central, migrants are already being turned away at the border as Biden's sweeping asylum restrictions take effect. We're going to talk to a sheriff in Texas who was at the White House for yesterday's announcement about what he thinks is needed. And support for Robert Kennedy Jr. appears to be fading, but his third-party bid could still cost Trump or Biden the election. We have the numbers on this, these stories and more coming up this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:09]

SANCHEZ: Just hours after President Biden's new asylum restrictions took effect, authorities are turning away migrants in at least one city along the southern border. Our team on the ground in Hidalgo, Texas, captured this video showing agents escorting a group of migrants back to Mexico after their bus arrived at a port of entry. The sweeping new policy targets migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally and bans them from seeking asylum once daily crossings hit a certain threshold. The move is a significant policy shift for the Biden administration, and it's getting pushback from both sides of the aisle. Joining us now is the sheriff of Bexar County, Texas, Javier Salazar. Sheriff, thank you so much for being with us. How effective do you think this executive order is going to be when it comes to alleviating the problem at the border? Do you think it's going to be effective?

[14:20:09]

SHERIFF JAVIER SALAZAR, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS: Well, I mean, I think it's a start. I know that it's not going to be a perfect process, especially starting right out of the gate. But I think it's a good effort on the part of the administration. They brought us out yesterday. We've been getting briefed up until yesterday. And again, I think it's a good start. I wish this had not become necessary to put out an executive order that we know is going to be challenged almost immediately, if it hasn't already. I wish the bipartisan legislation that I thought was a good bill that got presented twice and got shot down twice just for the sake of political pandering, I wish that had happened. But in absence of that, this is probably the best that can happen.

SANCHEZ: Sheriff, there are critics that argue that because of some of the exceptions in the order, we may see unintended consequences, things like more unaccompanied minors attempting to cross children by themselves trying to cross the border. What are your biggest concerns with this executive order?

SALAZAR: Well, my biggest concerns are that both sides of the aisle, from the far right and the far left, I guess, started complaining about it before it even got announced. And I really wish everybody would just back off of it and give it a chance to work or not work. But let's take a wait-and-see approach. Again, this is the first meaningful change to these policies in, I think, upwards of 25, 27 years. So, I mean, let's give it a shot and see what works.

SANCHEZ: What would you say to some folks within the president's own party that argue this order too closely aligns with the frame that former President Trump had on immigration. Do you see it that way?

SALAZAR: Well, I know one side says it didn't go far enough. The other side says it went too far. I think there needs to be a certain amount of compromise in it. Again, the bipartisan legislation was exactly that. It was a good compromise. And then people that actually helped craft it turned and voted against it. That's just lunacy at this point. So, I think that the administration did the best that they could do with the product that they've got out now. I know that it's not perfect, but I think we should continue to do what we can. I think we should continue to try to lend support and help where we can in refining it moving forward.

SANCHEZ: Sheriff, you mentioned that it was likely going to wind up getting challenged in court. It's widely expected that it will. Potentially, it could be struck down. How do you think that is going to play out? Do you think this executive order may survive in some form?

SALAZAR: Well, we were assured yesterday that it could stand up to the scrutiny of lawsuits and legal challenges. Obviously, that remains to be seen. Nobody in there was to a clairvoyant that could tell us definitively but they believe that water tight enough to stand up to that. If it doesn't then we'll have to take have to take a step back and where we will be, we'll be where we were at this time yesterday before this order took place. And then it'll be back to the drawing board but at a certain point these two sides are going to have to get past their own egos get past their own you know party lines and work together for the for the greater good.

SANCHEZ: Sheriff quickly have you seen a significant change in the way that it's being implemented in Bexar County?

SALAZAR: Well we haven't had a chance to deal with it yet and I've been on the ground here in Bexar County for about an hour now. I just got in from DC this morning, so haven't really had a chance to see it yet how it hits here but I'm sure within the next couple of days we'll see the effects of it. Good or bad.

SANCHEZ: And we look forward to checking in with you when you get a read on it. Sheriff Javier Salazar, thanks so much for the time.

SALAZAR: Thank you, sir. Be safe.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Thanks.

KEILAR: Next, the Trump-appointed judge overseeing his classified documents cases just made an extraordinary move in Trump's favor, and it's something that no other judge before her has done. We'll have that next.

SANCHEZ: Plus, brand new polling shows that even with fading support, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could still have a major impact on the outcome of November's election. But which candidate is he projected to hurt and potentially help? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:09] KEILAR: The Florida judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case is once again delaying the proceedings. Today, Judge Aileen Cannon released a new schedule which adds a hearing on a gag order request from prosecutors. A number of other hearings are also delayed, including one announced yesterday examining whether Special Counsel Jack Smith has the authority to prosecute Trump. And in a rare move, Judge Cannon will allow political partisans and constitutional scholars not otherwise involved in the case to take part in the arguments.

Keep in mind, there is still no start date for the trial, nearly a year after Trump's indictment. Joining us now is former Miami-Dade County Court Judge Jeff Swartz. Judge, thanks for being with us. And let's start with this new court schedule. The gag order hearing will now take place in late June. And then after that's over, Judge Cannon will hold a hearing on whether Special Counsel Jack Smith can continue with this case. Why do you think she's decided to reshuffle the schedule and hear the gag order first?

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE: I can come up with no other reason than she is purposely avoiding ruling on certain matters and doing the best she can to delay the trial of this cause as long as she possibly can. I just can't come up with a reason. If she is that ignorant of how to handle these matters, then she doesn't belong on the bench.

[14:30:00]