Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
CNN International: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Law Banning Domestic Abusers From Owning Guns; U.S. Supreme Court Still To Rule On High-Profile Cases; U.S. officials: U.S. Concerned Israel's Iron Dome Could Be Overwhelmed In War With Hezbollah. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired June 21, 2024 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.
RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN HOST: Good morning, and welcome to our viewers from around the world. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York.
I'm going to get straight to our breaking news this hour. We begin at the U.S. Supreme Court. That's where the court, a short time ago, issued multiple opinions, including a major one concerning gun ownership. In a majority decision, the court upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from owning a firearm. The ruling was eight to one, but only one, Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, writing that the court had no trouble coming to that conclusion.
Let's get straight to CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider, who joins us from Washington. So, Jessica, give us a sense of this decision. Take us through it.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, this was a near- unanimous decision, Rahel, eight to one. The Supreme Court upholding this federal law that bars people who are subjected to domestic violence restraining orders. It prohibits them from owning guns. This was a case of a man who had many incidents against his girlfriend, and he was thus slapped with a domestic violence restraining order from a lower court and then barred from owning guns.
What's interesting is the lower courts here had said that that law that banned him from owning guns and other people like him with these domestic violence restraining orders, that that violated historical precedent and therefore violated the Second Amendment. But, the Supreme Court stepping in today to saying that, sure, Americans have this broad Second Amendment right. But, they say it's not unlimited. They say that in cases of people prone to violence, that it is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with historical norms to ban those people from possessing weapons.
The Chief Justice basically said, we don't need a law that is identical to one that was in existence in the late 1700s to comport with the Second Amendment. But, there has been a lot of confusion in the lower courts over the past two years ever since Justice Thomas, who was the lone dissenter in this case today, ever since he wrote this opinion, that really said, gun laws should only be upheld if they had some sort of historical precedent.
So, today, Rahel, Justice Thomas did write a dissent in this case, saying this. He said, "The question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order, even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot." And that was the issue here. This defendant in question, he hadn't actually been convicted of something.
But still, the lower courts had found that he was prone enough to violence that he should be slapped with this domestic violence restraining order and therefore shouldn't own a gun. Justice Thomas is saying in his dissent, well, he never actually committed or was convicted of a crime. So, he should be able to own a gun. The larger Supreme Court saying, no, this sort of law stands.
I will tell you, though, Rahel, I mean, this doesn't completely clear up all confusion. There has been a lot of confusion at the lower courts as to what gun laws can actually stand based on what the Supreme Court has said previously. This one was relatively cut and dry, the fact that the court here saying, well, of course, people accused of and found to have maybe committed violence and subject to these restraining orders shouldn't own a gun. But, it's a little bit more murky in other gun laws. And I'm sure that we'll be seeing continued challenges when it comes to gun laws that are in place currently.
SOLOMON: Well, Jessica, I mean, to that point, one thing that I thought was really interesting is as you're reading through some of these quotes from the decision, it seems like you can actually read the division between the different justices about some of these more recent rulings. I want to --
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SOLOMON: -- read for you something that Sonia Sotomayor, of course, one of the justices, wrote. She said "History has a role to play in Second Amendment analysis, but a rigid adherence to history impoverishes constitutional interpretation and hamstrings our democracy." So, Jessica, my question is, is this perhaps a precursor to more challenges? Because clearly, there is division within the court. And as you pointed out, the Chief Justice said that lower courts have misunderstood some of their previous rulings.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah. And by saying the lower courts have misunderstood, well, at least at first reading of this case in the past few minutes that I've done, there is not really anything in this decision that will clear up a lot of that confusion.
[11:05:00] Lower courts still have to abide by the ruling put in place two years ago that said that they have to find some historical similarities in the current gun laws to what we saw in the 1700s and 1800s. You read from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Also, judge -- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who actually was not on the court when that Bruen case was decided in 2022, she joined just a few months later, she said that -- she acknowledged that Bruen, from two years ago, was very hard to follow. She said, when this court adopts a new legal standard as we did in Bruen, we do not do so in a vacuum. The tests we established bind lower court judges, who then have to apply those legal standards to the cases before them. When they -- when it shows that they're having trouble, she said we should pay attention.
So, even though she agreed with this decision, it seems to be that she and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in particular, are signaling to the court, hey, my fellow justices. You've created confusion at the lower courts. We need to clear this up. There is no real indication that this case clears anything up, except to say that this particular law does comport with the Second Amendment.
SOLOMON: In a sense, sort of maintains the status quo, if you will.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah.
SOLOMON: Jessica Schneider live for us there. Jessica, thank you.
Let me now bring in Jeff Swartz for some more additional legal expertise here. He is a former judge in the state of Florida, and also a professor at the Thomas Cooley Law School. Jeff, always good to see you. Just your first reaction to this news today.
JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE: Nice to see you too. I have to take one exception with Jessica in the idea that lower courts have had confusion. At least in this particular instance, I don't know other than the Fifth Circuit that anybody has really had confusion in domestic violence cases. Having judged them myself, I would never have found that Bruen or any of the cases that came before like Heller somehow disarmed me as a judge of being able to say, I'm going to take your guns away on a temporary basis until we have a final hearing on this injunction. And I'm going to authorize the police officers, when they serve these injunctions, to take those weapons away. I'm going to protect this woman or this man from the abuse that they are suffering.
So, I'm not sure that any other circuit other than the Fifth would have made such a finding. This is why I think that their thought process, and I've said this, the Supreme Court is really kind of getting fed up with the Fifth Circuit. They're making life very difficult for them and causing them to have to make decisions sometimes that they don't want to make in certain cases. So, I kind of see that.
As far as Sotomayor's quote, that Jessica just used, believe it or not, she used those words, those exact words publicly about a week ago when she was talking to a group of people. So, obviously, she was quoting herself in anticipation of what might be coming her way, the whole idea that historical context cannot be the sole decider of issues like this. So, I found that to be very interesting that she would quote herself a week ago with what she has written in her concurring opinion. Everybody wrote a concurring opinion in this case. They all had something they wanted to say. And then, you get one dissenter, who is out there and left field all by himself, talking about domestic abuse in a manner that just doesn't make any sense.
There was a judgement and a decision, and I think that was sufficient enough, sufficient enough scrutiny to take a wet to disarm someone on a temporary basis.
SOLOMON: Jeff, let me ask, I mean, as you just pointed out, it was a nearly unanimous decision, with the exception, of course, of Justice Clarence Thomas. What do you make of what appears to be in these opinions and these decisions some clear division among the justices about some of these recent decisions, and whether the confusion that Jessica pointed out, whether it's the confusion on the part of the courts, or whether this was some confusion that was caused by the Supreme Court?
SWARTZ: Well, the Bruen decision, it started this ball rolling, and the idea that, in fact, the court had to have -- there had to be something more than just a suspicion to disarm someone. The Bruen decision reinforced the Heller decision and took an extra step beyond being a personal right. As I look at this, the whole idea, and I've said this many times, the idea that any of the amendments in our bill of rights are beyond a reasonable standard is just incorrect. They're all based on a reasonable standard, and this was reasonable, just as reasonable as not allowing people to own a machine gun or a howitzer or anything like that.
Here, the big difference between the majority and Justice Thomas', Justice Thomas says he has never been convicted of anything.
[11:10:00]
How can you take this right away from someone without a conviction? And the answer is that judges made a decision that he creates a danger, and our job is not just to punish. Our job is also to protect, and especially when we start talking about domestic violence. So, I just don't see whether the Bruen decision really reached that point. I think that people have read more into the Bruen decision. And I think all of the concurrences say the same thing, don't read so much into Bruen. It doesn't take away exceptions. There are exceptions to the Second Amendment or reasonable exceptions, and that's what happened here.
SOLOMON: And Jeff, what about the message to people watching, just wondering? So, what does this mean for victims of domestic abuse? What does this mean practically and literally?
SWARTZ: OK. The practical effect here is, as I said a while ago, a bullet can't be stopped by a piece of paper. You have an injunction. You hold it up and said, you can't touch me. Oh, yeah. Watch. OK? So, you have to do something beyond just giving someone a piece of paper. So, as a practical effect, the public has to know that if in fact they are -- especially men and women who are subjected to domestic abuse, have the right to be protected against the person who is abusing them while the court makes a final decision.
Many times, these injunctions are issued as part of a criminal charge that's brought. If someone is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, they have to be -- if they're charged with it, they have to be disarmed. And that may become, as they talk about, part of the surety. That is part of the bond that's posted disarms you. And that's basically a standard condition and just about every bomb that I've ever seen. You must give up your weapons. And that's kind of the way it works. So, that's what happened here, and that was the right decision by the court then, and it's the right decision by this court now.
SOLOMON: And just to put a fine point on it, that protection remains after this decision.
SWARTZ: Yes, it does.
SOLOMON: Yeah. OK. Jeff Swartz, thank you for --
SWARTZ: It does. It does remain. I does remain.
SOLOMON: Exactly. OK.
SWARTZ: Nice to see you, Rahel.
SOLOMON: Of course. I will see you soon. Likewise.
SWARTZ: Thank you.
SOLOMON: All right. Let's continue this conversation and talk about the politics of the moment. Let me bring in Laura Barron-Lopez, a CNN Political Analyst and White House Correspondent for the PBS NewsHour. Laura, good to see you. Talk to me a little bit about how this message is going to be received or this decision is going to be received politically. Certainly good news, a welcome news to the White House.
LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, & WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "PBS NEWSHOUR": That's right. It's very welcome news to the White House, to President Biden's campaign, and it's something that they can also talk about when they're trying to reach young voters. Now, yes, when we look at polls, guns are not -- and gun control is not necessarily top of the list for voters right now. But, young voters always, almost every year, every election cycle, they tend to rank gun control, gun safety higher than other voters in the electorate. And so, this could potentially be something that President Biden is able to reach young voters, in particular, on.
SOLOMON: What about Trump? Does he pick this up at all? I mean, you think about his base, which includes those who, of course, are strong gun rights supporters. Does he touch this at all?
BARRON-LOPEZ: Well, this was a bipartisan thing that was -- that -- and also, it's supported by a number of Republicans. By all Republicans, no, but by a number of Republicans, it is. And you saw that the ruling was a majority of the Supreme Court, including those conservative justice that Trump appointed, that he nominated during his administration. So, I'm not -- I don't think that Trump's campaign is necessarily going to make this a huge issue on the campaign trail. They will talk about guns in other ways. They will talk about the Second Amendment in other ways. But, when it comes to the ability for domestic abusers to have guns, I don't think that Trump's campaign would necessarily consider that a political winner.
SOLOMON: Yeah. I mean, one of the things that we now know is that there are still, I want to say, certainly more than a dozen cases that remain, that we'll likely get a decision on next week. Next week, of course, the same week that we get the first presidential debate between the two candidates. And one of the cases that we'll likely get next week is the decision on presidential immunity. I mean, it is shaping up to be a pretty significant week politically. But, what are you watching?
BARRON-LOPEZ: Yeah. Everything could collide next week, Rahel. And with that immunity case, I mean, look, that is a huge case. And the Supreme Court's decision is going to have a massive impact on Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6 case that he has brought -- criminal case that he has brought against Donald Trump.
[11:15:00]
And now, if the Supreme -- even if the Supreme Court rules next week and even if they rule against Donald Trump, saying, no, you don't have presidential immunity in these actions, which is what Trump's lawyers have been arguing, even if they rule against Donald Trump, at this point, they've taken so long to make a decision that it's really unlikely that we are going to see a verdict, an end of a trial before the November election. Now, there is the wildcard scenario where a trial could start before November or could start sometime around the election and an end before Inauguration Day in 2025.
Some legal experts I've spoken to said that could be a wildcard scenario that could occur where a trial still starts, goes through the election, and ends before Inauguration Day of 2025. And that could set up a pretty unprecedented scenario for the country.
SOLOMON: Yeah. You'd have to wonder if the Supreme Court would have to get involved with that. Laura Barron-Lopez, we will leave it here, but certainly, a lot to watch in the days ahead. Thank you.
All right. Turning to the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is escalating a very public spat with his country's biggest ally, claiming, quote "barely a trickle of U.S. military aid is coming to Israel." The Biden administration strongly denies that. It says that all shipments are going ahead except for one delivery of 2,000- pound bombs, which is under review.
Mr. Netanyahu, also in a very public rift with his own military. A top IDF spokesman says that Hamas cannot be destroyed, casting doubt on one of the main stated goals of the war. U.S. officials tell CNN that Israel is planning to shift resources from southern Gaza to northern Israel in preparation for a possible war with Hezbollah. Those officials also say that they have serious concerns that if war does break out, Hezbollah could overwhelm Israel's air defenses, including the Iron Dome.
A lot to get to. Let's bring in CNN's Paula Hancocks, live in Jerusalem. Paula, let's start with these concerns and what you're hearing about these U.S. concerns about the Iron Dome's effectiveness.
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we've been hearing is that Israeli officials have been talking to U.S. officials about their concerns for these -- the Iron Dome. Now, we do know over recent months that Israeli officials have been talking about the concerns of the stockpiling that Hezbollah has been doing over this time. We know that they have these precision-guided missiles that they have been stockpiling. They've been given them from Iran, we understand from Israeli and U.S. officials. And these are the types of munitions, the types of missiles that Israeli officials are concerned about.
Now, what we have also seen from Hezbollah in recent weeks and months is that their strategy appears to have changed when it comes to what they are targeting. They have been very specific in the way that they are targeting the military defense systems of Israel in northern Israel itself. Hezbollah just earlier this month published a video which they said showed the destruction of an Iron Dome missile defense system. This is really the key, one of the backbones of the defense system that Israel has at this point. Israeli media saying that it appeared to be the first documented case of this being destroyed.
So, there is definitely a concern in Israel that the Iron Dome may be overwhelmed. It appears this is what they are telling U.S. officials at this point, at the same time is saying that they are planning to move some of their assets from what is going on in Gaza at the moment, to try and reinforce their defenses in the north. Rahel.
SOLOMON: And Paula, what about these claims? I mean, we've been seeing the Biden administration and Netanyahu go back and forth, Netanyahu claiming that barely a trickle of American military aid is coming into Israel. What are you hearing there?
HANCOCKS: So, this has been a very public spat this week. It all started on Tuesday when Benjamin Netanyahu posted a video of himself, saying that it's inconceivable that the U.S. is withholding weapons. It was very quickly responded to by the Biden administration, including U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying they weren't really sure what he was talking about, as nothing beyond those 2,000- pound bombs have been withheld at this point.
Now, we understand the U.S. envoy, Amos Hochstein, who has been in the region, did speak to Netanyahu after this video, according to U.S. official, saying that it was completely wrong and also unproductive to be doing this kind of video. But then, there is another interview that Netanyahu has done. He did the interview on Thursday. It was published Friday, again, saying that there is barely a trickle of American military aid coming through. It is something that the Biden administration is consistently denying.
[11:20:00] The State Department spokesperson again saying there is no bottleneck
as far as they're concerned, and it is business as usual, giving the weapons to Israel at this point. So, it is a public spat that the Israeli Prime Minister at this point appears to be keeping alive. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. OK. Paula Hancocks live for us there. Paula, thank you.
And still ahead, a hearing is underway in Donald Trump's classified documents case. What we are learning about the judge overseeing it? Plus, millions of people across the U.S. are feeling extreme summer heat. We will have a live report on what else they can expect. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. Summer is here in the U.S. and extreme heat is impacting more than 100 million people. Heat alerts have been issued across the southwest to the northeast. In some areas, temperatures are expected to remain 10 to 15 degrees above normal through the weekend, and more than 50 heat records could be broken by Sunday. In places like Texas and Louisiana, excess rainfall is calling damaged -- causing damage and the potential for flash flooding, all the heavy -- the remnants of Tropical Storm Alberto. The storm brought nearly three times the normal amount of rain in just 48 hours.
Let's go down to New York and CNN's Athena Jones, who is out there. Athena, I would ask you how it feels, but I do know. So, talk to us a little bit about how people are coping out there.
ATHENA JONES, CNN U.S. NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Rahel. As you can see, this is a very popular spot for cooling off in this heat. And I can tell you that in the last couple of hours, it's gotten much, much warmer. There is still a cool breeze, but it's gotten humid. The sun is shining brightly right now. The dial says 89 degrees, but with the heat index, 94 degrees, and that is what we're talking about for this region, a heat index approaching 100 today. Much of this area is going to be under heat advisories from this afternoon all the way through the weekend.
And New York City is on track to potentially break a heatwave record for June, a 90-day -- seven days in a row with 90 degrees temperatures and above. If that happens, it'll will tie the longest heatwave in a decade and the longest ever heatwave in June. Everyone is counting the days. We're on day two right now. I should have mentioned that today's forecast in Central Park of 94 degrees would be the highest temperature seen since July of 2022.
So, a lot of concerns among officials about these being dangerous conditions. Folks being advised to avoid strenuous activity outside to make sure that they understand what are the symptoms of heatstroke and heat exhaustion, to make sure they're checking on seniors and vulnerable people. And of course, U.S., in the cooling centers, New York City has opened hundreds of cooling centers to help folks stay cool on this very, very hot day. Rahel. SOLOMON: Yeah. Certainly hoping that people heed their warnings there. Athena, let me ask, I mean, have you been unable to talk to people out there?
[11:25:00]
What are they telling you? I am personally amazed, Athena. I've seen you out there all morning. And you look the lawless. So, you have to tell me your secrets off air. But, what have people been telling you outside? I mean, how are they feeling?
JONES: Well, these folks -- I mean, you can imagine, this is a popular spot any day of the week. People have been here since earlier and much earlier in the morning when it wasn't very warm. Now, you've seen people piling on there. They're just happy to be out in a place where they can be cool, because this -- it's not just the sun. It's the humidity as well. And that's what makes it so difficult.
So, they're heeding the warnings of city officials, who have called on folks to just be careful, to make sure that you're not out here in the hot sun at the hottest times of day. And if you are one of those people, for instance, who doesn't have an air conditioner, come to a place like this where you could get in the cool water and then splash fountain or go to one of the hundreds of cooling centers open across the city where you can be taken care of there. So --
SOLOMON: Absolutely.
JONES: -- we'll see how it goes, and we'll see if we match that heatwave, that seven-day -- seven days of 90 degrees and up --
SOLOMON: Yeah.
JONES: -- is what could be in store. So, we'll see.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Certainly not a record we want. But, we will see. Athena Jones, thank you, my friend.
All right. Extreme heat is also contributing to a soaring death toll at this year's Hajj pilgrimage. More than 400 people are reported to have died on the route to Mecca, amid dangerously high temperatures in Saudi Arabia, 49 degrees Celsius. That's 120 degrees Fahrenheit. But, that actual death toll, well, that's expected to be much higher. Egypt, for one, has established a crisis unit following reports that as many as 600 Egyptian worshippers have died.
Let's get to Scott McLean, who is live for us in Istanbul. Scott, give us a sense, I mean, of what kind of efforts had been made to try to prevent this.
SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. So, look, of course, the Saudi officials are doing what they can. They've got army out in force to help people. They've got thousands of volunteers out to help people. They've got cooling stations, water stations, misting systems. But, look, at the end of the day, Rahel, this is an event that is primarily outdoors. It is scheduled into the Islamic calendar. And so, this year, it just happens to fall in June. You can't do much about that.
And also remember that this is the religious obligation of every Muslim to do at least once in their lifetime, provided that they are financially and physically able to do it. And some people have saved their entire lives to make this pilgrimage to Mecca. And so, if they get the chance to do it, there is really not much that's going to be able to stop them from actually doing it.
But, we are talking about temperatures, though, again, an event that is physical, involves a lot of walking. It's outdoors. We're talking temperatures that are -- that on Monday hit 49 degrees Celsius. It's 120 degrees Fahrenheit. These are frankly very dangerous temperatures for anybody to be out. And then at the Hajj pilgrimage, you have some 1.5 million official, at least the estimated number, of official pilgrims who have come this year. It finished on Wednesday. And so, because of that, now we're getting an idea of the number of deaths this year. And as you mentioned, the official number that we've been able to gather thus far is 460, though there are reports that the true number could be well over 1,000. And the reason is, because you still have people who are in hospital. You have people who are missing as well.
For instance, Jordan is now reporting 75 people have been killed. 14 of its citizens, it says, are missing, and 27 had been hospitalized. There are also a number of people who aren't registered as official Hajj pilgrimage -- pilgrims, excuse me. The Saudis have tried to kind of limit the number of people per country coming in so as not to have massive overcrowding, and because not everyone gets a Hajj visa because of those caps, some people are simply coming in on tourist visas or work visas or what have you. And it means they may not have access to the same kind of amenities. For instance, an official Hajj pilgrim will be sleeping out in the desert, in air conditioned tent, not the same for these unofficial pilgrims. So, it seems like a lot of the people who have died thus far are in that category, and that is why the numbers may yet still rise. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Scott, talk to me about, I mean, just the forecast. I mean, is there any relief in sight in terms of whether the photos and the video of the people out there? It's pretty brutal.
MCLEAN: Yeah. Exactly. I mean, the good news is that official period ended on Wednesday. But, of course, a lot of these Hajj pilgrims will stay later to pray in Mecca and Medina, these very holy sites in Islam. The forecast, though, not great. Today was actually relatively mild there, just a high of 42 degrees Celsius. But, tomorrow, I looked at the forecast, it's going to be high of 45. On Sunday, it's going to be 46, and it goes on and on from there. So, there is really not much relief in sight, not even at nighttime do you really get much.
[11:30:00]
The overnight lows are above 30 degrees Celsius. And so, there is really not much people can do and not many places they can go.
SOLOMON: OK. Scott McLean live for us there. Thank you, Scott. All right. We're going to get to some breaking news just in. In a last
ditch effort to stay out of prison, former Trump strategist Steve Bannon is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hit pause on his sentence. A federal judge ruled that Bannon has to report to a low-security prison in Connecticut for four months. Sentence by July 1. That's after he was convicted in 2022 for ignoring the subpoena from the House's January 6 Committee.
All right. To Florida now where hearing is underway that could determine the future of charges against former U.S. President Donald Trump. Federal judge Aileen Cannon is considering Trump's argument that Jack Smith, who has brought charges against Trump in Florida and Washington, D.C., was unlawfully appointed as Special Counsel. Trump's team claims that Attorney General Merrick Garland does not have legal authority to appoint Smith, who you see here, as Special Counsel because he wasn't confirmed by the Senate.
This comes after an article in The New York Times that says that two federal judges also urged Cannon to step down from the Trump classified documents case. Cannon is under scrutiny for significant delays in the case and her relationship with Trump and conservatives.
Let's bring in our Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz, who joins us from Washington. Katelyn, let's start with these -- this reporting for The New York Times, and what we know about these latest revelations about Judge Cannon.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yeah. This is an extraordinary glimpse into what happens behind the scenes in a courthouse, and something that doesn't happen very often, or at least we never hear about sort of things like this. Judge Cannon gets the Trump case randomly assigned to her a whole year ago, right after the grand jury indicts Donald Trump out of Miami. She sits three hours north of Miami in a courthouse by herself, and very quickly, according to The New York Times, one of the other judges in the Southern District of Florida calls her and suggests she could step aside because this case may need to be or it may be easier for this case to be handled by a judge that sits closer to Miami in a courthouse with a lot more provisions to protect national security materials.
This case is about classified documents, remember. Judge Cannon won't give up the case at that point. And then, the chief judge of the Southern District of Florida calls her and makes the same suggestion or argument. You could give up this case because of optics, a stronger argument even because Judge Cannon had handled some issues, legal issues in the investigation before it was charged, got the law wrong, and had really hurt the Justice Department's to investigate -- ability to investigate the case over several months.
Judge Cannon has not given up this case. She did not do what the chief judge of her district did, and another colleague of hers on the bench suggested to her to do. Instead, she has held on to it. And he is very, very slowly moving through issues in the case. She is having a series of hearings today, Monday, Tuesday. They are about a number of things that are really taking her far afield from the central issues of the case. Today, what she is hearing, arguments on is about the appointment of the Special Counsel and his ability under the Constitution to bring a case against someone like Donald Trump or someone at all. Other judges across the country have barely entertained these sorts of legal arguments.
But, Judge Cannon, Rahel, she wants to have not just the arguments as they normally would take place on this issue, she also wants to hear from people not even involved in the case, third parties, law professors. And so, they're going to be in the courtroom all day arguing before her. And she is not expected to issue a ruling from the bench because she rarely does that, if at all in this case so far. Rahel.
SOLOMON: Yeah. And I mean, Katelyn, we should point out, I mean, we have these three days of hearings, but there is still yet to be a trial date set for this matter. So, we'll wait to see, as we are required to do. Katelyn Polantz live for us there. Katelyn, thank you.
All right. Coming up, Trump Media is in for a rude awakening as its share price continues to tumble. Coming up, we will take a closer look at the numbers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Welcome back. You are watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Rahel Solomon live in New York. And here are some of the international headlines we are watching for you today.
Crowds have gathered in England today to celebrate the traditional summer solstice. Thousands were present for the early morning sunrise at the prehistoric Stonehenge monument. Now, the events saw some of the rare occasions when visitors can get close to the stones. You might remember, just days ago, climate activists ran past the barriers and vandalized the site with orange paint.
A monsoon has displaced more than 45,000 people in Bangladesh. All of this as more rain is on the way. State media report that thousands of people have taken cover and shelters. The government says that at least 10 people have been killed by mudslides and rainfall in Rohingya refugee camps near the beach town of Cox's Bazar.
And in southern China, the death toll has risen to at least 55 people, as torrential rains triggered flash floods and landslides. That's according to state media. More than 55,000 people have been affected by the heavy rainfall.
And in France, allegations that three boys gang-raped a 12-year-old Jewish girl have triggered an outcry over antisemitism in the country. Politicians from all sides have weighed in on the alleged attack, with President Emmanuel Macron condemning a quote "scourge of antisemitism". Now, even before this, antisemitism was set to be a key issue in France's looming parliamentary elections.
Melissa Bell has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Rahel, it is in the middle of a very divisive and bitter parliamentary election campaign that this alleged attack against a 12-year-old child has raised all sorts of new questions about the problem of antisemitism here in France. It was on Wednesday, as the young girl tried to return home that she was allegedly dragged into a disused building and raped. Antisemitic slurs were also used, this alleged attack carried out by boys who are between 12 and 13. Now, that question of whether her religion was part of the attack or the reason for the attack is also now being considered as part of a probe into an attack that has really led to all sorts of indignation, not just from politicians, but also from ordinary people who gathered outside Paris town hall.
Here is what one of the protesters had to say.
NADINE LEVY, JEWISH COMMUNITY LEADER (Interpreted): I'm here today for the little girl who was raped. I have a 12-year-old granddaughter, and I'm scared. We live in a context of fear, of dread, and this has got to stop. Our leaders have to understand that enough is enough, enough antisemitism. Her grandfather was in a camp. So, reliving all that is no good.
BELL: The main political parties have also spoken out, the far-right, the centrist, Macron party, but also the far left, which has been criticized of turning a blind eye to antisemitism. Its leader, one of its leaders, Jean-Luc Melenchon, recently saying that it was a new residual antisemitism that wasn't -- that was left here in France. Still, all the main parties now speaking up around an issue that is likely to continue making headlines. There are more protests now planned for Sunday, Rahel.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOLOMON: All right. Our thanks to Melissa there.
Well, the owner of the social media company Truth Social is facing a tough and harsh reality. Right now, Trump Media & Technology Group shares are in a freefall. Right now, they're off about 4.5 percent, trading right now at $25.55 a share.
[11:40:00]
The company has lost nearly half of its market value since last month, and some experts warn that Trump Media remains vulnerable to further losses.
Joining us now is Matt Egan, who is breaking down the numbers from our New York Bureau. So, Matt, what's going on here?
MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Rahel, as you mentioned, this stock is basically in freefall mood right now. It was trading above 50 bucks as recently as May 30. That, of course, is the day that Donald Trump was convicted in New York. And within seconds of that conviction, we saw the stock drop and it just snowballed since then.
Now, Trump Media has lost about half of its value in the span of just three weeks, just staggering loss, is down another 4.5 percent as we speak. The spark for this week's sell-off was the fact that regulators gave Trump Media the green light for some investors who own what's known as warrants, to exchange those warrants for shares in the company. This move will allow Trump Media to raise perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, but it's also going to water down the holdings of existing shareholders. That has spooked some investors.
But, I don't really want to assign too much logic here to the stock moves, because remember, this is a stock that has essentially been compared to a meme stock, right? It's trading on hype and momentum, not fundamentals. It's valued in the billions of dollars, even though it generates very, very little revenue. Now, no matter the cause of the sell-off, it has wiped out the value of the holdings of its largest shareholder, and that of course is Trump. His stake in this company was valued at $6 billion as recently as May 30. Now, around $3 billion.
And listen, some experts say that there could be more losses in store here. I talked to University of Florida Financial Professor Jay Ritter. He has been studying capital markets for 40 years, and he told me that despite the recent sell-off, quote "This stock is still wildly overpriced." Remember, Truth Social is really tiny. It is dwarfed by Elon Musk's X, even dwarfed by Reddit and Instagram's Threads. And Rahel, this is a company that generated less than $800,000 in revenue in the first quarter. Normally, when a company is making that little amount of revenue, it's valued in the millions, not the billions of dollars.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Matt, you've been covering it from the beginning. It's been some wild swings and it sounds like from your reporting the swings may continue. The roller coaster ride just may continue. So, we'll see you soon, Matt Egan. Thank you.
EGAN: Thanks, Rahel.
SOLOMON: All right. Let's take a quick check of the markets. I'll start with the U.S. markets right now, where the averages are mixed, the NASDAQ is, well, they're pretty much off, trading here the flatline. The NASDAQ is trading pretty much at zero but we'll give it a green arrow, nonetheless. The Dow, pretty much at zero but slightly lower, and the S&P off about one tenth of one percent right now on a sleepy Friday. And in Europe, markets are solidly lower. FTSE 100 off about four tenth of a percent, DAX just about the same, CAC 40 off about let's call it half a percent. Asian markets also solidly lower, with the Hang Seng the worst among them, Hang Seng closing down 1.67 percent.
All right. Still to come, the race to the White House comes at a cost. We will take a closer look at the huge donations that are giving a boost to one of the presidential candidates. Plus, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are working to appeal to black voters with less than a week until the first presidential debate of the year. CNN's Michael Smerconish will join us in just a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: Well, it's no secret that running for President is expensive, and for the second month in a row, the Trump campaign has outraised the Biden campaign. Trump got a huge boost in May with a $50 million cash infusion. This is thanks to Timothy Mellon, a reclusive billionaire, who has emerged as one of the single largest donors in this year's presidential election. And here you can see Trump's cash advantage over Biden. While the Democratic Party raised more than $85 billion in May, they are still trailing behind President Biden's political rival.
Let's welcome in now Michael Smerconish, the host of "Smerconish" on Saturdays here on CNN. Always good to see you, Michael, on a Friday. So, let's talk about the fundraising numbers. For months, Democrats talked about Biden's cash advantage and said that money matters. Does it matter now? I mean, how much does this change things, now that Trump has eaten into his advantage, his cash advantage?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST, "SMERCONISH", & CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Rahel, great to see you. I think the most significant thing is when Donald Trump raised the bulk of that money, in the first 48 hours after his conviction, $70 million. So, just in the same way that the four indictments benefited his nomination fight, I think that the conviction has benefited him at least financially as it relates now to the general election. Does money matter? I think it matters in terms of being able to field an army to get out your vote. It matters in purchasing the airwaves. But, in the end, I think they're are two very well-known quantities and people are pretty much of a fixed mind already.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. Let me talk about Philly. I never miss an opportunity to talk about Philly, Michael Smerconish. Donald Trump is going to be in North Philly this weekend at Temple University. It's his first Philadelphia rally I think ever within the city limits. This is an interesting place for it, Michael. Philly tends to be very blue. Pennsylvania can go either way. Well, what do you think about this?
SMERCONISH: Well, and not only what you say, and Rahel, you know the city as well as I do, but North Philadelphia really is the heart of Philadelphia's African American community, and that's where Temple University is located. Now, the students have largely been gone for a month. But, I think it's a symbolic visit that he is making. And he is there, I suspect, to lay down a marker and say that he wants black vote, and he is drawing so far, if the polls are accurate, between 18 and 22 percent. If Donald Trump were to get that, that's more than double what he was able to generate in the last election. It would be monumental.
Now, there is a movement afoot in Philadelphia from folks who are not too hospitable to him coming to town. They don't want him there. Some of them are threatening to have empty seats. They are RSVPing as if they'll be there with no intention. So, I'll be very curious to see what it looks like when it plays itself out tomorrow.
SOLOMON: Yeah. It will be a lot to watch. And Michael, I'm actually really curious when you say it would be symbolic or it would be monumental if he were to increase his support among black voters. Would it be symbolically significant or would it be important politically? I mean, if he gains enough, even just a small advantage, could that be enough to get him Pennsylvania?
SMERCONISH: Yes. It's a game. I mean, it's a game of inches. When you take a look at those six battleground states and the thin margin between them in the last cycle and where, according to RealClearPolitics, which does an average of polling, they're pretty much, Rahel, all within the margin of error. So, neither of these candidates can afford the erosion of either of their bases. Every vote really does matter.
SOLOMON: Yeah. Let me talk about next Thursday, the debate, of course. What are you watching, Michael? There is so much to watch and there is so much suspense. If there was one thing you were watching next Thursday, what is it?
SMERCONISH: The expectation game, because over on Fox, as you well know, they keep showing on a loop these videos that show President Biden in seemingly a compromised physical condition and they play them and they play them and they play them. Well, they're setting the stage.
[11:50:00]
And Donald Trump, every time he critical of the acuity as he sees it of Joe Biden, I think they're lowering, lowering, lowering the bar for the incumbent. And if Joe Biden simply shows up, put sentences together and speaks cogently, I think people will be saying, damn, he had a pretty good night. So, the expectation game is really important.
SOLOMON: What about it Trump maintains his temper, if he stays on message, if he doesn't sort of go off the rails, as he has sometimes done? I mean, might he have a surprisingly good night?
SMERCONISH: So, totally, if he can rein it in, I agree with you. I don't know if he can rein it in. And you know that the microphones are going to be muted. There is not going to be a live audience. Taking away a live audience is like stepping on Trump's oxygen hose because he feeds on the crowd, even a crowd that's antagonistic toward him. So, it might be a little antiseptic and how he behaves in that crowd. I think it's going to be very interesting to watch. If he can take it down a couple of degrees and if Biden can take it up a couple of degrees in terms of their activity, I think then each will be in a better position.
SOLOMON: Yeah. I think everybody just wants a really good debate performance. Give us something good to watch. Michael, before I let you go, if this election is going to come down to those in the middle, the moderates who haven't decided yet because the Trump base is dug in and the Biden base is dug in and this is really going to come down to the middle, what does this debate them become about? Is it the performance? Is it the demeanor of the candidates? Or do you think this is going to come down to who has a better handle of the policies and the issues?
SMERCONISH: I'd love to tell you, it is policy and it's substantive and it is intellectual. I believe none of those things. I think it's the beer test. I think people are looking at the two. And the likability factor is really significant. Biden needs to show some vim and vigor, and Trump needs to behave himself. I mean, you had it right a moment ago. One of the individuals needs to show that despite being 81-years-old, he has still got it in him, and the other has to convince those independents that he is not the rebellious individual that perhaps they think that he was, that he can behave himself.
SOLOMON: Fascinating. So much to watch. Expectations are so high.
SMERCONISH: Yeah.
SOLOMON: Michael Smerconish, so good to have you today. Thank you.
SMERCONISH: You too, Rahel. Thank you.
SOLOMON: All right. I'll talk to you soon. And you can catch Smerconish every Saturday at 9 a.m. Eastern Time on CNN. That is 2 p.m. in London.
And tune in to see the presidential debate with expectations being so high right here on CNN, coming up on June 27th at 9 p.m. Eastern, and we will replay the debate in its entirety a few different times for our viewers around the world. You can watch it at 7 a.m. London time. That's 2 p.m. Hong Kong, or 12 hours later at 7 p.m. in London, or 10 p.m. in Abu Dhabi.
All right. Coming up, hail the conquering basketball heroes. Boston is doing just that, as the Celtics bring home their 18th NBA title. We're going to have more from the parade and their honor, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOLOMON: And before we go, one more thing. These are live picture of fans flooding the streets of Boston to celebrate the city's basketball heroes. The Celtics won a record 18th NBA championship when they beat the Dallas Mavericks on Monday. Today, being town, pulling out all the stops to salute them. Even Boston's public schools decided to cancel the last day of classes for the semester so kids can see today's parade. And I just checked, apparently, temperatures today in Boston during the parade are expected to be low 80s, which is decent, not as hot as it is here in New York.
All right. Thank you for spending some time with me today. I'm Rahel Solomon. Stick with CNN. "ONE WORLD" is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
