Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Any Moment, Supreme Court to Issue Critical New Rulings; New CNN Reporting One Day Before Critical Debate. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 26, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We're following two major stories unfolding this hour. At any moment, the Supreme Court will begin releasing a new round of critical decisions. This term is filled with blockbuster rulings, including Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity and criminal prosecution.

And on this day, before CNN's historic presidential debate, we have new reporting about the preparations going on right now inside the campaigns. Sources are telling CNN that Donald Trump's team wants him disciplined and focused on so-called kitchen table issues. We're also learning President Biden will target Trump directly, our sources say. The president will attack the former president's character and remind voters of the chaos and volatility of Trump's first term.

All right, let's begin with the Supreme Court and the rulings that will be coming out at any moment. CNN Chief Legal Analyst and former Federal Prosecutor Laura Coates is here. Laura, I mean, we've been waiting for this big decision on immunity for Donald Trump based on some of the claims that he's been making. Tell us about the importance of this case and I guess give us some context as to why are we waiting so long?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch alluded to, this would be a decision for the ages. The stepping back, 10,000 foot view is, should a president enjoy absolute immunity? Can they just do whatever they want and not face any consequences? This is really the narrow question that the Supreme Court is going to be grappling with.

You are right to think about why are we waiting so long. In fact, remember, Jack Smith wanted this initially decided before even went to the D.C. Court of Appeals, where we heard that infamous analogy about hypothetical about whether you could order SEAL Team Six to commit a crime to assassinate your political opponent and rival to which, of course, they were incredulous about the doubling down on that very point.

But this is a monumental case that will decide for America really about the balance of power and about checks and balances because if you have an unchecked executive and the head executive branch, what is the point of having these checks and balances? So, it's been a really critical decision. We don't yet know what it's going to come of this But I would be surprised if they were to say that a president had a blanket immunity.

I'd also be surprised, however, if they were to articulate a list of different ways in which you could describe what official acts are. That's going to be the crux of this issue, what's an official act essentially, and if you're doing something officially as the president of the United States, should you actually enjoy that immunity? But they're not going to enumerate a list. That would be, you know, wholesale what you could do in the future.

ACOSTA: Yes, I mean, not a lot of folks are expecting the Supreme Court to just give a president's blanket immunity, a blank check to do whatever they want. But this is a conservative supermajority and I suppose, you know, all bets are off in terms of making, you know, predictions on, on what they might do.

But there's also this other ruling that we're waiting on that pertains to January 6th and whether the defendants will face certain charges obstruction of Congress and official acts of Congress. That is also very important. What about that?

COATES: And you're right. It'd be a fool's errand to try to truly predict what they will do in her case, although we do think about different ideological blocks in these issues. The second matter involves whether or not the prosecutors in a case interpreted a particular statute so broadly to be able to draw an obstruction charge against January 6th insurrection of rioters going to the Capitol that day.

Now, if the Supreme Court finds that it would be obstructive according to this narrow statute in these grounds, then they could ultimately throw out obstruction related charges. We're talking about more than hundreds of people who have had this very charge against them. And guess what? Donald Trump has two obstruction charges against him.

Now, Jack Smith has said that, look, even if you have a more narrow interpretation of a statute, which constitutes what it means to obstruct a proceeding, it could still probably meet the standard for Donald Trump. Whether that's true will be a different category.

But we're waiting to hear these two things, very important. And they are essentially not True companion cases, Jim, where they're decided together, but they certainly are in the same universe for all purposes.

[10:05:00]

ACOSTA: Yes. And Jamie Gangel, Elie Honig are both with me as well. And, Jamie, I mean, you know, here we are. We're almost to July, and we haven't gotten a decision on this immunity issue. And, you know, it just goes to show you, Laura was talking about the other January 6th case, January 6th happened, what, almost four years ago, the attack on the Capitol. We're still grappling with these legal issues that really go to the heart of, you know, this top tier of folks who are around Donald Trump and the fact that we haven't really seen any of them pay any kind of a price for what took place on January 6th. And what the Supreme Court might decide here is going to have a huge impact on whether we're going to actually see justice for those folks at the top.

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Your point about timing is really what's key about this decision. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, in fact, a couple of weeks ago wrote an op-ed asking the court to please move quickly on this expeditiously. Because once we see this decision, it will have a big impact on whether Special Counsel Jack Smith can go ahead with the trial before the election.

And what does that mean? Will Americans get to hear testimony from Trump's inner circle, from his former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, from his former Vice President Mike Pence, from White House Counsels Cipollone, Philbin, Herschmann, who are all there. Not only in the weeks leading up to January 6th, but they were there on January 6th.

They know what Trump did and did not do when the violence was going and it is really critical from what we understand of the grand jury testimony and other evidence for voters to be able to hear that evidence before they vote in November.

ACOSTA: Yes. Elie, I want to get your take on that too, but we should note to our viewers, we did get one decision from the Supreme Court, very important one. And, Elie, you can comment on that one as well. The Supreme Court said the White House and federal agencies, such as the FBI, may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government use as misinformation. This is viewed as a victory for the Biden administration, technical, if not an important one. So, what do you think?

HONIG: Let me talk about this case that just came down the first one today. So, you may remember about a year or so ago, a group of Republican state attorneys general and a group of internet users, social media users, sued the Biden administration. They said you are violating the First Amendment when you were -- during COVID -- primarily during COVID, but other issues to when you were reaching out to social media companies saying you need to take this post down, you need to moderate this post. And the question was, does that violate the First Amendment?

The Supreme Court has now found by a 6-3 ruling, not your usual, it's actually a cross ideological majority, that the people who sued do not have standing, meaning state A.G.s and people who may use Twitter or Facebook, you don't have enough of an injury from this to even bring the lawsuit. So, they didn't even reach the First Amendment question, the First Amendment merits. The Supreme Court just said 6-3, you're out of luck. This lawsuit is no good. Go back to the drawing board.

ACOSTA: Is that kind of taking a pass on deciding some of the more key constitutional issues?

HONIG: It's a procedural off-ramp, but it matters, I mean, standing matters in our courts. You can't just bring a lawsuit because something bothers you or offends you. You have to be able to show some tangible injury. And just to remind our viewers, we saw the Mifepristone, the abortion medication decision last week, I think it was, was also based on a lack of standing.

Supreme Court likes to take these off-ramps if they're there, especially when they get into messy issues. But for now, there's no First Amendment violation in what the Biden administration did.

ACOSTA: And, Jamie, I mean, this is also interesting as it pertains to the upcoming, well, the election campaign that we're in the middle of right now. The decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies, such as Facebook and X, that it believes may be the work of foreign disinformation agents seeking to disrupt this year's presidential race.

GANGEL: So, two things. One, I think a lot of parents are not so unhappy with this with this ruling, but these are the kinds of things it will be interesting to see in our debate tomorrow night, whether Trump or Biden bring this up. But, no question, issues like this are going to have play out during the campaign at the ballot box.

Another decision we're waiting for is the Idaho abortion case, a reproductive rights case. I don't know that we're going to get that one today. But these are all things that have more significance during the campaign.

ACOSTA: Yes. Laura Coates, I mean, the Idaho abortion decision, when that comes down, could have massive implications across the country.

COATES: It could. And this is a case where the court is trying to grapple with the idea that there are certain states that have abortion bans.

[10:10:00]

But in those particular states, are you still able as a medical provider to provide an emergency abortion? This is going to be the crux of the issue.

And while they're trying to balance this, there's a whole lot of political implications of this very notion. You're talking about state level regulations compared to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs decision. We're at the two-year anniversary since just Monday. You have a presidential debate that is undoubtedly going to talk about reproductive rights more broadly.

And this idea of what this tension would be between the medical communities' obligations and what the statute is requiring you to do highlights a big tension of the Supreme Court. Do they want to be waiting into otherwise normally political matters? This is becoming increasingly so. It's not just a matter of rights at this point in time. They're being viewed through the lens of politics. But this will be a very consequential decision. And mind you, this is now the second case they'd be deciding since overturning Roe v. Wade in this very term. Their first one was involving the first drug in a two-drug regimen, Mifepristone, for medication abortions, a widely used drug for that purpose. And so this tells you a lot about the decision that they have made in the past that was not fulsome and comprehensive to anticipate and resolve these very matters.

ACOSTA: Yes, the Dobbs decision. I mean, had huge. I mean, repercussions across the country in ways that maybe even the Supreme Court justices did not imagine, Jamie Gangel and Ellie Honig. I mean, we're seeing that now.

HONIG: Yes. And what's really at stake with the abortion issue? I mean, we're talking about emergency room care. At what level do doctors have to provide? That care. The federal regulations say that if the mother's life is in danger or if it's necessary to stabilize the mother's health condition. Idaho and other states say only if the mother's life is in danger. There's a huge -- I mean, it's literally a life or death difference there.

ACOSTA: Yes.

GANGEL: It's not only life or death, but think about some complications that are separated. There could be a complication where a mother could not get -- a family could not have another child. There are so many other serious medical complications that this cuts off because it's only if the mother's life is in danger.

COATES: And what's such an important point she raises on the politics, and the debate will undoubtedly raise this point. The conversation around reproductive rights and the conversation around abortion access has shifted away from the stereotypical notions of who people want to create a narrative of who's seeking abortions, and then the idea of those who are still wanting to have children and are desperate to do so, but are unable in this particular pregnancy.

That has shifted the politics of this in a way that I think was probably not anticipated politically by a number of people. We remember hearing on our own airwaves when you had a different congressman saying, well, hold on, is the Republican Party going to be known as, you know, the It's anti-IVF, as anti-family planning as anti-different aspects of it. So, be sure to look for these conversations coming up about reproductive rights more broadly.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, it's raised all of these issues. And now you're seeing a play out in the states. I mean, people were worried about whether IVF is going to continue to be a legal option for families who want to have kids.

And Evan Perez is standing by as well. Evan, I want to go to you and get your reaction to what we're learning so far today.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, I think, look, the social media case, the case that the justices just ruled on 6-3 on a pretty technical way, I think, has really, really large implications for this election year. One of the things that happened over the last couple of years, certainly with Republicans claiming that there was censorship and claiming that it was all because of the government, you know, you saw some reluctance on the part of the FBI and some of the national security agencies of the United States trying to interact with social media companies to point out where they saw some examples of foreign entities, foreign governments trying to influence the U.S. electorate with this information. There was a whole pushback on that whole effort, which, of course, you know, came about because the Russian government and the Russian intelligence services interfered in the 2016 election and in the 2020 election.

So, the fact that the justices have, essentially, a pushback By, by throwing this lawsuit back and, and, and, and essentially saying that these state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana had no standing to bring this lawsuit, I think what it does is it certainly allows the FBI to continue its work, which is a very important part of protecting this country, protecting voters from some of the activities of foreign intelligence services that are going to be very active over the next few months.

So, I think what you're going to hear over the next few days, and certainly you heard it this morning from some of the surrogates of the former president, they're claiming that there's this huge era of censorship that has fallen over the country, which is, you know, just not true. But what this ruling does today is it certainly frees up and allows the FBI to do its work that where they spot interference from foreign entities and foreign countries, they can call the social media companies, point it out to them, and those social media companies can make a decision, a business decision that they can make on whether to remove certain posts on their, on their platforms, Jim.

[10:15:12]

ACOSTA: Right. And for the younger viewers who were a little young back in 2016, I mean, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report that came out on the 2016 election concluded that the Russians were trying to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

PEREZ: They were trying to help Donald Trump.

ACOSTA: That is exactly right. That is exactly right. And, and if we're going to have any kind of effort to combat disinformation in this country, I mean, you have to have this kind of situation where, you know, the United States government and other interested parties, obviously, can go to these social media platforms and say, hey, you've got a lot of, you know, Russian disinformation garbage out there. You might want to take that down. It could hurt the country.

PEREZ: And, Jim, let me just say real quick. One of the things that has happened over the last couple of years is a sort of a redefinition of what censorship is. I mean, if you look at the law, obviously censorship comes from the government, right? And one of the things that you see in this ruling here is that, you know, we're talking about social media companies essentially being responsible for managing their platforms. It's a business decision and it's their platforms. And when the FBI says, hey, we think this might be Russian disinformation, that doesn't mean it's government censorship. And, you know, what I think this, this ruling helps is for us to sort of refocus on that aspect of how we protect the country and protect voters from that interference.

ACOSTA: Evan Perez, great reporting, as always. I want to go to Paula Reid and, Paula, get your reaction to everything that we're learning this morning. This is a significant decision and it could have had huge implications on social media platforms, I mean, which obviously play a big part in everybody's lives now, including the lives of our kids who are very impressionable.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely, and as you and Evan were talking about the impact on the election. But what's a little surprising is there are a lot of other outstanding questions here before the high court that could also impact the election, and we still don't have answers.

I was a little bit of a surprise today, we only got two opinions. The justices, I guess they're just like us, maybe procrastinating a little bit because they still have ten outstanding opinions to release. And right now we know that they will release some likely tomorrow, and then on Friday, they could do ten in two days, but it appears likely that they may have to go in to the next week.

It's also a little surprising, they had a similar but different case related to social media, and specifically states that it passed laws to restrict social media companies' ability to restrict conservative viewpoints, or to, in their words, censor them. It's a similar First Amendment question about the relationship between governments and social media companies. That was widely expected to maybe come at the same time as this other case to answer the broader questions about the First Amendment.

Obviously, this one was kicked out on standing. The justices did not get into the First Amendment question here. So, that raises the possibility that maybe they will with the other case. But, again, a surprising only two cases today and still a lot of these big questions outstanding.

ACOSTA: Big questions, outstanding, including this huge immunity decision, which, you know, you have to wonder, Paula, whether or not the Supreme Court justices are taking a look at how this big debate is happening tomorrow night on CNN. And obviously Friday would be the fallout of that debate as well, and maybe deciding they don't want to inject that kind of a decision into that environment, into that kind of political climate, which is already, you know, pretty charged up at this point.

But Paula Reid, Laura, Ellie and Jamie, thanks very much. I appreciate all of your reporting and insights. Evan Perez as well, thank you.

Coming up, Georgia on their minds, Biden, Trump sharpening their messages less than 36 hours from CNN's presidential debate in Atlanta. We're covering it from all angles. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

ACOSTA: And less than 36 hours, Joe Biden and Donald Trump will face off for the first time in nearly four years tomorrow, right here on CNN. Two presidents will pitch two visions for our nation's future, two messages about who we are as a country, and two views on America's role on the world stage.

The showdown nothing less than historic, it's the earliest presidential debate that we know of in American history. It's the closest the candidates will be to one another on stage. And it's the first time in decades that a network will host the showdown, not the presidential debate commission, and there won't be a live audience.

CNN is covering this historic moment from all angles. Jeff Zeleny is live at our studios in Atlanta. Arlette Saenz is following President Biden at the White House. Kristen Holmes is at West Palm Beach for us with the Trump campaign.

Jeff, let me start with you. You're down there at our Techwood campus kicking the tires and everything. How's it looking down there? And what are you hearing about what we're going to see tomorrow night?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, Jim. The stakes could not be higher, really, for either candidate. Not only are we just four and a half months away from Election Day, we're also in battleground Georgia. This, of course, was one of the most narrowest margins. Four years ago, Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by some 11,000 votes. So that is the backdrop here.

And the issues are so different from four years ago. If you think back to those debates, the last time that Joe Biden and Donald Trump encountered one another on stage, we were in the middle of the pandemic.

[10:25:00]

This was all about Trump's record. Now, of course, Biden's record is front and center as well. So, both men will be explaining and defending their records as well as trying to draw sharp contrast with one another.

So much has changed in the world as well, of course, the invasion of Ukraine, the war in the Middle East, immigration still such a hot topic. But, Jim, as you've been covering the Supreme Court this morning, I'm also struck by that. I'm told that President Biden is also likely to make the Supreme Court part of his argument on the debate stage tomorrow evening, particularly if there are some rulings tomorrow regarding the former president.

So, Jim, any way you slice it, this is history-making, but layer upon layer upon layer of complexity here. And it's defining for both of these candidates who are trying to sort of shake up a very stable presidential race. ACOSTA: Yes. And, Jeff, talk to us about the rules. I mean, the rules are going to be a little different this time around. Give us some thoughts on that.

ZELENY: There will be no audience. So, it will just be the two candidates in studio on stage with the two moderators. So, that is also extraordinary. There are no aids. There are no advisers. The minute these two of presidents walk into the studio, they are all alone. And that is very unusual for presidents. As you know, they're very much surrounded by the trappings of office.

So, how this will work? The moderators, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, will ask a candidate a question. They can talk for two minutes. The other candidate will respond for a minute, and then the first candidate can respond for a minute as well. Interestingly, there's no audience, as we said. Also the microphones will be directed at the candidate who is speaking. It will not be on for the candidate who is not.

Now, a big question here is, we all remember the first debate from four years ago, when there was so much interrupting going back and forth, it was hard to focus on the issues at hand. Will there be any of that? Will it be heard off mic or not? You can bet that has been part of the debate practice that President Biden has been doing at Camp David, and Donald Trump has been doing as well at Mar-a-Lago, a different type of debate prep.

But, certainly this, will look different. It will have an old time feel, if you will. Of course, the first to televised presidential debate back in the 1960 campaign, just two candidates in studio, that's what tomorrow night's debate will look like as well, Jim, but so many more pressing issues in these times.

ACOSTA: All right. Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much.

Right now, new reporting on how the candidates are preparing for this historic showdown. Donald Trump is ditching the traditional debate prep and said he's opted for rallies and informal conversations with advisers. He sees debating as a, quote, attitude more than anything else, and says his strategy is based on what he calls common sense.

President Biden, for his part, is meticulously refining his message with intensive mock debates with top advisors at Camp David.

And CNN's Arlette Saenz, Kristen Holmes, they have the details for us on all of that. Arlette, what are you hearing?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, it's another day at Camp David, so another day of debate preparations for President Biden. The president has been using a podium as he's running through various scenarios of how this debate could unfold against Donald Trump tomorrow in Atlanta.

Now, sources have told us that one thing President Biden will not be doing in this debate is rolling out any new policy or personnel announcements. That's a strategy that he had used back in 2020. It's not something he will do this time around. Instead, advisers say he will really focus on trying to drive home that contrast with former President Donald Trump. The campaign has teed up issues like abortion rights, democracy, and the economy.

But advisers tell us that they are also prepared for the possibility that foreign policy could come up at this debate. That is an area where the campaign really believes that there is a stark contrast in Biden's vision for the world and Trump's vision for the world. It's an opportunity potentially for Biden to try to paint Trump as dangerous and unfit for office.

A campaign official speaking of that, contrast said, quote, President Biden stands up to dictators and defends freedom. Trump is a loser who is too dangerous and reckless to ever be anywhere close to the Oval Office. Again, they added Donald Trump consistently praises authoritarian leaders and dictators, pledges to sell out our allies and undermines our democracy.

So, all of this offering a bit of a preview of the messaging Biden could try to deliver on that debate stage as he set to face off against Trump for the first time since 2020.

ACOSTA: Arlette, thank you. And, Kristen Holmes, what are you hearing on your end?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you said, Jim, this is very untraditional when it comes to Donald Trump and his debate preparations. Obviously, he's not doing any mock debates. He doesn't have anyone filling in for President Joe Biden. But what makes this debate so fascinating is the fact that Donald Trump was, at one point, president of the United States.

So, you heard Arlette there talking about how Biden's advisors want him to contrast his administration and his achievements to that of Donald Trump's. Well, Donald Trump's advisers are saying the same thing. Now, obviously, they are pointing to different issues, one being the same, one, the economy, but particularly inflation. The other thing they want Donald Trump to focus on is crime as well as immigration.

[10:30:00]

They have seen those poll numbers and they believe that Donald Trump does better than Joe Biden on those three issues.