Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: Supreme Court Limits Obstruction Charges Against January 6 Rioters; U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Precedent, Curbing Power Of Federal Government; Biden Struggles As Trump Spews Falsehoods At CNN Debate. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired June 28, 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]

COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, BROWN UNIVERSITY, & AUTHOR, "THE PRESIDENTS AND THE PEOPLE": -- he were to win, for instance, he would certainly have the immunity then too.

JIM SCIUTTO, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": Major changes in this country coming from the nation's highest court, and so often along the lines of that six-three conservative majority, although not entirely the January 6 case, interestingly enough, had Amy Coney Barrett on the dissent side and Ketanji Brown Jackson on the affirming side.

Corey and Larry, thanks so much to both of you. Many more questions to address going forward. And we'll be back right at the top of the hour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

JIM SCIUTTO, HOST, "CNN NEWSROOM": As promised, breaking in just the past several minutes from the U.S. Supreme Court, justices are now limiting obstruction charges against some 250 people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6. That decision could have a broader ripple effect, may completely upend the government cases, not only against those rioters, but perhaps against Donald Trump himself, because he is facing charges over his efforts, not just to overturn the 2020 election results and his handling of classified documents, separate case, but part of his charges are also obstructing an official event as these 250 January 6 rioters were charged. The appeal was brought by a former Pennsylvania police officer who was charged with multiple crimes that day of January 6.

CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider joins us with more from Washington. And Jessica, looking at this case here, it seems that the court, to some degree, has sent this back to lower courts to assess whether the indictment still stands based on what is a narrower interpretation of that law against disrupting official proceedings here. Regardless, though, what does that mean, not just for the January 6 prosecutions, but for President Trump's ongoing prosecutions?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: So, for President Trump, obstruction was just one of the charges that Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, brought against the former President. And interestingly, in Jack Smith's filings in this case that we're waiting to see can even go forward, and we're waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on that whole issue, but Jack Smith had said that even if the Supreme Court rules as it did today about this obstruction charge needing to involve more than obstruction and dealing with destroying -- corruptly destroying evidence, Jack Smith has said our charge against the former President can proceed.

And they're saying that because Donald Trump, of course, wasn't one of the rioters who stormed the Capitol. However, prosecutors have said he intended to stop the count of the electoral votes, and that meets the parameters of this statute. Now, who knows if that will actually be successful when and if Jack Smith is allowed to go forward with his prosecution, but that's at least the Special Counsel's argument.

The Supreme Court, though, throwing a lot of disarray potentially into the rioters who have already been convicted under this statute. 250 rioters are -- have this charge against them. They're awaiting their sentencing and their trial, but 50 people have already been convicted of this particular charge. So, the question is, will they have re- sentencings, or will they have a completely new trial, now that the Supreme Court has said, if you merely -- not merely, but if you stormed the Capitol and did nothing else to impede the actual counting of the electoral votes, this obstruction statute might not apply to you?

And to that point, Jim, this particular statute was enacted as a result of the Enron accounting scandal. And it really went to this idea of tampering with or destroying evidence. And that is exactly why this statute was challenged because they said it didn't just mean obstruction should stand on its own. There also had to be something else. And today, that's what the Supreme Court is agreeing with.

SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much, groundbreaking decisions here.

Let's get some legal expertise on all this. I'm joined now by Jeff Swartz. He is a former judge in the state of Florida, now a professor at the Thomas Cooley Law School. Jeff, I got a lot of questions for you. First, I want to begin on how this affects Jack Smith's case against Trump, because as I understand it, he brought four charges against Trump, two that relate to obstructing an official proceeding and two that relate to conspiracy. If you were Jack Smith now, would you drop the obstruction charges, focus on the conspiracy charges? I mean, it sounds like he is not going to. He is going to proceed here, saying that Trump's role was effectively different. But, is the court set him up for failure on that side of the case?

JEFF SWARTZ, FORMER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT JUDGE, & PROFESSOR, THOMAS COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: Well, they may have set him up for failure on the conspiracy charge too. If I recall correctly, and I don't have the indictment in front of me, that indictment says the goal of the conspiracy was to obstruct the counting of the votes and to interfere with the peaceful transition of power based upon that count that was supposed to take place.

[11:05:00] So now, the issue comes in, will the conspiracy charge stand if there is no basis or underlying felony in the conspiracy count? I think that the obstruction charge is in serious trouble, no matter how Jack tries to interpret it. It appears that, as your reporter has just indicated, that the Enron case dealt is what created this particular statute and it enumerates specific things.

Now, Amy Coney Barrett wasn't buying any of that because his words or in any other manner are in that statute. And she says this is one of those in any other manners. And she is very abrupt. She is very direct. And I think she derives Justice -- Chief Justice Roberts in the way that he wrote the opinion. If they're -- to me, one of the things that's good out of all of this, is that Amy Coney Barrett over the last couple of days has made it very clear, I am an independent judge and I'm going to make my own decisions.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you one question just on the conspiracy, then I want to go to a broader question about the court. Wasn't the obvious goal, I mean, just from a layman's terms, the obvious goal of the alleged conspiracy, disruptive economy, Trump said it out loud, he didn't want those votes to be certified?

SWARTZ: The problem is that that's not part as the majority writes it. That's not part of the statute that was used to claim obstruction. There were no papers. There was no subpoena avoided. None of that. No destruction of evidence. Here, they're basically saying just walking in and yelling and screaming is not enough. You have to do something, actually be involved in the paperwork, or something having to do with what they were doing. They -- and what Congress was doing.

As far as I can see the way that they've written this opinion, they're going strictly by the way that the statute was written without concern for the -- in any other manner. And they've done away with that. And that's what Barrett is talking about.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SWARTZ: How could they achieve and derive them by saying how could they possibly have imagined that there would be a situation where Congress would be impeded by an insurrection in the way that they wrote this statute? And she says, this is a logical term to be used, to include this, is what she says.

SCIUTTO: It just seems there is a deliberate forgetting of the circumstances of that day. There were lawmakers hiding in their offices, Republican and Democrat, we should say, fearing for their lives that day. They were fearing --

SWARTZ: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: -- for their lives.

SWARTZ: Yes.

SCIUTTO: All right. Standby, Jeff, because I do have more questions for you. Our Jessica Schneider, CNN Justice Correspondent, joins us now with some lines, I believe, from the Chief Justice's decision in this case. What did he have to say?

SCHNEIDER: And one thing before that, Jim, I'll note that the vote count here was actually very interesting. This was a six-three decision, but it wasn't along the normal lines. This was written by the Chief Justice John Roberts, but it was actually joined as one of the six votes by Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest justice known for her liberal leanings. And then, on the dissent side, Amy Coney Barrett actually sided with justices Kagan and Sotomayor to write this dissent. So, an interesting vote split there.

I mean, the way the Chief Justice wrote this opinion, he kind of summed it up pretty well when he said that, for this particular obstruction statute, nothing in the text or the statutory history suggests that this law is designed to impose up to 20 years imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way, and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specific obstruction statutes. I think that really gets to the heart of it here, is that this Supreme Court is saying that this particular obstruction statute that has been used so often to try and convict many of these rioters who stormed the Capitol, it just was never, in the Supreme Court's view, intended for use in this particular situation. And again, pointing back to the fact that this statute, as part of it, also requires a tampering with or destruction of evidence.

And so, like this conservative court is prone to do, they look very specifically at the text of a statute, how it all relates, then to the statutory history, and they're just saying here that this particular statute does not warrant, as the Chief Justice said, up to 20 years imprisonment if someone is convicted, and that is the reasoning why they have basically said it should not apply in this particular rioter situation --

[11:10:00]

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SCHNEIDER: -- and then, of course, all these other rioters who have also been convicted of this. It's expected that they will appeal or ask for resentencing or a retrial.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

SCHNEIDER: So, we'll see how it plays out. But, I mean, it's -- I think the Special Counsel is going to continue to plow forward with this charge when it comes to Donald Trump if he is able to move forward with the prosecution, just because in the Special Counsel's estimation, Donald Trump, in their view, did tamper with evidence by trying to impede the electoral vote count within Congress on January 6.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Well, and he said it publicly. Didn't do it in secret. He said it publicly.

SCHNEIDER: Right.

SCIUTTO: Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.

I believe Corey Brettschneider, who teaches political science at Brown University, is joining us now. He wrote the book, as we mentioned earlier, quite relevant to this topic as well. Corey, a question for you here. Does the court's decision, the book, by the way, "The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It", does the court's decision in January 6 give us any and the makeup of that decision? By the way, with Coney Barrett on the dissenting side, does it give us any indication as to how it might lean on the broader immunity case?

COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, BROWN UNIVERSITY, & AUTHOR, "THE PRESIDENTS AND THE PEOPLE": I'm not sure that we could read the tea leaves that way. But, it certainly is creating other impediments in the prosecution of Donald Trump in the January 6 case. But, as you just heard, I don't think that it gets rid of the charges. It narrows what you need to do to show obstruction of Congress in this official proceeding.

But, looking at the last paragraph, the Chief Justice opens the door to still using this statute, as he says, in limiting other things used in the proceeding or attempted to do so, now what is Donald Trump -- what did he do on January 6? He certainly was trying to stop the proceeding. We know that because of the wider concern to stop the certification of electoral votes. And it was in the nitty-gritty. It wasn't just that it was a riot outside or that a lot of noise or protests was happening. It was a very specific plot to do so.

And as you say, in the book, I talked about John Adams doing a very similar thing, coming up with a scheme that was uncovered by newspaper editors to try to create a committee that would stop the certification of electoral votes. So, what this shows this moment is that our system is very fragile and it's hard to prosecute for tampering with it, but it's still possible in this case.

SCIUTTO: And we have another election just a few months away. Jeff Swartz is back with us now, former judge, professor as well at Thomas Cooley Law School. I'll just ask, if you don't mind, Jeff, same question I just asked Corey there.

SWARTZ: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: Can you read into the reasoning of the justices and the makeup of this decision on the January 6 case, any leaning on the broader immunity case and the enormously broad immunity that President Trump has claimed?

SWARTZ: I can't see the leaning towards the immunity. I think that the fact that they did not -- they left the door open for Jack. I agree. He is going to have to -- the 1/6 (ph) cannot be the basis of his obstruction charge. His obstruction charge basis is going to have to be the fake elector scheme. That is the submission of fake documents to Congress. His involvement in the creation of those documents fits exactly as Enron wanted their decision to this law to apply, this obstruction law to apply. So, I think that that kind of is a saving grace for him. But, I don't think that by not -- I think that this decision doesn't really tell us that they're going to go for a broad immunity. They're talking about a specific statute. And immunity is a very broad constitutional issue. So, I don't see this playing into that, especially since they left the door open.

SCIUTTO: As a practical matter, though, let's say the court splits the baby to some degree on the immunity question and does not grant endless presidential immunity, but limits it to some degree is the practical effect of that, Jeff Swartz, that Jack Smith has to go back to the drawing board and therefore this case is punted, a trial in this case punted till after the election.

SWARTZ: I've been believing that in fact Jack is already prepared for whatever issues come out of the immunity case.

[11:15:00]

I have to believe that he has drafted and is prepared to take to the grand jury a superseding indictment that will fit the seams that you're talking about, and as soon as the stay is lifted, we'll issue that indictment, and when that indictment comes out, Judge Chutkan can immediately arraign and move that case forward. So, if he is thinking three dimensionally, and I think Jack is a three-dimensional thinker, I think that indictment is already ready to go to the grand jury. So, he is ready to deal with whatever this case and/or the immunity case deals in.

SCIUTTO: We're also joined now by Julian Zelizer. He is a CNN political analyst, historian and professor at Princeton University. We've got a lot of experts, a lot of professors today. Julian, it strikes me that we're seeing in these decisions the country changing, right? I mean, go back two years ago, we just passed the two-year anniversary of the end of the right to abortion in this country, which has stood as the law of the land for some 50 years. Gun rights expanded. We saw this court reject it, a quite limited gun regulation involving bump stocks, which basically turned semi-automatic weapons into machine guns, although they did rule against allowing life abusers to have weapons.

But, here in the role of government, with the Chevron decision here, really taking away enormous powers and capabilities from federal agencies that have been in place for decades. We're seeing the government change before our eyes. Are we not?

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, & HISTORIAN & PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: We're seeing a big shift through the Supreme Court, and much of it driven by a majority that the former President Donald Trump helped to create. So, the stories of the debate last night and what SCOTUS is doing, I think, are intertwined. And yes, we are moving further and further away from the legacy of the New Deal, from the legacy of the Great Society, and even more rightward than where we were in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. So, I think these are very significant. The Chevron case, which won't grab everyone's eyes, is actually very important in terms of weakening the power of the administrative state.

SCIUTTO: It's -- I was saying on the air when it came out, the Chevron case has enormous implications people should pay attention. By the way, this goes -- doesn't go to a theory of things. It goes to things like regulation of pollutants in the air, pollutants in the water, when you speak environmentally, regulation in the workplace, etcetera. Julian, looking at history, we've seen big decisions from the Supreme Court through the decades and through the centuries. But, have you seen a series of decisions like this that flipped the direction, the legal direction of the country so dramatically and in such a short period of time and in so many categories? Is there precedent for this?

ZELIZER: Well, sure. In the 1960s, the Earl Warren Court shifted legal decisions in a liberal direction on issues related to criminal justice, redistricting and race. And there was a reason many conservatives were putting up signs in states like Mississippi that said impeach Warren or impeach Earl Warren. And so, I think that is a comparable moment in terms of moving the direction of the law and public policy in a different way than it had been in previous decades.

SCIUTTO: Well, another decision of historical impact come on Monday. I'm sure we'll have you back, Julian Zelizer, Jeff Swartz, Corey as well, to discuss the implications of this. Again, if you're just joining us now, several major decisions from the Supreme Court, some taking away, overturning in effect, the convictions of some of those who attacked the Capitol on January 6 in 2021, as well as the decision affecting the very role of government agencies in a whole host of corners of the lives of Americans. We're going to continue to follow the results and impacts of that as well as reactions to last night's crucial presidential debate.

Do stay with us. We'll be back after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Some advisors to U.S. President Joe Biden are rejecting calls for him to drop his reelection bid. That after a shaky performance at Thursday's CNN presidential debate. They say he still plans to participate in a second presidential debate in September. Democrats have been in damage control since Biden faced off against former President Trump in Atlanta. The world is watching, with many asking if the 81-year-old current commander in chief should remain in the race. In the eyes of many Democrats, their candidate failed to meet the moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: -- making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the COVID -- excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with -- what -- if we finally beat Medicare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Not a good moment, and it wasn't the only uncomfortable one. The President's performance was marred by frequently inaudible moments that advisors blamed on a cold. In several instances, he struggled to complete a thought or make his case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: There are 40 percent fewer people coming across the border illegally. That's better than when he left office. And I'm going to continue to move until we get the total ban on -- the total initiative relative to what we can do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: President Trump.

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I really don't know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don't think he knows what he said either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: We should note as well that Trump shared many factual inaccuracies, as he is wanting to do, regardless how this debate played out among prospective voters. A CNN flash poll shows about eight in 10 debate watchers say the night had no effect on their choice for President, 14 percent reconsidering, though. Meantime, outside the U.S., European allies collectively highlighted the precarious position Democrats in the U.S. are now in, with newspapers indicating the Democrats are now calling for Biden to stand aside in this way.

CNN's Jeff's Zeleny has more on the candidates' performances, brings us some of the night's key moments as well.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): A former President --

TRUMP: This place, the whole world is blowing up under him.

ZELENY (voice-over): -- confronting the sitting President.

BIDEN: I never heard so much malarkey in my whole life.

ZELENY (voice-over): But, Joe Biden setting off alarm across the Democratic Party after a shaky performance against Donald Trump at the CNN debate in Atlanta.

TRUMP: Joe, our country is being destroyed as you and I sit up here and waste a lot of time on this debate.

ZELENY (voice-over): In their first face-to-face encounter in four years, Trump struck a far different tone than he often does at rallies, rarely raising his voice.

TRUMP: I really don't know what he said at the end of this sentence. I don't think he knows what he said either. ZELENY (voice-over): One of Biden's chief goals was to project an air

of strength. On that score, he struggled.

BIDEN: Making sure that we're able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been able to do with the COVID -- excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with.

ZELENY (voice-over): After a week of debate practice, he arrived on stage with a hoarse voice and often looked down or away. And on key policy issues for Democrats like abortion --

BIDEN: And if I'm elected, I'm going to restore Roe v. Wade.

TRUMP: He is willing to, as we say, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month and kill the baby.

BIDEN: That is simply not true. We are not for late-term abortion. Period. Period. Period.

ZELENY (voice-over): -- it was Trump who tried catering to the middle.

TRUMP: Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in the exceptions. I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

[11:25:00]

I think it's very important. Some people don't. Follow your heart. But you have to get elected.

ZELENY (voice-over): But, Biden did go after Trump on his treatment of Veterans.

BIDEN: My son was not a loser. He was not a sucker. You're the sucker. You're the loser.

TRUMP: He made up the suckers and losers, so he should apologize to me right now.

BIDEN: A four-star general stand at your side, who was on your staff, who said it, period. That's number one. And number two, the idea -- the idea that I have to apologize to you for anything along the lines. We've done more for veterans than any president has in American history.

ZELENY (voice-over): And on Trump's recent felony convictions in New York --

BIDEN: The only person on this stage is a convicted felon is the man I'm looking at right now.

ZELENY (voice-over): -- causing Trump to fire back.

TRUMP: When he talks about a convicted felon, his son is a convicted felon at a very high level. But he could be a convicted felon as soon as he gets out of office. Joe could be a convicted felon. BIDEN: The idea that I did anything wrong relative to what you're

talking about is outrageous. The crimes that you are still charged with -- and think of all the civil penalties you got. How many billions of dollars do you owe in civil penalties for molesting a woman in public, for doing a whole range of things, of having sex with a porn star on the night while your wife was pregnant? I mean, what are you talking about? You have the morals of an alley cat.

TRUMP: I didn't have sex with a porn star, number one.

ZELENY (voice-over): And on one of the biggest questions facing voters, the candidates' age.

BIDEN: This guy is three years younger and a lot less competent.

TRUMP: He challenged me to a golf match. He can't hit a ball 50 yards. I think I'm in very good shape. I feel that I'm in good shape as I was 25, 30 years ago. Actually, I'm probably a little bit lighter, but I'm as good as shape as I was years ago. I feel very good. I feel the same.

ZELENY (voice-over): The argument devolved into taunts.

BIDEN: I told you before, I'm happy to play golf if you carry your own bag.

TRUMP: Let's not act like children.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Do you have a specific --

ZELENY (voice-over): Trump continuing to downplay his role in the January 6 insurrection --

TRUMP: I said peacefully and patriotically. They asked me to go make a speech. I could see what was happening. Everybody was saying they're going to be there on January 6. And I said they ought to have some National Guard or whatever.

BIDEN: Didn't do damn thing and now he says, if he loses it again, such a whiner that he is, that it could be a bloodbath.

ZELENY (voice-over): -- and only answering if he would accept the 2024 election results after being pressed by CNN's Dana Bash three times.

TRUMP: It's a fair and legal and good election -- absolutely. I would have much rather accepted these, but the fraud.

BIDEN: You continue to provoke this lie about somehow there is all this misrepresentation, all this stealing. There is no evidence of that at all. And I tell you what, I doubt whether you will accept it because you're such a whiner.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Jeff Zeleny joins me now from Atlanta, where, of course, the debate took place. And Jeff, you're well sourced. Is there any actual discussion of Joe Biden stepping down at this point? I know that there have been some public denials of that. Is there any actual discussion? Is it an open question? Are they in wait and see mode? Or is it something they're immediately slapping down?

ZELENY: Jim, there is not actual discussion as near as we can tell by people who would be involved in making such a decision, and that is a very, very small circle around President Biden, and indeed President Biden himself, perhaps a few family members and key, key advisors. Look, there is much consternation. There is much alarm. There is no doubt about that. I'm told that from the West Wing to the campaign headquarters in Wilmington, advisors are reaching out to members of Congress, calling donors, calling supporters, trying to ease some of this concern. But, as for actual conversations about changing course, stepping down, that is not happening.

We'll hear from the President in a couple hours. He has a series of fundraisers in New York as well. But, Jim, something personal would have to happen for him to make that choice. And as of now, we do not see signs of that.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Zeleny in Atlanta, thanks so much.

Joining me now for the view from the Trump campaign, Alayna Treene. Also with us, Priscilla Alvarez who has been following President Joe Biden's campaign. First, Alayna, I mean, we've seen Trump's surrogates, including his son doing a victory lap here. What is their plan going forward? And part of my question is, do they feel the need to do the second debate?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, look, I think it's unclear right now whether they feel the need to. I can tell you, though, that they absolutely are doing a victory lap after last night. Donald Trump later today is going to be giving a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia, just a few hours from where I am now. He is currently in his golf club behind me. And they say that is where he is going to be talking a lot about his performance last night, praising his decision, criticizing Joe Biden much more harshly than we saw the former President do so on the debate stage yesterday.

[11:30:00]

So, I would anticipate that, and of course, this is going to be his first political event since that debate. So, I'd stay tuned for any updates there, just to see more of how they're going to frame this. But, I can tell you, Jim, that from my conversations, they were very happy, like I said, last night, and part of that was because they really wanted Donald Trump to stay on message and not to be aggressive. His advisors repeatedly told me that they were hoping that he would be reserved, that he would be calm, that he wouldn't be getting into personal attacks against the President. We did see some of those outside, including when he brought up Hunter Biden, the President's son. But, for the most part, Donald Trump was, I'd argue, remarkably restrained.

Now, again, about your question about whether they will agree to a second debate, it's unclear, I think, given how happy they were with how last night went. I can't see why they wouldn't. But, at the same time, I feel like Donald Trump's team, when I talked to them, once they think they have won something, as they continue to be claiming today, they actually claimed they won the debate before it even finished last night, they may try to argue, you know, we don't need to do another one. Why give us -- why take another opportunity where perhaps it couldn't go as well as it did the first time. So, that's definitely some questions we're going to continuing to be asking.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I might add, calculate who does that potentially help more, right? Or given an opportunity for a --

TREENE: Right.

SCIUTTO: -- bounce back. Alayna Treene, thanks so much.

Let's go to Priscilla Alvarez, the latest on President Biden. Priscilla, I will ask the same question I asked of Jeff Zeleny there. Is there any actual discussion inside the campaign or the White House? Is there anybody? Is there a camp pushing for him to step aside? Is it stay the course for now? I'm curious what we know at this point.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: What we know is that Biden's advisors say he is absolutely staying in the race, that there is no basis for him to leave. And they're looking to September, saying that the President will debate in September when the next one is scheduled. But, they are having to contend with a lot of criticism from the President's own allies, from Democrats, who say yesterday was a lackluster performance. And this was important because, going into the debate, it was clear that voters were concerned about the President's age. A lot of folks that I was talking to ahead of the debate were sort of hoping for the President to show that State of the Union performance, which they thought was strong, and at least quelled some concern about the President's mental acuity.

But, last night just didn't reach that bar. In fact, even in moments talking about policies, for example, immigration, knowing that former President Donald Trump was going to go after him on this exact issue, he couldn't articulate the message that his administration has been trying to pull together over recent weeks that they can be strong on the border while also extending protections to some long-term undocumented immigrants. Allies were texting me this really fell short of their expectations on policy. We also saw something similar play out with abortion, which has been a key issue, a galvanizing issue for this campaign.

Now, of course, in the aftermath of this, surrogates have been hitting the airwaves, putting out their statements, acknowledging that, yes, it was a lackluster performance. But, look at the President's record. Vice President Kamala Harris saying this on our airwaves last night, saying that, yes, it was a slow start, but it was a strong finish, and ultimately said, there are two very different presidents here before you, two different candidates, and that their vision, they should be judged on their vision. Campaign co-chair Mitch Landrieu saying much of the same as well this morning. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MITCH LANDRIEU, NATIONAL BIDEN CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR: The President might have lost the debate on style, but he won it on facts. He won it on decency. And he won it on the ideas that people think are important in the country. I don't think that you can color the debate as a great time for President Biden. I think he had a rough time last night. There is no question about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ALVAREZ: I will also say that Biden advisors were frustrated that they were put in a position where they had to fact check Donald Trump. They felt that his falsehoods, that there were multiple of his falsehoods, and that the President was also trying to fact check that in real time. But still, Jim, clearly panic has set in, and the campaign is trying to move forward, move on to the next thing. They're citing for President Barack Obama's bad performance when he was running for his reelection, saying Mitt Romney didn't win that election even despite the debate performance. But, Jim, Obama was not contending with people in his own party, saying he had to step down --

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

ALVAREZ: -- and that is what the campaign is dealing with today.

SCIUTTO: It's a remarkable turn in a number of hours. Priscilla Alvarez, thanks so much.

And we will be right back, as our breaking news coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: So, what happens now? The big question for Democrats this morning after President Joe Biden's shaky debate performance raising major concerns. What President Biden said sometimes got lost in how he said it. He was halting, struggled to articulate key policy points, as he sparred with former President Trump. Some Democrats are calling for Biden to drop out of the race, make way for another nominee. But, one of his advisors just said he is still planning not only to stay in the race, but to debate again in September.

Trump's performance was stronger in delivery, but, we should note, was marked by dozens, dozens of falsehoods, many that went unchallenged. The CNN presidential debate is making headlines around the world. UK paper summing up "Biden Bombs".

For more on the U.S. perspective, let's go to Los Angeles, CNN Senior Political Analyst Ron Brownstein, and CNN Contributor Lulu Garcia Navarro here in Washington. Good to have you both on. I'm going to ask you both two questions in quick succession. Maybe Ron, I'll begin with you. How damaging, in your view, was this for Biden in terms of his electoral chances, and is there any chance he drops out? And then, Lulu, you'll get your turn. RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, & SENIOR EDITOR, THE ATLANTIC: Yeah. I think that was the weakest performance by any candidate in a presidential debate in modern history going back to 1960. And it was especially damaging, Jim, because I think, as you know, one of the third rails of politics is when an elected official validates a preexisting concern or supposition in the electorate. Going into the debate, 75 percent of Americans in a poll released Thursday by Gallup said they thought Biden was too old for the job. They are going to be reconfirmed in that and that number is going to get bigger.

Can anything happen? Well, look, Democrats changed their rules in the 1980s after the Jimmy Carter-Ted Kennedy nomination fight. Before, delegates were bound to vote for the person they were selected to represent on the first ballot. That's no longer true. Obviously, all of these delegates are going -- were selected for Biden. But, if someone wants to challenge him, there is a clear pathway to do so. I mean, it may not be a question solely of him deciding that he wants to go. There may need to be a nudge if that is going to happen. And I can tell you, there are many Democrats who believe that after that debate, it is almost impossible for Joe Biden to get the last few points he needs to overcome Trump in the Rust Belt states, much less the Sunbelt states where his deficit is greater.

SCIUTTO: Lulu, your thoughts on both those questions.

LULU GARCIA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, & NEW YORK TIMES JOURNALIST AND PODCAST HOST: Well, I think there is one word for last night and that is "catastrophic" for the Democrats. The problem is not the message.

[11:40:00]

On the message, Biden was the better debater. The problem is the messenger. And it looked like it was a Republican dream come to life. I mean, he looked tired. He made no sense at times. He couldn't land a punch effectively, even on easy questions that the Democrats actually do have the advantage on, like abortion. And so, we've just seen a complete freakout happening. And I think the question, as you rightly point is, what now? There is a lot of speculation about a contested convention and what that would mean, and if Biden is going to step down. Unfortunately, I think, at the moment, that still in the realm of fantasy, because we've seen Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Minority Leader of the House, say that he is still backing Biden. You're seeing John Fetterman, the Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, saying he is not going to join the, quote, "Democratic vultures".

And so, at the moment, it is really unclear what the way forward is. And even if you went to that place and even if you said, OK, Biden steps down, who next? I mean, Kamala Harris, his Vice President, is not exactly winning in the popularity stakes either. And so, it just puts the entire race into disarray. And I think this is going to affect Democrats up and down the ballot.

SCIUTTO: We do have some comments from the Vice President Kamala Harris to my colleague Anderson Cooper last night. Let's have a quick listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There was a slow start, but it was a strong finish. People can debate on style points, but ultimately, this election and who is the President of the United States has to be about substance. And the contrast is clear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Ron, that sounds nice to say, but it's just not true, right?

BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: It's not -- really voters vote on a whole host of things. And yes, substance is part of it, and they should be aware of the differences. And we should note once again, Trump lied repeatedly on a whole host of things. But, you know and Lulu knows that voters got to like the candidate and have confidence in the candidate.

BROWNSTEIN: It's more than like the candidates, in this case, right, Jim? It's also they have to have confidence that they can execute. The office can do the job. Richard Neustadt famously declared that the power of the presidency is the power to persuade and the ability to deliver a message that moves the public. Biden has never been good at that. And what you saw last night was to use her words, a catastrophic collapse in the ability of Biden to deliver a message.

Trump was not -- Trump was vigorous and kind of less belligerent than in 2020. But, he showed all of the vulnerabilities that make it possible to beat him, I mean, continuing to deny the 2020 election, defending the January 6 rioters, taking credit for undoing Roe v. Wade. And in many ways, I thought that really compounded the pressure on Biden because it showed that there was not a new Trump. That is some Colossus who can't be beat. At the same time, the debate events, I think, a broad range of Democrats that Biden is simply incapable of doing it.

And the kind of the hard line that they will not consider any alternative but falling forward with Biden, I think it will be true until it is no longer true, because it's hard to see it -- as you're pointing out, in the last two presidential years, 2016, exactly one Senator has won a race that went the other way in the presidential contest. And you have seven or eight Democratic senators in states that are at risk for Biden after last night's performance, and I just -- are all of them going to quietly sail forward as if nothing has happened?

SCIUTTO: Yeah. I mean, listen, and remember, it's the Senate that confirmed Supreme Court justices and in a morning of colossal Supreme Court decisions based on a conservative majority put in by Donald Trump, you have the possibility of two seats to fill if there are retirements in the next term. So, listen, the Senate races have a big impact as well.

Ron Brownstein, Lulu Garcia Navarro, thanks so much to both of you. And we will be right back, as our breaking news coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: We continue following breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices have ruled to limit charges against some 250 people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has weighed in since. In a statement he says, January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government. He goes on to say, he was disappointed by today's decision.

Let's welcome in Homeland Security Analyst Donell Harvin. He is the former Chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for the District of Columbia. We also have former U.S. Federal Prosecutor Gene Rossi.

Gene, I want to begin with you, because you have some personal involvement in this and that you --

GENE ROSSI, FORMER U.S. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, & FMR. ATTY. IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: -- as I understand, represented one of the January 6 defendants, the first Oath Keeper, to enter the U.S. Capitol. Does this ruling now get your guy off in effect, or just off some of the charges?

ROSSI: This ruling is very important for my client. He was convicted of seven counts. And one of the counts, the main count was 1512(c)(2). This really absolutely helps my client. And if you read the opinion of Roberts and a concurrence of Jackson, you still can have a 1512(c)(2). This is getting in the weeds. You can still have a 1512 prosecution if the conduct affected the integrity or the availability of the electoral ballots. Those ballots were kept on the Senate side. And there were rioters who smashed the windows and went into those rooms where the ballots were kept. Those individuals probably will still be prosecuted under 1512.

My guy, who was an Oath Keeper, actually was a kid with autism, 21- years-old. My client was the first Oath Keeper that entered the East side of the Capitol, not the West side. The West side was where they kept the ballots. So, he went in, he yelled and screamed. He was in part of a scrum. So, he would be acquitted or it would be foolish for the government to retry him under 1512. And what both opinions, the concurrence and the majority, say, we're sending it back. The judge, Judge Amit Mehta, he is a great judge, he will have to have a hearing to determine to what extent any of these individuals affected the availability and integrity of the electoral ballots. So, it's not a complete victory for 1512 defendants, if you will. But, for my guy, it's a complete victory on that one count.

SCIUTTO: Donell Harvin, when you look at this in terms of just the events of January 6, this was a seminal event. It was violent. It was encouraged. Even Mitch McConnell said it was encouraged by the former President Trump while he was still President. And as we all know, both Democrats and Republicans feared for their lives that day. They were hiding in their offices. They were calling to be rescued, even though many of those Republicans have since claimed, well, it wasn't all that big a deal. What does this mean for how the country has imposed consequences for the events of that day?

DONELL HARVIN, FMR. DC CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE: Well, it's not for me to question the Supreme Court or the legalities. I think Gene broke it down pretty well. But, everything you just said about January 6 is untrue.

[11:50:00]

And the reason why I say that is because since January 7, individuals on the right, particularly lawmakers and the current presidential candidate for the Republican Party, have done everything they can do to degradate (ph) all those facts that you just laid out about January 6. It was not violent. In fact, you just heard --

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

HARVIN: Donald Trump say last night that many of those people were let in peacefully by the Capitol Police, which we know it's not true. And so, for me, I kind of parse away the politics and the legal part of it, and I look at the Homeland Security implications. Everything that's happened since January 7, the day they started saying that it was Antifa, these are political prisoners, these individuals are freedom fighters, their innocence is really breaking down what we know to be truth about January 6, allowing for really violence to happen in the future justified.

SCIUTTO: Gene, a former federal prosecutor, when you look at the court's decision-making on this, and by the way, to your point, it's not entirely black and white, right? They've sent it back down. They've left the door open to some prosecutions in that space, perhaps not all of them. And by the way, the makeup in that decision on January 6 was unusual. Yes, it was six-three, but part of the three was Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, and part of the six was actually Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, so some flipping of the liberal and conservative sides there. But, do you William Rossi (ph), do you see any indication as to how the court will find on Donald Trump's broad, extremely broad claims of presidential immunity, which is the big one they still got to announce on Monday?

ROSSI: Well, Jim, my first name is Eugene, but my son is William, one of my sons. So, you can call me whatever you want.

SCIUTTO: Sorry.

ROSSI: But, Jim -- that's OK. You should hear what my mother used to call me. But, here is the thing. This 1512 decision is not really related to this immunity issue that's going to be decided on Monday. That one to me on Monday, that's a layup, a slam dunk, LeBron James, Michael Jordan lay up or slam dunk against Donald Trump. I'm surprised they even had an oral argument. But, for this 1512, I wanted to just tell your viewers that -- and I'm glad to now mention this, there is a lot of conspiracy theories that Black Lives Matter did it, Antifa and that there were suspicious characters from the FBI who caused this riot. That's all a bunch of baloney. And anybody who believes in that theory, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you.

But, the 1512, it's an important decision, because there are individuals who were convicted of 1512 that don't fall into that (c)(2) subsection where they affected the availability or integrity of the electoral ballots. They were too far removed, too attenuated. My client, 21-years-old, with asthma, with autism, he is -- he will not be retried on 1512. Now, will it affect his sentencing? Probably not. He got five years of probation. That was like putting a rope through a needle, seven convictions and he gets probation. So, Judge Mehta was very compassionate.

SCIUTTO: Yeah.

ROSSI: So, for my client, he may not have to go to retrial and we're not going to have a re-sentencing. But, the last point, for some of these defendants, the re-sentencing, absent of 1512, could shave off a lot of years for them.

SCIUTTO: Well, we'll see what happens on Monday, right, a long weekend between now and then. Donell Harvin and Gene Rossi --

ROSSI: Yeah.

SCIUTTO: -- thanks so much to both of you.

HARVIN: Thanks.

ROSSI: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Well, Joe Biden tried to shrug off concerns about his debate performance last night. But, to be fair, to be clear, this has thrown his party into crisis mode. We're going to have some final thoughts next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Before we go, one more thing. The fallout from last night's U.S. presidential debate and what it may mean for President Joe Biden's future as the Democratic candidate. The President's shaky performance in which he often struggled to complete a thought, make his case, clearly has sent much of the Democratic Party into, well, a panic. Biden, on the other hand, is trying to brush off concerns about his performance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, how do you think you performed today?

BIDEN: I think we did well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any concerns about your performance?

BIDEN: No. It's hard to debate a liar.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, the political spotlight is now on the Democratic Party, where it goes from here. We'll continue to keep you apprised of that going forward.

Thanks so much for spending part of your day with me. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Please do stick with CNN. One World is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)