Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Limits Obstruction Charges In January 6 Rioters Case; Biden's Disastrous Debate Sends Reelection Bid Into Crisis; Supreme Court Issues Jan. 6 Ruling Amid Debate Fallout. Aired 11:30a- 12p ET

Aired June 28, 2024 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Let me get back to the breaking news we're following. A major ruling about the January 6 rioters at the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court deciding that the Justice Department actually overstepped its authority when it charged hundreds of those rioters with obstruction charges.

And there were two other noteworthy rulings that were released today as well. We're going to go back to CNN's Pamela Brown. She's over at the Supreme Court for us.

Pamela, we just heard, I take it, there's a statement from the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland reacting to this decision on the obstruction charges. Tell our viewers what he said.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: That's right, Wolf. The attorney general, Merrick Garland is on the defensive in the wake of this big decision by the Supreme Court saying the Department of Justice overstepped when it charged hundreds of January 6 defendants with this obstruction charge. And he's essentially saying, look, the vast majority of January 6 defendants who are being prosecuted, they are not going to be impacted by this decision. I want to bring in my colleague Paula Reid to go through the statement.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, here he's saying he's disappointed by this decision. Of course, he believes it limits the Justice Department's ability to prosecute people. Now, he also though is trying to emphasize that this isn't going to impact the majority of their cases.

Saying "Other more than 1400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6, they'll not be impacted. There are no cases in which the Department of Justice charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue here. This is obstruction of justice." He says for the cases affected by today's decision, the department will take appropriate steps to comply with the court's ruling.

Now. He is correct with the majority of the 1400 people who have been charged, this is a historic undertaking for the Justice Department in terms of the number of cases they have pursued related to January 6, will not be impacted. But we're still talking about hundreds of people. Some of whom are incarcerated.

Approximately 250 cases involving this charge -- this obstruction charge are still pending. About 52 people were convicted and sentence was -- with this specific charge as their only felony. And of them, 27 people are currently incarcerated.

So clearly the attorney general who is overseeing this historic undertaking, the investigation and prosecution of people who were here on January 6 engaging in what they alleged was criminal conduct. The majority of them won't be impacted but it's still hundreds of people, dozens of whom are in jail.

BROWN: Yes. And that's no small number. I want to go to this other massive case out today from the High Court that essentially shifts power from federal agencies to judges and justices and overturns 40 years of precedent. And it can impact every single American.

[11:35:06]

REID: This is the biggest case of the term when it comes to the impact on the lives of Americans. The way they decided this, this could change everything from sort of a workplace to environmental regulations. For the past 40 years since 1984, federal agencies like the EPA, for example, have been given broad deference on certain issues in interpreting the law.

But we've seen over the past few years, even the past few days you and I've been here, we've seen them sort of chipping away at the power. Just yesterday, we saw them issued decisions that chipped away at the power of the SEC and the EPA, while we were anticipating this larger decision. This is one of the broadest sorts of sweeps that they have made against the sweeping power of federal agencies.

So, this overturns decades, decades of precedent. And what it does is it shifts power from federal agencies to the courts. Now, again, this is an incredibly significant moment in American history. This will really change so much about American life and who makes decisions, especially on technical issues that often the agencies were dealing with, for example, either the environment or workplace regulations or something to deal with national security.

So, this is incredibly significant. This decision, it's actually kind of surprising that it wasn't the last one. Because usually, they released their most significant decision last, but it appears that among the last few decisions will be the Trump immunity case.

BROWN: Yes, on Monday.

REID: Yes.

BROWN: We know that's the final day. One more case that came out today has to do with homelessness.

REID: Yes. BROWN: And a constitutional question of cities can punish the homeless for sleeping in public property.

REID: Yes. And here, this was the first opinion we got today. It was authored by Justice Gorsuch. And here he found that it does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment if you have the so-called anti-camping statutes that you've seen, which punish homeless people for sleeping outside.

And this is interesting because it's one of the few actual constitutional questions that was resolved. We have a lot of other constitutional questions on abortion, on the First Amendment that they've kind of sidestep. But here, Gorsuch, writing for the majority saying that this is not cruel and unusual punishment if local ordinances are passed that prohibit camping and that you ticket homeless people who are then sleeping on the streets.

Now, Justice Sotomayor had a pretty robust dissent here calling this "unconscionable." So, this is again, one of those cases that doesn't get quite as much publicity, but it's certainly a significant issue and one that a lot of cities and towns have dealt with.

And again, it's an actual constitutional issue that was decided by the High Court. So going forward, I mean, just polities they can pass these anti-camping statutes, and homeless people can be ticketed if they're sleeping on the streets.

BROWN: All right. Thank you for summing that up. Big day here at the Supreme Court, Wolf, and another big day come Monday.

BLITZER: Yes, it'll be a huge day on Monday as well. Our thanks, Pamela. Thanks, Joan, very much.

I want to bring in Joan Biskupic right now who's with us here in the studio. Joan, you're taking a close look at these other Supreme Court cases. And you think they're very, very significant as well.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I do. And I have to say the one involving the power of agencies and who gets to determine, you know, various congressional enforcement policies. Is it agencies whose you know are directed by Congress in certain mandates to protect the environment workplace, life, you know, endangered species, maybe go into high tech areas, such as artificial intelligence? Who is responsible for that.

And basically, this decision today reversing precedent back to 1984, puts the court in charge. And you know, it was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. I just said earlier, when we were talking about the January 6 case. The Chief Justice of the United States kept that case for himself. And he kept this case for himself too.

This is a case that really will reorder how the federal bureaucracy and administrative agencies operate and how they protect the public. That's the key here. And it's such a dramatic turn in the structure of the federal government that Justice Elena Kagan took the step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench. That's -- she started by saying this is a decision that really turns its back on the notion of judicial humility. It's not only putting the court and judges at all level in charge of interpreting federal statutes that would govern agency work, again, whether it be in the environment, public health, just anything that you know, when you think of how the federal government -- banking regulations, consumer finance, all the ways that the government does try to protect people, but in the mind of some, metals too much. That -- she said that this is such a power shift.

And it also really rejects it's -- the court's own notion of adhering to precedent. The notion of stare decisis, that's a Latin word for adhering to precedent. The court turns its back on that as well as this notion of who should decide.

BLITZER: Very quickly. I'm just curious on this other decision -- major decision --

BISKUPIC: Yes.

BLITZER: Limiting obstruction charges for the January 6 rioters who assaulted the U.S. Capitol.

BISKUPIC: Sure.

[11:40:01]

BLITZER: If you're assaulting the U.S. Capitol, breaking windows, breaking doors, storming in, isn't that obstruction?

BISKUPIC: Well, that can -- not under this particular provision. Perhaps, many of those defendants could be charged in other ways in terms of the damage or the assaults. Definitely, assaults, you know.

The other January 6 defendants can be charged under other provisions of federal law. The reason the federal government really like the provision at issue here, the one that penalizes people for corruptly obstructing an official proceeding is because it carries a 20-year prison sentence. It has more muscle than some of the other charges.

And, Wolf, indeed many of our January 6 defendants were charged with multiple crimes. And I think -- I think the government estimates that about -- only about 50 of the defendants were only subject to this particular crime. So, you're right.

When you think of the kinds of offenses and violence that we witnessed on January 6, 2021, you'd think something would apply. And it definitely would. It just not this,

BLITZER: And I'll just quickly read that one sentence from Merrick Garland --

BISKUPIC: Sure.

BLITZER: The attorney general reacting to this decision Fisher versus United States, the Supreme Court decision. I am disappointed by today's decision which limits an important federal statute that the department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences. He's obviously very upset about the Supreme Court decision.

BISKUPIC: Right.

BLITZER: All right, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:45:48]

BLITZER: This morning, defiance and denial in the wake of CNN's historic presidential debate. President Biden's advisers are rejecting calls for him to drop out of the race saying there's "no basis for those demands." The House Minority Leader-- House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries offering a one word response to calls for the president to step aside. His one word, no Amid the fallout, Biden is back on the campaign trail today set to participate in several public events in North Carolina and in New York.

CNN's Senior White House Correspondent Kayla Tausche is joining us right now. She's in Raleigh, North Carolina So, Kayla, what are the -- what are you hearing more from the Biden team today about last night?

KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the Biden campaign is focused on moving forward. There is a desire to pack up the few wins from this stage last night, particularly on substance. To package many of those on social media, which you've already started to see this morning. And to move on to what comes next.

That is why the focus is on North Carolina today. I'm told the Biden camp believes that there is a real possibility that North Carolina could turn blue this year because of the changing demographics here. A growing Hispanic and black population and an abundance of college educated superb suburban voters, as well as the past -- the popularity of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate here, Josh Stein.

He's going to be here with President Biden, who was set to speak in the next hour. But it comes amid the widespread alarm in the Democratic Party of the performance on the debate stage last night. But a Biden advisor tells me that the president will not drop out of the race and will remain committed to debating again in September, Wolf.

BLITZER: And in New York, he's going to be doing some major fundraising, right?

TAUSCHE: He is. He'll be going to a fundraiser in New York City directly from North Carolina. And that's going to be one of the first conversations with donors about how they feel.

BLITZER: Kayla Tausche on the scene for us. Kayla, thank you very much. And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:51:59]

BLITZER: Finally, this hour. I want to take a step back and take stock of the two breaking news stories we've been following. Both truly historic in their own right.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the federal government overstepped in charging January 6 rioters with obstruction. Also, today Americans are observing a first presidential debate in which President Biden underperformed dramatically and Trump told dozens of lies.

Joining us now is CNN Presidential Historian Tim Naftali. Tim, give us some final thoughts on all of this as you watch all of this unfold.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, presidential elections are about narratives. Each and every one of us will make a decision in November based on a number of considerations. But we are affected by narratives.

Last night was an opportunity for President Biden to make -- to focus Donald Trump as opposed to his own stamina. But he didn't do it. And so, the narrative has shifted. And the former -- the current president faces the challenge in the next few days of trying to once again shift the narrative back to Donald Trump.

Today, the Supreme Court affected a different narrative. President -- former President Trump has been arguing that he is a victim and others on January 6 were victims of the judicial overreach of the criminalization of politics. The Supreme Court didn't agree with him today in terms of the politicization -- or criminalization of politics, but it did suggest an overreach on the part of federal prosecutors. And that helps the Trump narrative about January 6.

So, this has been a very hard day for the Trump -- for the Biden campaign in two extremely important respects. So, I suggest that as we look forward, we are going to anticipate some very tough decisions by the Biden family about the president's ability to show the stamina he needs to, to answer the questions that he himself raised last night. And with regard to the January 6 decision today, federal prosecutors are going to have to have some soul-searching too to determine the way in which to proceed with making clear that January 6 was an insurrection and was involved -- in fact, implied criminal acts.

It has to find a way to do that without feeding the narrative that somehow, we've all misinterpreted January 6. And that those people who tried to storm and storm the Capitol were victims as opposed to perpetrators.

BLITZER: And I know you've studied these presidential debates over these decades going way, way back Nixon, Kennedy, etcetera. But based on your historical perspective, can President Biden come back after his performance last night?

NAFTALI: It all depends on this key question. Was last night a bad night, or was it evidence of something more troubling about the president? Only the Biden family and his doctors could tell us.

[11:55:06]

If it's a bad night? Sure, he can come back. We don't remember Ronald Reagan's first debate in 1984. We keep talking about the great line that he delivered to Walter Mondale in the second debate.

But let's keep in mind. First of all, Ronald Reagan was way ahead in October of 1984. Number two, Ronald Reagan had three weeks -- just three weeks to fix the problem, whereas Joe Biden will not get a huge national audience until the Democratic Convention in August. And perhaps he'll have another opportunity in September.

So, there are weeks and weeks and weeks -- too many weeks, in fact, for Biden. So, it all depends on whether last night was an exception or actually is the rule for the President of the United States.

BLITZER: We will find out. Presidential Historian Tim Naftali, thank you very much. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining me here in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'll be back later tonight. 6:00 p.m. Eastern -- actually, 5:00 p.m. Eastern today in "THE SITUATION ROOM."

Stay with us. "INSIDE POLITICS" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)