Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

President Zelenskyy Questions Russia's Intentions; Attorney Lexie Rigden is Interviewed about the Combs Trial; New Book on Biden's Presidency; Supreme Court Hears Birthright Arguments. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired May 15, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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


[06:30:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Cross examination could be.

And we're also learning more about President Biden's final months in office, and the claims that he was isolated from his own cabinet.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As president, my priority is to end conflicts, not start them. But I will never hesitate to wield American power if it's necessary to defend the United States of America, or our partners.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[06:35:02]

CORNISH: Right now President Trump visiting the U.S.' largest military base in the Middle East. In fact, he just finished addressing U.S. troops there.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. I want to thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING.

It's about 34 minutes past the hour. And here's what else is happening right now.

Soon, the president will be heading to Abu Dhabi for the final stop of his first major overseas trip during his second term. There, he's going to meet with the president of the United Arab Emirates.

Today, Sean Combs' defense team will cross-examine his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, as she returns to the witness stand for a third day. On Wednesday, she testified about a 2016 hotel assault that was captured on video, other alleged assaults and civil lawsuits she filed against Combs, which they then settled.

Now, the Supreme Court justices will also hear arguments later this morning on President Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, and the three lower court rulings against it. The big issue here, whether those lower courts have the power to stop the order from going into effect.

And Russia's war on Ukraine. Vladimir Putin will not be attending peace talks in Turkey today. Ukraine's leaders on the ground in Turkey to meet with that country's president. And he says he questions Russia's intentions for those talks. President Trump had already said he wasn't going today, but a few hours ago he announced he is open to going tomorrow if something happens.

Joining me now to discuss, CNN chief international security correspondent Nick Paton Walsh.

Nick, what can we expect here?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, at the moment it's simply a case of who is where right now and who potentially might still show up.

The Russian delegation, at a relatively junior level, as Putin suggested it would be the case at the weekend, have turned up in Istanbul, but their potential meeting with the Ukrainians not yet agreed to by the Ukrainians, delayed according to the Russian foreign ministry, until the afternoon.

President Zelenskyy of Ukraine has landed in Ankara and is now beginning a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the Turkish capital that he -- a source close to his presidency has said will essentially decide what Ukraine's next steps are going to be. Slowly coming into Turkey are more and more senior U.S. officials. Steve Witkoff is thought to be on his way for Friday. Keith Kellogg, the envoy to Ukraine for the Trump administration, thought to be potentially coming to. And Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state, currently in Antalya, in southern Turkey, for a NATO meeting. Donald Trump, not expected at this point, but holding out the possibility that if indeed Putin does decide to come, he could potentially come on Friday.

Putin does not look like he's coming at this point. And this essentially, I think, is a snub to efforts by the White House to potentially persuade him to attend, and maybe a sign, too, for Ukraine and its European allies that, as they have suspected, the Kremlin is not interested in peace.

Here's how Zelenskyy characterized that delegation just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): So far, I don't have official information, but it looks phony, and we will see what to do and what our steps will be after talking to President Erdogan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALSH: So, he faces a very difficult choice there, does he send a comparable level of Ukrainian officials to begin what would be the first direct Ukraine-Russia talks since the early days of the war, talks that were very abortive (ph), that happened in Istanbul in 2022, or does he broadcast a wider message that I'm sure will be shared by many of his European allies, that Putin is not serious. He's turned down the offer of a face-to-face meeting with both Trump and Zelenskyy indeed. If that meeting had happened with the three of them, it would have contained the first bilateral, potentially, between Trump and Putin as well to have occurred.

So, clear signals here, potentially, from Russia as it currently stands. Ahat may change. And a difficult choice for Ukraine, whether they stay and push this through, and the potential of change tomorrow may be the window widened, but at this stage, too, no angry, clear reaction from the Trump White House. They've extended the window potentially through till tomorrow. And I think in the things we've heard from President Trump, he's sort of downplayed his expectations for this. Whether he finds it within himself to go along with his European allies and impose the massive sanctions, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, suggested would occur if Russia ignored the ceasefire they demanded on Monday, let alone ignored these -- this request for presidential level talks as well. Well, that is the key question for the White House now, Audie.

CORNISH: All right, that's Nick Paton Walsh, CNN chief international security correspondent.

Thank you.

Cassie Ventura will be back on the witness stand after two days of intense and emotional testimony in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. On Wednesday, she told the jury that he kept her in a year's long cycle of abuse. She also claimed he threatened to release degrading videos of her to control and intimidate her. Now it's time for the defense.

[06:40:01]

And Combs team is expected to challenge that version of events in cross-examination.

Joining me now is family law and criminal defense attorney Lexie Rigden.

Good morning, Lexie.

LEXIE RIGDEN, FAMILY LAW AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.

CORNISH: So, my understanding of this case is fundamentally the defense is trying to say, everybody who is in these rooms was there because they wanted to be, that they were not coerced. So, what does that mean in terms of cross-examination?

RIGDEN: There's going to be a lot that they can cross-examine her on. I'm going to assume if he is saving -- he, meaning Diddy, was saving photos and videos of things that went on, he probably has a treasure trove of digital information, of text messages, pictures. I think it's probably going to be a fairly ugly cross-examination for her. I think it's going to focus on her participation in these events, her consent, her enjoyment. I mean we've already heard a lot of graphic testimony about the sexual acts that took place that she didn't like. I would assume that the defense, in order to properly defend their client, are probably going to have to bring out information about the things that she participated in or orchestrated in that -- that she was enjoying.

I mean, honestly, I can't imagine being Cassie in this scenario. And we all know she's very, very far into her pregnancy, which could have been a reason that she was called pretty much first in this case. And so, they're going to have a lot of ground to cover on cross, but they're going to also have to do it gently so they don't turn off the jury if it looks like they're badgering a victim.

CORNISH: Yes, I was going to ask that because here we are in the post- Me Too era, so to speak. We have a generation that's grown up with the idea of revenge porn. I think that people think slightly differently about these things and talking to somebody who is perceived as a victim in this way. So, what do you think is the strategy here?

RIGDEN: Well, I agree with you. And if I were one of the defense attorneys, I'd be thinking, oh, my gosh, not only do I need to not come -- I mean, obviously, they have to defend their client. And there -- they are -- they might feel as though having a little bit of outrage at these allegations is kind of like the approach that they should be taking.

But you also have a woman who is, I don't know, 38 weeks pregnant or something. So, that has to play into their calculus of how hard they go against her. But they really just need to bring -- they're going to have to bring up and get into kind of dirty detail, as the prosecution did, about her participation in these events. I mean this all really comes down to essentially whether -- what the purpose of these freak offs was for and whether they were consensual.

CORNISH: Family law and criminal defense attorney Lexie Rigden, thank you for being here.

RIGDEN: Thank you.

CORNISH: OK, we're going to turn now to the new book, "Original Sin," about the final years of Joe Biden's presidency and what three of his former cabinet secretaries told the authors, of course, CNN's own Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of "Axios." So, those former secretaries spoke anonymously, and they said Biden's inner circle basically grew smaller and smaller. Staffers kept him more isolated from them. One secretary in the book claims, quote, "for months we didn't have access to him. There was clearly a deliberate strategy by the White House to have him meet with as few people as necessary," end quote.

Group chat is back.

I want to start with you, Jerusalem. How do you think that this -- this kind of cleanup, so to speak, is it a cleanup? Is it a cover up? Like, the way this is talked about online is very much a Rorschach test for your politics.

JERUSALEM DEMSAS, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, "THE ATLANTIC": Yes. I mean, it's a -- it's -- I think it's a very -- it's a very difficult line that everyone has to play if they were a part of the administration, particularly in very high levels. These cabinet secretaries are clearly distancing themselves from a lot of this by saying, you know, we hadn't met with him in months. We hadn't heard anything about him.

But the most concerning thing that I heard was really this question of, if the information channels to the president are so controlled by a small group of people, yes, he's making the decisions, as one cabinet secretary told them off the record, but is he really making the decisions if that information channel is leading him towards one outcome or the other? And that's the real concern, and that's the real question. As this book starts to leak more and more excerpts, you know, are there going to be clear cases where it's potentially a small group of unelected people that were making decisions. And that was the big hit that the Republicans had on Biden.

CORNISH: Yes. Yes. And, you know, Democrats on The Hill also having to answer questions. I just want to play something for you guys before you jump in.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talking about the late change in the race, for example.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): In my assessment, something -- a move that was that unprecedented, having a brand-new nominee 90 days before -- before a presidential election, against a nominee that had been running for four years straight, was a major risk. And so, like, I think, regardless of what -- what the situation was, it was such an unprecedented move that, you know, I think everyone, in so much uncertainty, everyone had their own opinions on the matter.

[06:45:08]

And we saw, you know, what happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: She was very supportive. You're laughing already.

ERIN MAGUIRE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, "NEVER BACK DOWN" PAC: I am.

CORNISH: What is funny about this, Erin Maguire?

MAGUIRE: That is a word salad that said absolutely nothing of any consequence or gave a real answer. But that's what Democrats are doing now. They don't want to talk about what everybody saw, which is a severely deteriorated president of the United States. And when they were asked questions, the -- they would flip out and get very defensive. But all of them, they're -- it's safe to say there was a cover up at this point. I think that's very clear. We're talking about information access.

CORNISH: When people say coverup, help me understand that.

MAGUIRE: Yes.

CORNISH: Because there are certain political terms that get thrown around to the point that they don't have any meaning.

MAGUIRE: This definitely --

CORNISH: And coverup is one that I would like to preserve for when there is something provable in court. What is it that people are trying to convey with this idea?

MAGUIRE: What they are conveying is the reality that there was a clear decline in the president of the United States, and there was choices made by aides and his family to keep that information from the public. And not only to keep it, but to hide it. You can -- and you saw it in real time.

CORNISH: Yes, And I -- I should say, to be clear, on "The View" a few weeks ago, Dr. Jill Biden very much denied that. I want to just make sure that that -- I say that out loud.

MAGUIRE: She -- she can -- she can deny it all she wants --

CORNISH: Yes.

MAGUIRE: But you can watch the reality. He started to take the short stairs up to Air Force One. He had staff --

CORNISH: And a number of falls. Yes.

MAGUIRE: And a number of falls. He had staff walk him to the plane.

CORNISH: Sabrina, let me let you jump in. Yes.

SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: You know, I think -- I think it is a good thing to look at history. I think it is good to look back and see what we can learn from this moment.

I also think, and -- and I -- I credit the authors for their book and -- and exposing some of the things that a lot of people didn't know.

We also cannot lose sight of the fact that we have to talk about today, and we have to talk about the future. And Joe Biden is the past. And it's not -- I'm not trying to dodge. I truly mean this. We have a bill that is going through the House that's going to cut Medicaid for millions of people. We have a president who's going to take, potentially, a $400 million plane that's going to have to be completely retrofitted, and money -- tax money -- dollar money spent to do that.

So, I think we can keep looking at the past, but for Democrats at least, we got to talk about the bills.

CORNISH: Yes. Well, it's a little but like the plane, though.

DEMSAS: (INAUDIBLE) --

CORNISH: Like, it's not going away.

SINGH: It's not going away.

CORNISH: It's a conversation that's not going away.

SINGH: But we also, like, if we're still -- Joe Biden is not running again. As far as I know, he's not running again. We're going to have a whole new crop of candidates. We have the midterms in front of us. We have the potential to flip a chamber. We got to focus on that.

DEMSAS: I think it's -- Medicaid cuts are obviously more important than anything else that's going on right now, if that actually does end up happening. But if you can't be a credible messenger on policy, if people think that you've been lying to them repeatedly about the commander in chief's ability to do the job. I mean there's something here where there's a real problem for people who end up do -- running for -- for president in 2028.

I mean, if you were in that cabinet, what are you going to say? Either, I was so uninvolved in any decisions that it's not meaningful responsibilities that you can count on.

CORNISH: Yes.

DEMSAS: Or you're going to say, I actually did know what was going on.

CORNISH: Neither great.

DEMSAS: So, neither sounds great to me.

CORNISH: Yes, neither great.

DEMSAS: And that's why they're floundering. And also (INAUDIBLE) AOC, you know --

CORNISH: But -- and -- and also to your point, as long as there's not a -- a forefront -- like someone at the forefront, a leading voice, the conversation is Biden, I think, for longer than maybe Democrats want it to be.

SINGH: And you have a lot of books still coming out. So --

CORNISH: Oh, yes, the books.

OK, group chat, stick around. We've got more to get to.

In fact, today in "THE SITUATION ROOM," Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer will sit down with Wolf Blitzer and Pam Brown to talk about the state of the Democratic Party.

Hey, guys, this is where we get a review from Michael's wife, Melinda, who is our target viewer.

MAGUIRE: OK.

CORNISH: She is us. MAGUIRE: (INAUDIBLE).

CORNISH: A -- a smart woman.

MAGUIRE: Yes.

CORNISH: Yes.

All right, still to come on CNN THIS MORNING, crucial arguments today in the Supreme Court. We're going to be weighing the power that judges have when it comes to limiting the president.

Plus, it was a case that gripped the nation. Alex Murdaugh's trial. Why a court clerk involved in that case is now facing her own charges.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:53:11]

CORNISH: The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments today on President Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship and curb the power of federal courts, seen as a roadblock to his agenda. At issue, did the lower courts overstep their power when they stopped the president from enforcing his executive order to end birthright citizenship? It's something that elected officials from several states have already said they will not follow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JB PRITZKER (D-IL): That's unconstitutional. And we will not follow an unconstitutional order.

ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's unfortunate, but not surprising that on day one the president decided to trample over the Constitution, attack American citizens, attack children, attack a bedrock principle of our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, what exactly is at stake here, and what precedent could this set? Joining me now to discuss, CNN's chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic. My favorite, because you always help me understand this. There are two things going on here. One, the actual birthright citizenship issue.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Right.

CORNISH: But then this other thing that I feel like that's hanging over all of these cases, which is, are the lower courts allowed to rule in the way they are.

BISKUPIC: Right. And what they're trying to do is a regional district court is trying to issue an order that would affect not just his or her region or district, but the whole country. And in this case, it's a fairly interesting test case of that, just because the policy that President Donald Trump wants to institute would be so sweeping. The -- the -- at the center of the whole thing is an executive order that he issued on January 20th that would end what's known as birthright citizenship.

CORNISH: Which, for the longest time, was a fringe legal theory that has sort of moved further as --

BISKUPIC: The ending of it, correct.

CORNISH: The ending of it.

BISKUPIC: Because --

CORNISH: Yes. And, in fact, I think John Eastman, the guy who also was behind the fake electors scheme, was involved in this theory.

BISKUPIC: Right. And he was a rare, extreme conservative.

[06:55:01]

Many conservatives believe what -- what --

CORNISH: It was a done deal, yes.

BISKUPIC: Yes. That the 14th Amendment, from 1868, says that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are -- their children would be -- automatically be citizens. And that -- that was the -- the -- the -- the idea throughout the country. In 1898, there was a landmark Supreme Court case that endorsed that. So, we're, you know, more than a century of operating this way. But that core issue of whether Donald Trump can automatically lift that for people, for children of parents who are here unlawfully, or on temporary visas. That's what he -- that's what he's proposing to do.

The -- that is the backdrop for the question about judicial power. And as I said, the issue is whether an individual district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction. Now, that's happened under the Biden administration --

CORNISH: Yes.

BISKUPIC: Under the previous Trump administration. It's been a real issue. But in this kind of case, you can almost see why there would be a reason to have a nationwide injunction, because this would be such a sweeping policy. Would some babies born in Texas have different rights of citizenship than children born elsewhere?

CORNISH: Yes.

BISKUPIC: So, that's why this is one of consistency here, Audie.

CORNISH: OK, we're all going to be listening to see sort of how the -- the justices signaled during the conversation.

BISKUPIC: Yes. CORNISH: Joan, thanks so much.

BISKUPIC: Sure.

CORNISH: Appreciate it.

BISKUPIC: Appreciate you.

CORNISH: OK, it is now 56 minutes past the hour. Your morning roundup begins with an FAA meeting on how to stem the ongoing cancellations and delays at Newark's airport, which will pick back up today. The agency wants the airlines to cut flights there.

Now, during a hearing on Capitol Hill, the FAA's deputy chief operating officer acknowledged that, yes, staffing's tight. He said there were just three controllers working all Newark arrivals and departures for more than an hour on Monday night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REBECCA HILL, FORMER CLERK OF COURT: Guilty verdict, signed by the forelady, 03/02/23.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: A moment that gripped the nation two years ago when Alex Murdaugh was convicted of killing his wife and son. Now, the woman who read that verdict has been arrested. Former Clerk of the Court Rebecca Hill, is accused of showing sealed evidence to a reporter and then lying about it under oath. She's charged with obstructing justice and misconduct.

And the Voyager One spacecraft is 15 billion miles away, but NASA just brought part of it back to life. Engineers successfully revived its thrusters, and that helps keep its antenna pointed at earth so that it can send data back. The Voyager One has been in space since 1977.

We are going to talk next about what we're keeping an eye on, guys. I want to start with you, Jerusalem. What are you watching for this rest of the week?

DEMSAS: Yes, well, you just talked a lot about it right now. I think the birthright citizenship case and those arguments are going to be extremely important. I mean not just for the legal questions that are at -- at -- you know, on display, which I think, honestly, most Supreme Court watchers seem to find it unbelievable that they would rule against birthright citizenship. And so, seeing whether the Supreme Court surprises us again, but also just for fundamental questions on how people define America. Right now there are these legal debates.

CORNISH: For being an American.

DEMSAS: Exactly.

CORNISH: Yes. DEMSAS: And, like, there's these legal debates and there's also cultural and -- and normative debates that are happening in the country about, you know, with all this immigration coming in, who gets to be an American citizen, who gets to be a part of this country.

CORNISH: And a reminder, I think it's just the U.S. and Canada that has birthright citizenship.

So, Erin Maguire.

MAGUIRE: Yes. Other than the Buffalo Bills schedule and figuring out which games I'm going to this season --

CORNISH: Let's lean into that. OK.

MAGUIRE: But on a serious note, it's the Medicaid cuts coming out of the tax bill. I understand the language, and I don't know what the final provisions are going to look like, but the Medicaid cuts, if there's language in there about able bodied people, I just worry about those who need addictive substance help. They may be considered able bodied. I just don't know what that language looks like.

My brother was on Medicaid. That's how he went into rehab, was being able to pay for that through the Medicaid system. Ultimately, he lost that addiction battle, but I worry about other families like mine. My brother might have been considered able bodied, but he was struggling so much with addiction he couldn't hold down a job. So, for somebody like me with a family like mine, that's what I'm worried about.

CORNISH: Erin, I'm sorry.

MAGUIRE: Thank you.

CORNISH: Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Sabrina.

SINGH: Well, I think to -- on Erin's point, what I'm watching are the Republicans, specifically the moderate Republicans, who are going to have to take this vote, which potentially means, you know, upwards of 8 million people being kicked off of Medicaid. And the midterms are coming up. This is going to be a very crucial vote that Democrats are paying attention to. And you absolutely believe that people in their districts are going to hear from these, you know, members of Congress, and Democrats will hold them accountable in the midterms.

CORNISH: Yes. It's interesting because so much of this is just about raw math, right? If you want to make the president's agenda work, including its tax cuts, the money has to come, quote/unquote, from somewhere. And it turns out that that somewhere actually undergirds so many very serious and helpful programs in the U.S.

[07:00:01]

And I'm really glad you brought up the treatment issue, because I think something -- there was a letter written by like 300 people, treatment specialists, who were, like, this is going to make a difference. So, as always, the devil is in the details.

You guys, thank you. We talked about so much today. I really appreciate you.

And thank you for waking up with us. I'm Audie Cornish. And "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.