Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Biden Calls For 18-Year Term Limits, Binding Code Of Ethics; Exclusive: Inside The Supreme Court's Negotiations And Compromise On Idaho's Abortion Ban; FBI: Trump Agrees To Victim Interview In Shooting Investigation; Trump Just Endorsed Five Candidates In Two Races. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired July 29, 2024 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

MJ LEE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: -- really important, but also just personal chemistry and her knowing that she wants to have a partner who's going to stand by her and, you know, be loyal, be trustworthy. I assume that those are going to be really, really important.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Have to be at an important point --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- that we probably all kind of glossed over on some level.

All right, guys, stick around. Next, today, President Biden is taking on the conservative Supreme Court with proposals for what you could call seismic change, including term limits. What more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:35:03]

MATTINGLY: President Biden is set to push for major changes to the Supreme Court, including 18-year term limits for justices in a strict new ethics code. Now, this big announcement is coming in a speech a little later today in Texas. But can he actually make it happen?

CNN's Paula Reid joins me now. And Paula, tell us more about this plan.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: What's exactly that bill? This is a plan. These are not things that the President can do unilaterally. Some of these proposals would require a Congress to pass legislation. And when it comes to potentially amending the Constitution, of course, that would also involve the states.

But here, the President has proposed 18-year term limits for justices, a code of conduct for the justices that is actually enforceable. They do have an ethics code, but there's no enforcement mechanism, so it's effectively toothless. And then he's also proposing a constitutional amendment to prohibit blanket immunity for president. So that is, of course, a response to the Supreme Court's recent decision related to former President Trump and whether he had immunity.

And the President wrote in an op-ed today that the reason he is offering these proposals is, quote, "What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public's confidence in the court's decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach."

And he is referring to the fact that the approval rating for the high court continues to decline. A lot of questions about ethics and even recent decisions. Now, Phil, one of the most prominent responses to this so-called plan has been from Leonard Leo. He is not a household name, but he is the architect of former President Trump's whole judicial strategy.

He, along with Mitch McConnell, helped the former president usher in this conservative supermajority. He doesn't talk too much, but today he weighed in on these proposals saying, quote, "Let me be clear. If Democrats want to adopt an across the board ethics ban for all branches, I'm in favor of that. No jets, no meals, no speaking honorariums, no gifts for anyone from anyone for any reason in any branch, starting with Congress. Until they support that, let's all be honest about what this is, a campaign to destroy a court they disagree with."

So it's clear, Phil, Congress is unlikely to act on any of these proposals. It's hard to get legislation, even when there is some agreement, this is increasingly a partisan issue. But Leonard, he has laid out some ideas that I think he might find some consensus with the Democrats. But obviously something that is not likely to gain traction in an election year.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Aspirational at best. Striking coming from a president who is one of the few Democrats who did not want to go down this path. Now they certainly are looking towards that.

Paula Reid, as always, thanks so much.

Well, in Iowa today, a six-week ban on abortion officially takes effect. About 20 states now have full bans at -- or partial bans at six weeks, before many women even know they're pregnant. And those bans are possible, of course, because the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.

This year, though, the court actually rejected efforts to enact even more restrictions. In one case, the justices voted 6 to 3 to allow doctors in Idaho to provide emergency abortions. Today, our Supreme Court expert Joan Biskupic has exclusive new reporting about how that decision came together.

Joan joins me now. Joan, I always, like, weeks after we finish each year, I wait anxiously for your behind the scenes reporting --

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Thanks.

MATTINGLY: -- on some momentous occasion. Explain to people what you found here. BISKUPIC: Sure. I wanted to know how they went from a majority vote to let Idaho's very restrictive abortion ban take effect over protests from the Biden administration that said it would hurt women who went to emergency rooms with complications from pregnancies. They didn't tell us what that vote was, but I found out that it was 6-3 with all the Republican appointed.

Conservatives voting to let Idaho's ban take effect and hear Idaho's case without the usual appellate procedure with lower courts. This was over protests from the three liberal justices who felt like this should play out in lower courts and not have Idaho's ban take complete effect.

But what happened, Phil, and where the mystery was for me, is how did they go from that vote in Idaho to this January to June, all of a sudden dismissing the case, saying essentially never mind. And what I discovered is when the justices voted behind the scenes a second time after oral arguments in this case, just as Amy Coney Barrett expressed enough concern about what was happening on the ground about women have been airlifted out of Idaho to other states where they could have emergency surgery for pregnancy complications.

Her concerns got the attention of Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, who thought, OK, we'll dismiss the case. But there was a complication here because three of the other conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch said, we don't need to dismiss this case.

They were still in favor of Idaho's ban. They thought that the Biden administration's claims here were meritless. So the -- suddenly, the liberal justices who, as you know, have very little leverage on this court suddenly had some leverage here and they said, we will vote to the -- two of them said, we will vote to dismiss this case only if you dissolve that January order that let Idaho's case ban going completely into effect.

[12:40:14]

Now, there is a little twist here, and I know we have a chart about how the justice is all finished out.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

BISKUPIC: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, our newest member of the court, she said, OK, I agree that they should get rid of this January order that suddenly led Idaho enforce its ban across the board, but I don't want to vote to dismiss this. So in the end, we just have those five key justices across ideological majority to do this.

But I have to say, Phil, this case is coming back because this is still a major conflict out in the states between states that have enforced these very strict bans only when -- with exemptions only to prevent the death of a woman as opposed to what the Biden administration is saying is that in certainly -- certain emergency situations to protect woman's health not just to avoid death. Abortion should be able to occur. MATTINGLY: You know, you talk about Ketanji Brown Jackson's role here. Talk about Amy Coney Barrett. This was a fascinating term for what her role is going to be in this court going forward.

BISKUPIC: That's so true. In fact, she was the one who, you know, really pressured her some conservative brethren here toward this dismissal. But, Phil, you're, you're right. Because in other cases, she also broke with just a few. It's not like we have a sudden pattern where anybody is saying that Justice Barrett is some closet liberal in any way.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

BISKUPIC: She's still mostly with her conservative camp. But, for example, she also voted with the liberals in an environmental case involving the EPA. She also voted with two of the liberal justices in a January 6th case over charges regarding obstruction of an official proceeding.

So she is inched over to the left in occasional cases that makes her sort of a justice who's in play much more than -- certainly, much more than Chief Justice John Roberts is anymore and more than Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who at one point looked like he might be a little open to overtures from the left.

MATTINGLY: Yes, we try to read the tea leaves. You actually tell us what's happening behind the scenes.

Joan Biskupic, as always my friend. It's a great story. Thanks so much.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, up next, urgent text messages, photos and warnings about Donald Trump's would be assassin a full hour and a half before he pulled the trigger. The newest disturbing details, those are ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:47:06]

MATTINGLY: The FBI said today that a key witness has agreed to be interviewed in their investigation into the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. The witness? The former president himself, who will sit for so-called victim interview. That's one of the nuggets of news that came out of an FBI briefing this morning.

CNN's Evan Perez joins me now with the latest update from investigators. What else did we learn, Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, one of the big things, obviously, is going to be this victim interview, which the former president has agreed to sit for. It is completely voluntary. But it will help put the, at least for the FBI's perspective, a little bit of a completion about what exactly occurred that day, which, of course, is their focus. One of the other things that we learned in this briefing by the FBI is that the shooter spent a lot of time actually preparing his attack. They discussed how he was, you know, looking online, doing online searches for some of these chemicals, for some of the things that he would need to be able to build these improvised devices.

We also know that he spent a lot of time doing a lot of searches on things like assassination attempts of the Slovak prime minister earlier this year. Also about mass shooting events. Again, this is something that the FBI profilers are trying to use to put a picture of his mental state, of exactly where he was and how long he'd been planning this attack, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Evan, given all that, how did the shooter avoid suspicion from family, from friends, as he was making gun and explosive purchases ahead of this shooting?

PEREZ: Well, one of the things that we learned in this briefing is that he was using these -- he's using aliases and encrypted email accounts. He made about 50 gun-related purchases over the past few months, Phil. A lot of it, again, under aliases as he collected some of the chemicals that he was going to use for these devices. Nothing at all that set off any alarms for his family members.

One of the other things that they told us was he was a bit of a loner. He didn't really have any friends. His entire social circle, it appears, was his family members and none of them noticed anything. Phil?

MATTINGLY: All right, Evan Perez for us in the latest. Another big week on this front. I know there's public testimony tomorrow from the acting head of the Secret Service, the FBI deputy director as well. So we'll continue to learn more throughout the course of the week.

Evan will keep reporting on it. Appreciate your time as always, my friend.

Well, up next, heads, he wins, fails. He also wins. Donald Trump has a brand new can't lose endorsement strategies. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:54:10]

MATTINGLY: Donald Trump just made a big endorsement in the Missouri governor's race. And I mean big, with a guaranteed winner, not to mention a couple of guaranteed losers, too. That's because he's actually endorsing all three of the leading candidates in next week's Republican gubernatorial primary telling Missouri voters, "Choose any one of them. You can't go wrong."

And of course, all three candidates, Jay Ashcroft, Mike Kehoe, and Bill Eigel were quick to go on social media or put out statements touting the all-important Trump endorsement. Now, if that's not enough for you, he's also endorsing the two top Republicans competing in tomorrow's primary for Arizona's 8th Congressional District, giving both Blake Masters and Abe Hamadeh his, quote, "complete and total endorsement."

Now, both are strong Trump supporters. Both have echoed his election lies. Previously, Trump had only backed Hamadeh putting him at odds with his VP nominee, J.D. Vance, a friend who had energetically endorsed Blake Masters. Now, everyone's friends.

[12:55:04]

It's a little bit like Rob Lowe with the NFL hat at a game rooting for just the NFL. It's not a bad strategy. You kind of win. Problem solved. Good luck, everyone.

And thank you for joining Inside Politics. Seeing CNN News Central starts after the break.