Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

DeSantis In First Campaign Stop: Time To "Impose Our Will" On D.C.; Biden-McCarthy Debt Deal Passes First Hurdle Amid Backlash; War Comes To Putin's Doorstep As Drones Strike Moscow Sites. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired May 30, 2023 - 21:00   ET

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

[21:00:00]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Video, posted online, showed flooding, in hallways, and cabins, and other damage. Luckily, everyone made it through OK. According to reports, some passengers and crew members needed minimal assistance, from medical staff.

That's it for us. The news continues. "CNN PRIMETIME" with Pamela Brown starts now.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST, CNN PRIMETIME: Thanks, Anderson.

Good evening, and thanks for joining me.

There may be a deal. But the nation can't breathe a sigh of relief just yet. The drama only intensifying, tonight, with America drawing closer, and closer, to a potential default, this time, it's not between the two parties. It's mostly between Republicans.

But the debt deal did just pass a crucial test, advancing out of the Republican-dominated House Rules Committee, this evening, despite opposition, from hardliners, like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Not one Republican should vote for this deal. It is a bad deal.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How much -- I mean, how much confidence do you have, in the Speaker, right now?

REP. DAN BISHOP (R-NC): None. Zero.

RAJU: Is the Speaker lying about the way he's characterizing this bill?

BISHOP: Yes, he's lying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: But members of the House Freedom Caucus, like Congressman Roy and Bishop are still struggling, to come up with a strategy, to actually block the deal, tonight. And there's also a divide, over whether to try to oust McCarthy, as Speaker.

Now, as for the Republican leader, he says he is not concerned about losing his post, and can't seem to understand what all the fuss is about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): I'm not sure what in the bill, people are concerned about. It is the largest savings of $2.1 trillion we've ever had.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Now, a quick refresher of what is in this deal, struck by President Biden, and the Speaker, over this Memorial Day weekend.

It would replenish our near-empty Treasury, with borrowed cash, by suspending the debt ceiling, for two years. It also includes caps, on federal spending, more work requirements for food stamps, and cuts to IRS funding, among other things.

Now, neither party got everything it wanted, something the Senate Republican Leader noted, on the floor, earlier, as all of this GOP infighting plays out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Divided government means negotiated deals. It means nobody gets everything they want. But, in this case, it means the American people got a whole lot more progress, towards fiscal sanity than Washington Democrats wanted to give them.

Speaker McCarthy, and House Republicans, these are our times.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Well, now that this bill has advanced, there could be a full House vote, as soon as tomorrow. And a Senate vote as soon as Thursday. And, of course, President Biden would have to sign it before Monday's default deadline.

We turn now to Chief Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju, with the very latest.

Manu?

RAJU: Yes, right now, this bill clearing a key hurdle, on its way, to the House floor, tomorrow.

Just moments ago, the House Rules Committee, which is really the first step, in the legislative process, voted seven to six, barely clearing enough votes, getting a majority votes, to adopt a rule that essentially ensures this bill can be considered, and be approved, by a majority vote.

Now, that didn't -- this vote that came tonight did not come without some drama. In fact, two Republican members, on the committee, have emerged, as some of the most outspoken critics, of this bill. Chip Roy being one of them. Ralph Norman being another.

Chip Roy even contending that there was a secret deal that was cut between him, and the Speaker, back in January, for the Speaker to become the Speaker of the House that ensured that essentially that all nine Republicans, on the House Rules Committee, must agree, to any of the for -- to a rule, before that bill is considered on the floor.

Well, that didn't happen. Just now seven of the nine voted for it. Even as McCarthy, and his allies, essentially reject the notion that there's some sort of secret deal, all underscoring the tension ahead of tomorrow's vote.

There are a number of Republicans, on the far-right, who are concerned, about this bill, argue it did not go far enough, in cutting spending, and say the Speaker himself is not providing a correct and fair representation of all that is in there.

In particular, there are concerns, about the length of the debt limit suspension. It would now it would extend until January of 2025. Some want to fight a much shorter timeframe, trying to extract concessions, from the White House, in an election year.

But the Speaker believes that this is the best approach, and a lot of members agree with him. There is an expectation, among the Speaker, and his closest allies, that they will get a majority, of the House Republican Conference, behind it, tomorrow.

And that is a key threshold, because some members of that far-right Freedom Caucus are warning that if it gets underneath 150 votes or 100, majority of the Conference, of a minority of House Republicans support it tomorrow, then that could lead to a push, to essentially oust McCarthy, from the Speakership.

So, that will all play out tomorrow. Even as there is an expectation, at this moment that the bill will pass, with bipartisan support, Democrats will be needed, to shepherd this, over the finish line.

[21:05:00]

And just moments ago, behind closed doors, the Speaker himself, tried to make a case, to his members. He said to his members, "If you think, I failed you, I'm sorry. But if you think I failed, I think you're wrong."

Pam?

BROWN: All right, Manu Raju, you are busy, this week. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

In just moments, we're going to speak with a Republican, who is against the bill. So be sure to stand by for that.

But first, Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, kicking off his bid, for the presidency, in earnest, tonight, say Republicans need to end, what he calls a, quote, "Culture of losing."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): It's time we impose our will on Washington D.C.

(AUDIENCE CHEERS & APPLAUSE)

DESANTIS: And you can't do any of this if you don't win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Despite the glitchy Twitter event, this looks like what a Republican campaign usually does. His first official stop, a church, right outside Des Moines, Iowa. And he's going to follow up that with a three-day swing, through early -- key early states, including New Hampshire and South Carolina.

A pro-DeSantis Super PAC is spending big money, in Iowa. But the latest CNN national numbers still have him polling at about half of what Donald Trump is.

Joining me here, at the table, CNN's Eva McKend; NPR's Eric Deggans; former Biden-Harris campaign official, Ashley Allison; and former Trump 2020 campaign spokeswoman, Sarah Matthews.

So, the speech, tonight, had a lot of the same dark themes, Sarah that Trump has always pushed. But at the same time, DeSantis is trying to draw a contrast, between himself and Trump.

SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: Yes. And I think that one way that he is trying to do that is the electability argument, him saying that there's a culture of losing, right now. And that is a correct fair point.

I am a Republican, who's tired of losing. Trump lost us the House in 2018. He lost us the Presidency, in 2020. And his handpicked candidates, in the 2022 midterms, all lost.

But I think you're going to have to differentiate yourself, more than just an electability argument, for Trump voters, to want to switch over to you. And it is going to be interesting, to see how DeSantis will define himself.

I think one place that he has done an effective way, of doing that, is with COVID. He's tried to say, "Hey, look, Trump didn't" -- like "was for locking down the country. I opened up Florida." And so, he needs to do more of that by painting a starker contrast, between him and Trump, beyond just electability.

BROWN: And he also said, tonight, he's going to impose his will, on Washington. And he blames what he says are the problems in the country, on leftism, on woke ideology.

What do you make of that, Ashley? ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER NATIONAL COALITIONS DIRECTOR, BIDEN-HARRIS 2020: Well, we're here in Washington. And the Republican caucus can't even potentially stay together, to make sure we don't default on our debt. So, I don't think it's the left that is really the problem.

I think what DeSantis is actually doing is pretty interesting, is there's a long way to go in this Republican primary. And I think he just really wants to stay alive. I don't know if he even thinks he can get number one, in Iowa.

But he's like -- Iowans are used to kind of going against the status quo. In 2008, they picked Barack Obama. In 2020, they picked Pete Buttigieg, on the Democratic side. In 2016, they picked Donald Trump, who at that point was not part of the Washington establishment.

And so, I think he's thinking, "Let me see if I can get number two, in Iowa."

Then, we move on to New Hampshire, and maybe somebody else beat -- wins in New Hampshire, maybe a Chris Sununu, if he gets in the race. And that just keeps me viable, and also counters that Trump is the almighty winner, of the Republican primary. And it's a viable strategy, actually.

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER: Yes. It's also a small pool of voters, in Iowa. So, it makes a lot of sense, if you're trying to capture momentum, off the bat, and shake up this narrative that Trump is going to walk away, with this primary, right away, to really invest in that State.

I think part of, I guess, the secret weapon that he has is the Super PAC, right? Never Back Down is out there, right alongside, his campaign volunteers, speaking to voters, registering voters, engaging with voters. So, he has that.

The only thing that I think that maybe is a miscalculation, from my conversations, with Democratic voters, and Independent voters, moderate Democrats, is he makes this argument that Trump has a ceiling, and that he has more appeal, with this slice of the electorate, that he can appeal to, to more Independents than Trump can.

And, right now, Democrats, I think, are pretty effectively messaged, internally, that Trump and DeSantis are equally as extreme. That is something that he is going to have to contend with.

BROWN: Right.

ERIC DEGGANS, TV CRITIC & MEDIA ANALYST, NPR: Yes.

BROWN: Go ahead.

DEGGANS: It's been really interesting to see this, because I feel like DeSantis hasn't really gone after Trump, as much as he really needs to, to make an impression. If he comes in second, in Iowa, well, he's polling second, nationally, behind Trump, anyway. So, is that really a victory? That's what everyone expects.

[21:10:00]

I live in Florida. I live in St. Petersburg, in the Tampa Bay area. And one thing that I know is that DeSantis does scare off middle-of the road voters. And so, everything that he's doing to try to appeal to the MAGA base is turning off swing voters, people, who are a little more conservative -- or a little less conservative.

And I think that's the needle he's got to thread. How can he appeal to Iowa voters, and the MAGA crowd, and still be positioned to come back to the center, if he's lucky enough to actually win the nomination?

BROWN: Yes. And when it comes to Trump, it is a tricky balance, because he is popular, in the party. I mean, he is the front-runner by a lot.

So, how do you think DeSantis should handle that? I mean, we've seen him come out, and start to attack Trump more, but not the full fledge, as you note, attacks that you believe he should be doing right now?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I think that he is going to have to take Trump head-on in order to make a case for why voters should support him instead. And that is something that he seems to be doing a little bit more, now that he's actually a declared candidate. But he's definitely going to have to ramp it up.

And I will say too, on Iowa, I think that that is going to be a place, where DeSantis could really turn things around. He's had some early stumbles, in his campaign. But the Never Back Down, his Super PAC, has already -- I believe they said that they've knocked 50,000 doors, in Iowa alone, already. And that's kind of campaigning that I think could really turn things around.

BROWN: And there's -- and I was reading today that there's a political operative working, for DeSantis, who also helped Ted Cruz win, in Iowa, back in 2016.

Do you think the fact, Eva, that Trump has such a big lead means that Iowa matters more than it historically has?

MCKEND: Well, it has known, as Ashley was saying, historically, to surprise people. So, it makes a lot of sense of the strategy, I think.

One of the pastors that I met just a few weeks ago, out there, at the Faith and Freedom Coalition, he happened to be one of the pastors praying with -- one of the 15 pastors, praying with Governor DeSantis, before an event, tonight.

So, that just gives you a sense of just how small it is, right? There's a chance that we're all going to meet the same folks as we spend the next few months, out there.

ALLISON: Yes.

MCKEND: So, I understand why there's so much emphasis, on that State. It's the first one.

DEGGANS: Yes.

BROWN: And he's obviously holding his event, tonight, in a church. 64 percent of caucusgoers, in Iowa, are born-again Christians. Clearly, he's being strategic in targeting the voters.

DEGGANS: He needs to make an impression. He needs to do something to move the needle.

And as odd a comparison as it is, when Barack Obama won, in Iowa, it was a sign that he was a real contender, as a candidate, for the Democratic nomination.

DeSantis needs a moment like that. What we've seen is stumbles. What we've seen is people trying to say "No, he's good at retail politics, trust us." What he needs is a transformative moment. And if Iowa can give that to him, obviously, that would be a great achievement for him. I'm a little skeptical.

BROWN: All right. Thank you all so much. Stay with us. The good news is we're all coming back to continue our discussions.

Up next, we're going to talk to one Republican, who says she is a no on the debt ceiling deal.

And she was once the darling of Silicon Valley, riding on private jets, and gracing magazine covers. But tonight, Elizabeth Holmes is in federal prison, starting her 11-year sentence. I'm going to speak live with a former federal inmate, and prison consultant, about what Holmes' life will be like, behind those walls.

Plus, Ukraine bracing for retaliation, tonight, from Russia, after drones attack Vladimir Putin's doorstep, of Moscow.

[21:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: More on our breaking news tonight. The Biden-McCarthy debt deal, passing its first hurdle, as the House Rules Committee advances the bill, to the floor.

But Speaker McCarthy is under serious fire from his own party.

Joining us now, one Republican, who has said she is a no, on the deal, in its current form, Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, of Indiana.

So, you just left a behind the closed doors meeting, with McCarthy. Are you now going to vote for this deal?

REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ (R-IN): Well, thank you for having me.

As someone, who has spent over a decade, in professional accounting, I wanted to share some numbers, with you. The current deal, what we have is, reducing our spending by $1.5 trillion, over 10 years. We have shortfall just this year, in addition to all of the debts, $1.5 trillion.

So, we're not even getting to pre-COVID numbers adjusted for inflation with our discretionary spending. With our mandatory spending, we're not even touching almost nothing, in the ton of fraud and abuse. And we don't even have a conversation, how we can resolve this fiscal insanity.

I look at Government Accountability report, audited financials. 50 percent are not audited. Almost $250 billion of money was not in proper payments. And we're not dealing with anything like that. So, I'm very disappointed that we cannot have a serious conversation, about the future of our country.

And I always say, like great run with a great artist. Michelangelo said the biggest danger for most of us is not that we set our expectations too high, and achieve them, but actually too low and reach them. And I think the expectation is set too low, and American people need to demand more from Congress.

BROWN: OK. So, to be clear, you are still a no, on this current deal?

SPARTZ: I don't think it is actually material enough with dealing with --

BROWN: So that's --

SPARTZ: -- immensity of material problems.

BROWN: a no? OK. So, then what is --

SPARTZ: No, I'm not.

BROWN: What is stopping Republicans then from passing what you want without tying it to the debt ceiling?

You heard, from McConnell, Senator McConnell, earlier today, saying, "Look, it's a divided government. Compromise is what you have to do. No party is going to be happy. But at least Republicans are getting something. Democrats are getting something too."

Why not just wait and do it separately?

SPARTZ: Well, unfortunately, I wish we would not have to deal with this situation. It shouldn't be part of debt ceiling. But unfortunately, we have completely broken budget and prices.

Over 90 percent of our spending is unauthorized by Congress. In this case -- we continue spending. Unfortunately, we do not have any mechanism, even to have a discussion, or force politician, to grow backbone, to deal with very serious issues, and abuses, and fraud, in the system.

[21:20:00]

So, I think, this is the only time we actually we can have a conversation. And otherwise, everyone goes, their own places, places politics spend (ph), politics with people's life, and do nothing. And I hate to say. It shouldn't be part of debt deal.

BROWN: So then, do you think the country --

SPARTZ: I completely agree.

BROWN: Do you think then the country defaulting on its debt is the solution to your concerns?

SPARTZ: Oh, no, I think we could, if we have to give more time, we could vote, on this proposal, and give some more time. But not at the end of 2025. We cannot plan again for another year and a half.

So, I would be willing to give short extensions, so we can have a serious conversation, where we can save money, in our budget, and maybe go through budget and prices, and maybe for a change, actually, pass budget actually commit us, to follow it, and convince the other branch to do it.

BROWN: But --

SPARTZ: But I'm willing to do that.

BROWN: Time is of the essence, though. As you know, the Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, says that everything needs to be paid June 5.

And just getting close to the deadline, it badly damaged the economy, in 2011. I mean, what cuts would be worth a repeat of taking this to the brink? Again, 2011 is a great example of what could happen when we get too close.

SPARTZ: Well, I agree with you. We had over months to have this conversations. And no one was wanting to deal with that. Politicians like to put it to the deadline, then they can do whatever they want, instead of having serious conversation about it. And we always have this fake deadlines.

If we want to expand, our deadline, for another month, I would be willing to do it. Even though it's strange to me that Democrats controlled the House and Senate, last year, they didn't deal with it. And President didn't want to deal it till last second. And Chuck Schumer didn't even pass the bill.

House passes a bill. The process should work, House passes a bill, Senate passes the bill, and will go to Congress, for meeting. That's how the process should work.

They never even passed the bill. So, I think this is the lack of their duty, as Congress. But I would be willing even to say, OK, for a short period of time, we shouldn't be defaulting on the debt. It's wrong. We'll give extension, but not till the end of 2024 that no one is going to be doing nothing for another year and a half.

BROWN: Yes. And of course, the reasoning that the negotiators say that is, is because they don't want this to be a big part in the upcoming presidential election. But I want to ask you, if this deal passes without a Republican majority, one of your colleagues says McCarthy should be ousted. Do you agree?

SPARTZ: Well, listen, I think, Kevin did what he could. I don't think he put good faith, in the efforts, and negotiating that. I probably disagree some of the things he did. But I think he tried to work hard. And we'll see how he continues to do.

I mean, that is not something -- you know, it's hard to be a leader. We have a disagreement. But ultimately, I do not believe that people feel right now that he completely failed, even though he did fail on this deal. I truly believe we could have done much better. We must do much better. This is our duty to the American people, to do much better.

BROWN: So, just to be clear, if he doesn't get a majority of Republicans, on his side, you do not believe that that should lead to his ouster, correct?

SPARTZ: Well, listen, if you're someone, who wants to make a case, I personally think, he did what he could, and from what he started. I disagree with that. But I think he had good-faith efforts. And ultimately, the jury's out, on some other things. We'll see where he's going to do.

But I don't take from one thing that I disagree I would think that he would need to be taken out of his office. I think he's trying very hard. It's very difficult job. But if you want to lead, you have to be tough, and be able to win this difficult job. And I do not consider it to be a win.

BROWN: All right, Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, thank you for your time, this evening.

SPARTZ: Thank you.

BROWN: Up next, disgraced entrepreneur, Elizabeth Holmes, reporting to prison. What she faces in her next decade-plus behind bars? We're going to discuss.

[21:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: From private jets to prison walls, disgraced entrepreneur, Elizabeth Holmes, today, turning herself in, to federal prison camp, Bryan, in Texas.

It's a stunning turn, for a former Silicon Valley darling. Her company, Theranos, was once valued at around $9 billion, after claiming it could accurately test for hundreds of health issues, using just a few drops of blood.

In November, Holmes was convicted, on multiple counts of defrauding investors. And she is now set to spend the next 11 years of her life, in that minimum security prison camp, alongside 600 other women offenders.

So, what exactly will it be like in there? My next guest has first- hand experience. Holli Coulman is a former inmate turned paralegal, and advocate, for women's prison reform. She helps run Pink Lady Prison Consultants, which is led by people, who used to be incarcerated.

Holli, thanks for coming on the show, tonight.

So, for the rich and powerful, who do face prison time, there is this belief, this perception that some are left off the hook, by being sent to cushier prisons. What's the reality here, when it comes to this prison, for Elizabeth?

HOLLI COULMAN, CO-FOUNDER, PINK LADY PRISON CONSULTANTS, FORMER FEDERAL INMATE: There is no thing as Camp Cupcake. There is no Club Fed. These are prisons, and she is experiencing prison-like conditions.

Her first step-in today, she was processed, and that laid the ground by moving her right through the system. And she's getting quite the dose of reality, because COVID has been very rampant still, in Federal Bureau of Prisons, in the BOP.

So, she's been placed in quarantine, with other women that have either self-surrendered or have been transferred, from other facilities. So, she hasn't even made it yet to a cubicle, where she would have three other inmates with her.

You have to remember, a lot of these prisons are also on Superfund sites. So, there's contaminated water. Year over year, as women come and go, there are no cleaning supplies that contain any bleach. And so, they have a pink solution that's sloshed around. It's filthy. It's dirty. It's rundown.

[21:30:00]

She's experiencing, also coming in, you've got people, who are very upset with her, because she refuses to take that responsibility, of possibly endanger, and had endangered friends, family members, of either, the officers and the inmates. So, you've got that on top of her as well, that it's not necessarily a great greeting for her.

BROWN: Right. I mean, of course, she's not like any other inmate, right?

COULMAN: The -- yes.

BROWN: I mean, she was a high-profile national --

COULMAN: No.

BROWN: -- story. She's likely, as you point out, she's likely to be recognized.

She won't be the first well-known inmate there. We know that "Real Housewives of Salt Lake City" star, Jennifer Shah, is also serving her time there, as well, for her involvement, in a telemarketing fraud scheme.

But how do you think being a celebrity, or a well-known figure, will affect her treatment there?

COULMAN: Again, it's that piece -- she's a unique individual. It's a little bit different with, from Jen Shah. It's because of that indifference and the way that she's portrayed herself, Elizabeth has, that it's going to be harder on her.

The women aren't going to be friendly to her. The officers are certainly not going to be friendly to her. She is going to experience, where they may get in her face more. They may shine their lights coming in to do the stand-up checks, or even the quiet checks, at 12 midnight, 3 AM, 5 AM.

This is -- she's got an 11-year sentence. And with good time, in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, she still has a living, over nine years, if she doesn't take any programming classes and other things. That's nine years of this reality. She is going to need to --

BROWN: And she knows.

COULMAN: Yes. She needs to become very humble, very quickly.

BROWN: It sounds like --

COULMAN: And that is not --

BROWN: -- she is going to be in a very humbling --

COULMAN: Yes.

BROWN: -- environment, for quite some time. She is still appealing her conviction. We should note --

COULMAN: Correct.

BROWN: -- her request to remain free on bail was denied, earlier this month. And one of the reasons that she put forward is that she's a mom to a 2-year-old, and a newborn, now just 3-months-old. Would there be accommodations made for her in that regard?

COULMAN: No.

BROWN: I mean, those are young kids.

COULMAN: No. They're very young kids. I served time with women, who were pregnant and also had very young kids at home. It doesn't matter. That will not take into any consideration of lessening anything of her time.

Now, she needs to really try and keep her relationships. And that means by you get 300 minutes a month for phone calls. That's 10 minutes a day. There's email. But that's not going to -- there's video shots. And that's not the same thing --

BROWN: What about visitation?

COULMAN: -- as being there.

BROWN: Like, visiting, having her kids visit her?

COULMAN: Visitation, again with that COVID, right now, Bryan is green, which means there are visitation. But there is a process for friends and family having to be cleared first. And then having them come in and see Mom only from 8 AM, until maybe 3 PM, in the afternoon. It's going to take its toll.

Plus, there's things on the backside for Elizabeth that when she goes into visitation, there are things that she has to go through, such as perhaps search, as well as perhaps even a strip search, on the way back out. So, that's why a lot of women forego even having a visitation. But I know that she has these young children, so she's going to need to try her best, to stay connected.

BROWN: All right, Holli Coulman, wow, thank you for coming on. We appreciate it.

COULMAN: Thank you for having me.

BROWN: Well, up next, a dangerous turn, in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The war has come to Vladimir Putin's doorstep, both capitals on alert, tonight, after a series of attacks. And now, Ukraine is bracing for Putin's revenge.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The Ukrainian capital of Kyiv is bracing for more drone strikes, tonight, after the Kremlin blamed Ukraine, for a drone attack, on Moscow, the first to hit civilian areas, in the Russian capital. Several residential buildings were damaged, and two people were injured.

Ukraine denies any direct involvement in this attack. But it's the latest sign that the war could be entering a new phase. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has even said the timing of Ukraine's counteroffensive has been set.

CNN's Jim Sciutto is here, to break down the very latest.

A lot has been going on these last 24 hours.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

BROWN: Jim, bring us up to speed.

SCIUTTO: So, biggest thing is that Ukraine is proving its ability, to strike, in Russian-controlled territory, Russian-controlled territory, inside Ukraine, taken over since the invasion, but also crucially, inside Russia. Here, Kursk, across the border, and Belgorod, Voronezh, but in Moscow.

And on civilian targets, there, it seems with drones? Now, Ukraine has not claimed responsibility, but they have not denied direct responsibility for this. But the key seems to be showing an ability, to attack behind enemy lines, even on the Russian homeland.

And the crucial timing here is that in advance of this highly- anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive, showing an ability to attack there, but also keeping Russia, on its toes, so to speak. They don't know where they might strike next.

BROWN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BROWN: I mean it seems as though it is.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BROWN: I mean, Vladimir Putin, for his part, has said this was terrorist activity. As you point out, though, Ukrainians, the top officials there are saying, we did not have direct, keyword, involvement --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BROWN: -- in what happened in Moscow.

What more do we know about how these drones were used and who could be behind them?

SCIUTTO: So, we don't know what specific drones were used. We do know that in the past, Ukraine has used old Soviet-era drones. Listen, this goes back to the 70s, not as capable as drones as we know today. But, to your point, they don't deny direct -- well they're denying direct responsibility. They're not denying any responsibility here.

And that's key, because, listen, we've talked a lot about the Ukraine war. Russia, throughout the war, has attacked Ukrainian civilian sites, in Kyiv, repeatedly, including, horribly, in the last 24 hours, and going back, all across the country here.

So, for Ukraine, to attack a civilian target, inside Russia, is a step, and could create tension, between Ukraine and its NATO backers, and the U.S., for attacking civilian targets, because it has given them the moral high ground, not to attack civilian targets, to this point.

BROWN: Right. And, of course, allies, including the U.S., have given Ukraine, tons of weapons.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

[21:40:00]

BROWN: But there's always been that concern or that precondition, this should not be used.

SCIUTTO: That could be the red line here. It's not clear that Ukraine has used. In fact there's no evidence that Ukraine has used Western- supplied weapons, to strike Russian territory, certainly civilian targets, in Moscow.

And that could create divisions, between Ukraine and its Western backers, if it were to use such weapons, to do so, given all the -- and purely understandable and justifiable anger that the U.S. and Western allies have expressed, due to Russians attack -- Russia's attacks, on civilian targets, inside Ukraine.

BROWN: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BROWN: But it's interesting, too, that the U.S.-supplied Patriot missiles have really been helping save lives there, in Ukraine, in the wake of those attacks.

SCIUTTO: No question. And they've been very successful in. And we should not equate the two of these things, because Russia has been attacking.

So, first of all, Russia attacked Ukraine, unprovoked. And it's been attacking --

BROWN: I think that's really the point, right.

SCIUTTO: -- civilian targets, for close to a year and a half, since it invaded Ukraine, going back to February.

BROWN: Can't lose sight of that for sure.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BROWN: Jim Sciutto, thank you so much.

Well, let's get more perspective now, from former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker. He was also the U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine.

Ambassador Volker, thanks for coming on tonight.

So, this morning, Russian President Putin responded to the Moscow drone attacks. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIA (through translator): Kyiv chose the path of intimidation of Russian citizens, and attacks on residential buildings. It is a clear sign of terrorist activity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, calling this terrorist activity, suggests how seriously he takes this, and the kind of response he could take. Do you think Putin might use this moment, as grounds, for even more severe tactics?

AMB. KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS: Well, first off, I think if Putin could use more severe tactics, he would already be doing it. His force is doing very badly, in Ukraine. He's escalated the attacks, on Ukrainian cities, already. If he could do more, he would.

And I think his messaging here is really about trying to reassure the Russian public, who have got to be freaking out that there are actually attacks happening, inside Russia, now, something that they had not seen before.

He's called this a special military operation. He has said that this is responding against NATO, responding against Nazis in Ukraine. And now, all of a sudden, there's actually something happening, inside Russia. This is putting pressure on him. And he's trying to control the narrative.

BROWN: What does that do, in terms of public sentiment, in Russia, the fact that Russian civilians are now feeling the effects of this war on their own soil?

VOLKER: Well, the first thing is, I think, is bringing home to them the idea that this is actually a war.

Putin has tried to portray this as a special military operation, far away, dealing with something, inside Ukraine, and fully justified. And the fact that this is not what's happening is already evident to lots of people. Russia has lost so many people, so much equipment. The war has gone on so long. And now that they see something inside Russia, I think it adds to that confusion.

But one thing I want to come back to what Jim Sciutto said, which is making an assumption that Ukraine was targeting civilian targets. We don't know that. We don't know what the targets were, because all of the drones that were fired, were shot down by Russia. We don't know where they were going. It could have been military targets. We don't know. We also don't know where they were fired from, or who did it.

And so, I think we all have to assume that Ukraine would have facilitated this, in some way. But there's a lot we don't know. So, we shouldn't jump to assumptions.

BROWN: Well, let's talk more about that. And as Jim emphasized, Ukraine is basically denying direct involvement. But how credible is that? I mean, clearly very careful word selection there.

How credible is it, especially given our previous reporting that U.S. Intelligence picked up chatter of Ukrainian officials blaming each other for the Kremlin drone attack?

VOLKER: Yes. Well, the first thing is that remember, last week, we saw these attacks inside Russian territory, in Belgorod.

And these were all Russians, who are against Vladimir Putin, and who gathered some military equipment, made an incursion, just to prove a point that they could do so. They probably could not have done that without some kind of tacit Ukrainian support. But, at the same time, it wasn't Ukrainians doing it. Wasn't Ukraine conducting the attacks.

As far as the drones go? We don't know where they're fired from. And I think that's significant, because it's a long way, from the Ukrainian border, to Moscow, with a lot of air defenses, along the way.

So, for these drones to get there, it indicates to me they probably weren't fired from Ukraine, but somewhere inside Russia. Even then, we don't know who did it. It could be Ukrainian Special Forces. It could be these kind of Russian partisans. And it could be facilitated by Ukraine, in some way. There's just a lot that is unclear about all of this.

BROWN: All right. Kurt Volker, thank you for offering your perspective, tonight.

VOLKER: Thank you.

[21:45:00]

BROWN: And up next, the right's so-called war on Woke picks a red state darling, as its next target. Why critics are going after Chick- fil-A, and how the chain is responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: So, now, a Chick-fil-A facing fierce backlash, after announcing its new Vice President of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, also known as DEI.

Erick McReynolds has worked at the fast food giant, for more than 16 years, and has been with its DEI unit, since 2020. Chick-fil-A says the initiative will focus on promoting equal access to opportunities, valuing differences, and creating a culture of belonging.

And it's important to note that it does not mention the LGBTQ-plus community. Chick-fil-A has faced criticism, in the past, for giving financial support to organizations, with anti-LGBTQ views.

And yet, this announcement still sparked outrage, among some conservatives, online. They are calling for a boycott, over the company's, quote, "Anti-White, Anti-Christian Woke Agenda," and saying Chick-fil-A has gone woke.

How many more times can I say "Woke," right there?

What is the sin here? I mean, what is the sin?

[21:50:00]

ALLISON: OK. Let's just baseline, DEI is about creating an employee -- for Corporate America, is about creating environments, for their employees, to have, to feel belong, to feel safe, to be seen.

It's also an opportunity for then, their consumers, to get that same experience, when they come and frequent their stores. In this case, to go buy some chicken wings and waffle fries.

The people, who are anti-this are anti-anything that provides opportunities, for a person like me, for everybody sitting, women, people of color, LGBTQ. They don't want anyone to have a seat at the table.

The reality is, they will not feel probably any difference from this policy or this new position, if they like Chick-fil-A and go hire it. They just want somebody to blame. They want a boogeyman. They want to say this is woke.

The funny thing is, this policy actually might help them, because if they were to go into a store, and spout some views that might not be as popular to some of the Chick-fil-A customers, they could also too feel inclusion and equity in that moment.

So, they're -- it's frustrating because they're using a word, one, incorrectly, woke-ism. But two, DEI --

BROWN: That's --

ALLISON: -- as a sin, as you said, when really it is just about really what America is supposed to be about, welcoming immigrants, welcoming people, from all backgrounds, to have an opportunity, in this country.

BROWN: I want to actually get to that point you just made about using the word, woke, incorrectly, because that, like I said, I mean, that's what they're trying, the critics, are trying to hammer home.

DEGGANS: Well, basically what people are trying to do is demonize certain words. We saw Rush Limbaugh try to demonize the word, "Feminism." So now some conservatives are trying to demonize the word, "Woke."

There's a certain fragility there, like, they can't tolerate the mention of inclusion, without sort of jumping on this issue. But I think it does get to a very central difference, between liberals and conservatives, which is this idea that systemic racism, and systemic oppression, holds back, marginalized groups, in this country.

And the fact that a company, like Chick-fil-A, that's considered friendly to conservatives, that's very religious, felt the need to hire someone, like this, and promote them? They seem to be acknowledging that there's something out there they need to work, they need to focus on, that they need to make an effort to be inclusive to people, which I think is a wonderful thing. And I think some conservatives feel very threatened.

BROWN: Right. And I want to get your take on this, because, I mean, Chick-fil-A is considered a red state darling, right? How widespread is this, this criticism, among conservatives, against Chick-fil-A?

MATTHEWS: I think this is kind of just online, a lot of Twitter trolls, who are just kind of making something out of nothing.

If they're going to be upset that Chick-fil-A has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion department, and a DEI statement, on their website, then I would encourage them to go look up every single major corporation that they frequent daily, because most major corporations have that kind of department and statement on their website.

And so, it does seem a little ridiculous, to me, that people are calling for the boycott of Chick-fil-A, especially an organization that glorifies God, and promotes Christianity, and donates to Christian organizations, feels like the wrong target for their ire.

But at the same time, selfishly, I love Chick-fil-A. So, if this means shorter lines at Chick-fil-A, I'm all for it.

BROWN: You're all for it. I don't know if it will, though.

ALLISON: Right.

BROWN: I don't know, I'm like, this is actually going to hurt its bottom line.

DEGGANS: Well, I don't know, between getting their conservatives mad, and LGBTQ people, there may be plenty of room, at Chick-fil-As, if they don't get right on some of these issues.

BROWN: Well, I mean, but here's the bottom line, as you point out. I mean, just about every company has some Diversity and Inclusion part of it. So, they just want every company wiped out that has that as part of its mission statement? Or?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

ALLISON: Yes. They do. Yes.

MATTHEWS: Feels like they didn't think through that.

ALLISON: Well no, I think that's their point, is that they don't -- they want to invoke so much fury and anger that companies run away from it.

I mean, look what just happened with Target, and people coming in, and protesting having T-shirts, on it, with rainbows. I mean, I think -- I don't think Target made the correct decision in pulling the products that were on there. But that's their hope is that people will run scared.

The reality is most of these companies actually did not have these policies, before 2020, the murder of George Floyd. And there was a racial conversation, in our country, about really what you were talking about earlier, systemic racism, and companies realizing they need to look within, to try and get right. A lot of them have it on their website. It doesn't always mean that it comes out in all of their actual policies.

[21:55:00]

But just to your point on the woke-ism, I mean, they are using the language that candidates, in the front, running, like some of the top candidates, of the Republican Party, are using. "This woke-ism, this -- they're trying to take your country. It's the others, us versus them." And so, it is quite dangerous. It makes people feel like there isn't enough space, in our country, for everyone to belong.

And, I mean, unfortunately, it's a political ploy that some people are falling for. But that's not what this DEI work is about. That's not what being woke is about. And it's not actually what our country should be about.

DEGGANS: And you make a good point that they've had success with Target. They've had success with Bud Light.

ALLISON: Right.

DEGGANS: And I think maybe there's a sense among conservative activists if they can target another company, and make them back down, they will gain a reputation for being able to focus on people, and intimidate them.

BROWN: Yes, that's an important point.

All right, thank you so much, Ashley, Sarah, Eric.

Up next, on "CNN TONIGHT," a school teacher, investigated, for showing an animated Disney movie, in her classroom. And now, there's a petition, to remove the school board member, who reported her. The teacher joins Alisyn Camerota, up next.

[22:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)