The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired April 09, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. [17:00:00] … TAPPER: …this is just from video. I'm not investigating the case. Would the officers have been able to tell whether he was wearing a seat belt through those windows? KERSTEN: Every time we look at a shooting, we're looking at the totality of the circumstances. So that would include any of the interactions that led to officers interacting, you know, with Dexter Reed. And so we will specifically, in this investigation, be looking at what led to and precipitated the traffic stop in all facets. Yes. TAPPER: So your office says, after reviewing preliminary evidence, that it appears that Dexter Reed fired first. That obviously would be a very significant finding. Was that determination made by reviewing the video and audio that your office released today and slowing it down and studying it? How did you reach that conclusion? KERSTEN: Correct. The evidence we have at this time, obviously, Dexter Reed, having been fatally shot, cannot provide his version of events. And so the information that we have at this time is largely focused on interviews from officers, as well as, obviously, the audio and video footage. However, I just -- you know, that moment is very important in this investigation, but as are every aspect of the interaction, starting from the traffic stop all the way through the conclusion of the 96. TAPPER: So, her -- there she is. OK. Today you said that preliminary evidence confirms that the four officers returned fire approximately 96 times over a period of 41 seconds. Would that be considered excessive force? Kersten, can you hear me? KERSTEN: I can, yes. TAPPER: Would that be considered excessive force? The 96 times and 41 seconds? KERSTEN: Every time an officer uses force under CPD policy, that use of deadly force has to be necessary and proportional, and, objection -- objectively reasonable. So that's exactly what we will be determining in the course of our administrative investigation into this use of force. TAPPER: All right, Andrea Kersten, thank you so much. Appreciate your time. Good luck with the investigation. Turning now to our sports lead, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, which represents 241 smaller colleges and universities, they just approved a new policy banning transgender women from participating in most of its sports programs. The policy, which will go into an effect in August, says, quote, "Only NAIA," that's the organization, "Only NAIA student athletes whose biological sex is female may participate in NAIA sponsored female sports." Now, NAIA defines biological sex, the term they use as having, quote, distinguishing characteristics, and can be supported by birth certificate or signed affidavit," unquote. NAIA member colleges and universities have more than 83,000 student athletes among them. Joining us now to discuss is journalist and author of "Fair Play, How Sports Shape the Gender Debates," Katie Barnes. Katie, thank you for joining us. What do you make of the NAIA's new transgender participation policy? KATIE BARNES, AUTHOR, "FAIR PLAY: HOW SPORTS SHAPE THE GENDER DEBATES": Well, I think it is reflective of the times that we are in. In terms of, for the last three or four years, we have seen most policy updates when it comes to transgender athletes be reflective of restriction and in favor of more restrictive policy. And this seems to fall right in line with that. TAPPER: There is a narrative that transgender female athletes have an advantage, that they always win, that the reason that men and women generally compete in separate gender categories is because it's not particularly competitive for men to compete against women. Do studies support that? BARNES: Well, I think it depends on what you mean by support that. You know, for my reporting and having really reported this out for many years, the reality is that from a scientific perspective, we know that there are differences in sexes, and we know that the differences do tend to lead to athletic performance differences as well. However, when we look at broad based restriction at all levels of sport, it's very challenging to say that scientifically that is supported in all cases. Meaning that something that might be appropriate for swimming does not necessarily apply to basketball when it comes to individual sports versus team sports as well as level of competition. And so the idea, I think, that transgender women have an advantage in all sports at all times, regardless of any kind of medical transition, I don't think that the scientific literature supports that at this time. [17:15:33] TAPPER: Would there be a way to come up with a rule that was more individual specific or sports specific that might not be -- I mean, it sounds as though you're suggesting, and if I'm putting words in your wrong, I apologize -- in your mouth, I apologize. It sounds like you're suggesting this policy is not necessarily fair, given how blanket it is. Is there a way to do something like this that would be more fair and more reflective of what is factually known about gender differences in different sports, etcetera? BARNES: You know, I don't know if it's -- I don't know if it's right for me to say whether or not this particular policy is fair. I think that right now, where we are as a society is really grappling with what does fair and appropriate policy look like. And in general, most athletic organizations and many states across the country are embracing a blanket restriction. And I think there are a lot of people raising questions about whether or not that is fair and appropriate policy in all cases. And I do think that the jury is out on that, especially because when you look at the NAIA, there isn't necessarily a track record of transgender women competing in women's sports and dominating. Right. It doesn't really seem like there is a particular problem, quote unquote, "to be solved" in this case. And so, in general, I think the real question is going to be what policy can withstand being tested and be accepted when a transgender woman does compete and win. And it seems like right now, the answer to that question is looking to remove any possibility of a transgender woman being able to participate and compete in women's sports at a variety of levels, and in this case, including collegiately. TAPPER: Do we have any idea what the numbers are of transgender athletes that are participating in college or university athletics or even junior high or high school athletics? I mean, the amount of coverage and attention it gets is significant, and I don't know how many people we're even talking about necessarily. BARNES: We're talking about a very small number of people. I think that's really important to acknowledge, especially now that 24 states have past restrictive policies will have passed restrictive legislation, excuse me, that affects K through 12 and often college sports. And so, in about half the country, transgender girls and women don't have access to girls and women's sports at this time anyway. And in those states where you still have transgender girls and women eligible to participate in girls and women's sports, the numbers that are doing so are not necessarily known. It's not a data set that is readily available. But from the reporting that I have done over the years, the accepted number, so to speak, is very small and very few oftentimes in states where this has been debated and a number of athletes have come forward who are younger, who are talking about their experiences. We're talking about single digits in each state. And in the collegiate ranks, even though, like the NCAA, for example, supports -- sports that have about half a million athletes across 24 sports at all three divisions, you're still looking at a very small number. You know, probably -- I mean, we don't know it specifically, but I've been told from sources that it's well under 100. And so -- that are actively using the NCAA's policy. In the NAIA, we don't really know how many known athletes there are, but it also is very small. And so we're not talking about thousands of athletes or tens of thousands of athletes. We're oftentimes talking about hundreds, maybe tens. TAPPER: Katie Barnes, thanks so much. Really appreciate your time. BARNES: Thank you for having me. TAPPER: Spring break did nothing to break a simmering feud among some House Republicans. Fresh new drama today, including over the House GOP planned to send articles of impeachment of the Department of Homeland Security secretary over to the U.S. Senate. That story's next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:24:02] TAPPER: In our politics lead, members of Congress are back in Washington after a presumably refreshing two week spring recess. But the mood among House Republicans still does not reflect the sunshine and flowers on the grounds of the U.S. capitol. Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, for one, still in a fighting mood. Today, Greene is putting all her grievances with Speaker Mike Johnson, perhaps the most conservative House speaker in modern history and whom she called a Democrat last night. In a scathing five page letter to her Republican colleagues blaming Johnson for, quote, "throwing our own razor-thin majority into chaos by not serving his own GOP conference that elected him," unquote. CNN's Melanie Zanona joins us from Capitol Hill. Greene's letter, Melanie, also warns that she will not tolerate Johnson's upcoming push to put on the floor for a vote, a Ukraine aid bill. What exactly does that mean, she won't tolerate it? MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, Greene has been very careful not to draw any red line. She still has not said if and when she's actually going to force a potential floor vote on ousting the speaker, despite us repeatedly pressing her. But she has warned and suggested that if Johnson moves ahead with Ukraine funding, as he is going to do, that could lead to his ultimate ouster. Our Manu Raju caught up with Greene earlier today. Here's what she had to say. [17:25:14] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): If Mike Johnson wants to lead that after he voted no against funding 300 million to Ukraine just back in September, he's going to make my case for me and he makes it even easier for what I'm trying to do. I'm not laying out my red lines, my triggers, a date and a giant headline. That's not what this is about. This is about a process that has to take time, that needs to be done well, because so much is at stake. (END VIDEO CLIP) ZANONA: Now, some Republicans think that Marjorie Taylor Greene is just using this threat as a scare tactic to try to get her way on Ukraine. Others thinks that she's simply just doing this for attention. But if you're Mike Johnson, you cannot take anything for chance, especially given the razor thin House majority right now. And he has really struggled to rein in Marjorie Taylor Greene. He was hoping to speak with her over the recess break, but that call never happened. And Marjorie Taylor Greene says she refused to speak with him because she wanted to speak to her constituents first at a ton hall yesterday. So far, they have not connected yet, though, which is a huge problem for Speaker Mike Johnson as he heads into this pivotal week for his speakership. TAPPER: Melanie, what are you hearing from other lawmakers? Are there Democrats or Republicans who will go along and join Greene if she files a motion to vacate and remove him as House speaker? ZANONA: Well, the House is still really scarred from that last motion to vacate. In my conversations with senior lawmakers here on Capitol Hill, there is a feeling that there's going to be enough Republicans and Democrats who join hands and table or kill a potential motion to vacate. But at the same time, Marjorie Taylor Green says she has some other silent Republicans who are on her side. There have been some who have not said where they stand yet. And Democrats have said they would only step in to save Johnson if he does, quote, "the right thing on Ukraine." But that's really open for interpretation. And so it's a risky strategy for Johnson to simply rely on Democratic votes. And again, he cannot take anything for chance here. TAPPER: There's also some new developments in the House. Republican's impeachment push against Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, they obviously already voted to impeach him. What comes next? ZANONA: Yes. Well, initially, the House was going to send over those impeachment articles on Wednesday over to the Senate. But they just announced today that they are going to delay that to next week. And that is because Senate Republicans had been urging Mike Johnson to delay this step so that they could build more time to build a case for a trial. That is something that Democrats are planning to dismiss quickly. Republicans want to have a strategy to counter that effort. But as of right now, Democrats still insisting that they're planning to dismiss that trial quickly. TAPPER: All right. CNN's Melanie Zanona on Capitol Hill, thanks so much. With us now, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York. Thanks for joining us. REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Thanks for having me, Jake. TAPPER: So, I'm sorry that these are my questions, but I didn't create this drama and it's very real. And I'm not the one that agreed to a one person motion to vacate. That's you guys, not me. CNN was shown a copy of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's letters to her Republican colleagues. Did you get a copy? LAWLER: I did. TAPPER: So, what did you think of it? LAWLER: Look, I think it's a bunch of hogwash. I mean, at the end of the day here, the American people elected a House Republican majority to govern to serve as a check and balance on the Biden administration, not to fight amongst ourselves. It's mind boggling to me that after what happened in October, where eight Republicans teamed up with 208 Democrats to remove Kevin McCarthy and throw our majority into disarray, that we would be back in this situation where a member is bringing forward a motion to vacate. To say that Mike Johnson is not a conservative, I would hate to know what she thinks of me then, because, you know, obviously I'm representing a district that Joe Biden -- TAPPER: Yes. LAWLER: -- won by 10 points. TAPPER: Right. LAWLER: That's home to Bill and Hillary Clinton and George Soros. Mike Johnson's won of the most conservative districts in the country. TAPPER: Well, not only that, I think he is just as a factual matter, at least in the modern era, the most conservative Republican, when you combine it with social issues to ever be speaker, ever. LAWLER: That may well be with the smallest majority ever. And so, you know, for me, we have issues that are on our side, whether you're talking about the border, whether you're talking about the affordability crisis. You see the Democrats disintegrating on Israel before our very eyes. And, you know, Senator Schumer and Nancy Pelosi throwing Israel under the bus here. And meanwhile, you know, we have Marjorie Taylor Greene now trying to make this all about a motion to vacate. We have to work together. We have to get the agenda of the American people, you know, passed. And that includes supporting our allies. TAPPER: Like Ukraine. LAWLER: China, Russia and Iran are not our friends. TAPPER: Right. [17:30:00] LAWLER: They are not our allies. Ukraine is an ally. And the reality is, if Ukraine falls, Moldova and other former soviet satellite states will be in grave jeopardy. And you look at the situation in the Middle East, you see Democrats wanting to put conditions on aid to Israel. That cannot be. Hamas is a terrorist organization that seeks to destroy the state of Israel. And as far as I'm concerned, we have an obligation as leader of the free world to support our allies in this time of need. TAPPER: So speaking of Ukraine, I want to play for you something that Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said…