The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired June 20, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:00:29] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, it's hard to forget the images of a cargo ship crashing into the Baltimore bridge in March causing a devastating and deadly collapse. But while the cleanup and investigation have moved forward, those 21 crew members have been stuck on the ship for almost three months. Today, there was a hearing about letting them return to their families, mostly in India and Sri Lanka. And we'll bring you those updates. Plus, is the United States at risk of being pulled into yet another global conflict. The White House is issuing a stern warning after video emerges of a major clash in the South China Sea. And leading this hour, supreme suspense as the country waits for blockbuster decisions from the highest court in the land. The justice is issuing four rulings today, but we're still waiting on the three -- highly consequential ones that we have been talking about for weeks now. Former President Trump's claim that he has immunity from prosecution for actions he took as president, the case concerning whether January 6 defendants can be charged with obstruction of a proceeding under that specific law, and third, emergency room abortions. Let's get right to CNN Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic. And Joan, all of these huge decisions could come down within the next two weeks. Take us inside the court as this anticipation mounts. JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure, your phrase supreme suspense was exactly right. And you know, in addition to those big three that you mentioned, they also have a major case on Second Amendment gun rights. They have cases on social media regulation by governments. They have environmental protection cases, federal regulatory disputes, so a lot of major questions that are, you know, have been lingering for years that have come to combination this term. So you go in, Jake, at 10:00 Eastern time and then the nine justices, usually there are nine, today Justice Alito wasn't on the bench, the nine do sit. And the chief says to whoever's going to read the majority opinion for the day has them speak. But as you know, this is the season of dissent from the bench also, because we have so many big cases out there that, you know, a lot is at stake. And this is the time of year when a justice who's dissenting, wants to call more attention to his or her protest, and will speak from the bench. We had that last week and the bumps tax ruling when Justice Sotomayor protested the majority's decision to invalidate a federal regulation that prohibited bump stocks as machine guns. And you know, there is just a lot of anticipation in the room. Sometimes, relatives and friends of the justices come, often a spouse will show up. Today, Justice Kavanaugh's, his parents were there. So you know, it's just everyone in anticipation. And we do not know which cases are going to come when until we get to the very last day, which this year, Jake, should be potentially a week from next Friday or Monday, July 1. TAPPER: And the immunity decision, just a huge one, and obviously will have a significant impact on the presidential race and the timing of this decision can't be ignored. BISKUPIC: It can't, Jake. And I just want to remind everyone that the justices have had an opportunity to take up Jack Smith's request to examine presidential immunity back in December. Special Counsel Jack Smith representing the Department of Justice, the American people have asked the Supreme Court to actually look then at former President Trump's claim that he should be shielded from criminal prosecution for the events after the 2020 election. And the justices said no, they decided to wait until oral arguments on April 25. That's when they heard it. You know, we obviously saw them struggling with some pretty important questions. But now, they've already, you know, delayed many more weeks that if we get the ruling tomorrow or next week, we are right up against the November election in terms of a possible trial for former President Trump because, you know, I think just the preparation for any kind of trial is going to take about three months, if not more, Jake. So, no matter how they rule, I think the window of opportunity for any kind of prosecution on behalf of the Department of Justice might be doing dwindling, Jake. TAPPER: It's worth noting, of course that next week marks two years since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v Wade. And as the White House prepares -- BISKUPIC: Yes. TAPPER: -- to mark that, they're also bracing for this emergency room abortion ruling. BISKUPIC: That's right. And you know, just think of how much has changed in America since those justices struck down nearly 50 years of constitutional abortion rights. Some 14 states have completely banned abortion. Several other states have imposed very strict restrictions on people's ability -- women's ability to end a pregnancy. And we've now even seen debates over in vitro fertilization. [17:05:14] All sorts of reproductive rights are now, you know, now really in doubt because of that decision. And I think, Jake, no matter how the justices rule on that federal law that's intended to ensure emergency room treatment and whether that even applies for potential abortions for a mother's health in emergency situations in states like Idaho that ban abortion, that will not be the last word on litigation coming from that 2022 decision to completely eliminate constitutional abortion rights, Jake. TAPPER: All right, CNN's Joan Biskupic, thanks so much. BISKUPIC: Thanks. TAPPER: Let's discuss this all with our legal panel. Have with me, Elie Honig, Tom Dupree and Brandi Harden. Elie, if the presidential immunity decision ends up being last on the docket. So as you said, July something -- ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right. TAPPER: -- July 2 or something, what might the impact be on a potential trial? Do you think that's it, no trial until after the election? And obviously, if Trump wins, he'll get rid of it? HONIG: I think there's still a chance to get this trial in. And as Joan said, the window is very quickly closing. Every day that passes, of course, makes a trial less likely before the election. But we're really talking about sort of small change at this point. I mean, whether the decision comes down tomorrow or comes down 10 days from now doesn't make that big a difference. Here's what to watch, though, when the Supreme Court rules, I think what they're going to do is say, here's the test, first time we're ever announcing this, here's the test for presidential immunity. If the court says here's the test, and Trump fails, then it goes back to the trial court. And then I think they can squeeze in a trial before the election if they want. But if the court says, here's the new test, and now back to the trial court, you have to decide whether Trump needs that test or not, then we're going back up the appeals chain and then there's no trial. TAPPER: Don't you think that's the second option is what they're going to do? TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL G.W. BUSH ADMIN.: I think the Supreme Court has even basically take a middle position between the two somewhat extreme positions the parties have said. Jack Smith says there's basically no immunity. The Trump team says this absolute immunity, Supreme Court is going to come down in the middle. I don't think they are going to get into the facts of this case and apply their newly stated constitutional standard to Trump in this case. We saw from the argument that they are operating at a 30,000 foot level, they are thinking grand questions of constitutional law, they're not going down to this kind of granular get your hands dirty question of, well, what the stuff Trump did falls on the official side or on the private side, I think they're going to announce high arching legal principles, and then leave it to the lower courts to sort it all out. TAPPER: So, Brandi, in oral arguments on April 25, Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts said, quote, "As I read, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he's being prosecuted. Why shouldn't we either send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that's not the law?" Translate that into English for us. And how do you think that foretells what actually is going to happen? BRANDI HARDEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: So I really just think they're saying, look, if a president is being prosecuted, he can be prosecuted. There is that. That's obviously something that's true. But what I really think here is that just like everyone said, they are not going to make a decision, there's going to be new law that they come out with with respect to immunity, and they're just going to send it back to the courts. That's what's really going to happen. And let me say this, as a defense attorney, I think there is no chance, no possibility of a trial before the election. If I'm now starting a new, I have this file, I've been working on it, there is literally no possibility that I can get through everything and be prepared for trial, no matter how many people are on the team in order to be ready before the election. So I think once again, he's going to escape and there are not going to be any more trials before the election. TAPPER: Elie, you have an article coming out in tomorrow in New York magazine on the scenario posed by a D.C. court of appeals judge, which asked, quote, "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?" The argument being from the Trump lawyers at that time during that argument that you have to be impeached before you can be prosecuted? Impeach and convicted, I think. HONIG: Right. TAPPER: You argue it's way over simplified? Tell us what you mean. HONIG: Yes. I think that moment was the most memorable moment from all the Trump arguments, right? Who could forget it? The answer that Trump Donald Trump's lawyers gave was outrageous, wrong, reckless and dangerous. The problem is, you have to go beyond that. I am convinced the Supreme Court is going to reject this theory that anyone can only ever be indicted a president, if he's first been impeached, and then removed, that will never happen. The courts going to say no, that's ridiculous. But we don't have -- we can't end there. Because then the courts going to have to say, well, here's what the standard is. And that's where I think we get into what we've been talking about. So, it's not as easy as just saying, of course, you can't kill a political rival. Of course, they're going to reject this. What's taking so long? What's taking so long is they're trying to articulate the standard for the first time in American history, and then they're going to have to have that apply to the trial court. So it's much more complicated. TAPPER: What do you think the standard is going to be? DUPREE: I suspect this court will try to draw some sort of line between official conduct and private conduct. [17:10:00] TAPPER: Well, does supervising elections count as (inaudible)? DUPREE: Well, I mean, I think Jack Smith would have a pretty strong argument to say that the president doesn't really have any formal constitutional role in the election process. That's something that our framers basically delegated to the state, state legislatures and the like, not the president of the United States. So I think under that test, I think President Trump would have a difficult time trying to get out and claim immunity for that type of conduct. The other thing I want to say is with regard to Chief Justice Roberts quote, I think that actually is fairly significant, because as we all know, the chief sits right in the middle of a court. And what he says from the bench -- TAPPER: You mean, physically and philosophically? DUPREE: What about physically and philosophically? Exactly. And so, when he questions, I interpreted what he said, is basically questioning the D.C. Circuit, the lower courts rationale, where they rejected any sort of immunity. And the chief basically found that reasoning to be circular. So what that tells me is that is exceedingly likely that the Supreme Court is going to reverse what the lower court said and recognize some sort of immunity, the scope yet to be determined. TAPPER: Brandi, let's talk about this other case down in Florida, because the "New York Times" is reporting the two federal judges in Florida, urged Judge Aileen Cannon -- HARDEN: Yes. TAPPER: -- to hand off the classified documents case against Donald Trump when she first drew the assignment in June 2023. But quote, "Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges entreaties," unquote. We should note that one of the judges in the story declined to comment to CNN. But what do you make of this reporting, given how long this case has taken? HARDEN: So I think it's probably true that her colleagues have been talking to her about like the air of impropriety. Maybe there's not a smoking gun that she's done something so in incredibly unfair that would make her need to recuse herself. But why create a situation where someone can argue that she's tainted. She should hand the case off. She should allow another judge to handle. And I think that that's what makes all this speculation seem so true, that maybe she is showing favoritism to Mr. Trump. And I think -- TAPPER: That's the same argument you were making about Judge Merchan because he gave $35 to Democrats, $15 to Biden. And while -- I mean, why even have the stink of it? HONIG: Yes, there's -- recusal does not mean the case goes away -- HARDEN: Right. HONIG: -- to your point. Recusal means it goes to a judge who there's no questions about. By the way, if 999 out of 1000 federal judges, if another federal judge came up and said, hey, I think this case may be above your head, would say, thanks for the advice, I think keep it, right? HARDEN: Not happen. HONIG: So, she's definitely not going to let go of it because a couple of more senior judges said, you may not be up to the task. HARDEN: I think that's right. I mean, you know, your colleagues telling you to do something when you're an article three judge is not going to make you do it. But what I'm saying is that it's such a historic case, so there just is no reason to have the stench of somebody arguing that it's somehow unfair. DUPREE: Telling one judge -- one federal judge telling another judge, you should recuse because you're not up for the case. Though, to me, that is number one extraordinary. Number two, somebody inappropriate, frankly. I mean, if the reason why can and should have given up the case and we've seen him from reporting, maybe because there wasn't a secure, confidential information facility located in our courthouse. That's different. But if the rationale for stepping aside was, well, you're young, you're new, you don't know what you're doing, give it to one of the older judges, I don't know. That's questionable in my mind. TAPPER: Yes. My impression is judges tend to have rather healthy egos. HONIG: Especially doesn't life tenure. TAPPER: Yes, of course. For sure. HARDEN: Not going to tell me what -- TAPPER: Thanks, one and all for being here. Appreciate it. The trial of a Los Angeles ballerina is now underway in Russia. How a donation to charity led to her facing up to 20 years in prison. Plus, the violent confrontation at sea caught in video, one that experts say raises the risk of the U.S. being pulled into yet another global conflict. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:17:39] TAPPER: And our world lead, a 33-year-old Russian American ballerina who was detained in Russia and accused of committing treason for donating $50 to a Ukrainian charity appeared in a Russian court today. Ksenia Karelina, who lives in Los Angeles after immigrating to the United States more than a decade ago was detained earlier this year while visiting her grandparents in Russia. CNN's Matthew Chance joins us now from Moscow. Matthew, what happened in court today? MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the court date was put back until August the seventh where that trial will resume. But you know, Ksenia Karelina is facing extremely serious charges. These are treason charges. And then based on the allegation, I don't know whether it's a fact or not, that she donated, I think it was $51 to a U.S. based charity, which did humanitarian work inside Ukraine. And it's because of that, because she's a dual national as well, she's a US citizen, she's also a Russian citizen. But when she came back here earlier this year visiting her grandparents in the city of Yekaterinburg, which is about 1000 miles or so from Moscow, she was detained, she was accused of treason, and is facing a very set -- was facing a life sentence, maximum prison sentence if she's found guilty of that charge, because the Kremlin has recently increased the penalty for treason. And I think it just goes to show, Jake, how heavily the Kremlin is cracking down on any perception of dissent with, you know, amongst his own people, passing down sentences like this, targeting individuals like this, partly because of what she did. But you know, I think can't rule the idea that she was partly targeted as well because of that dual American passport. TAPPER: There are a number of Americans detained in Russia right now, obviously, Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, foremost perhaps among them, we certainly cover those two a lot on this show. How dangerous is it to simply just be an American existing in Russia? CHANCE: Well, I think it's getting increasingly dangerous. You're right, you know, Paul Whelan, Evan Gershkovitch, Alsu Kurmasheva, who was recently arrested she works for Radio Free, Europe. She's at dual national as well. You know, a golden black a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army, he was sentenced to just under four years the other day for stealing money and allegedly assaulting a woman believed to be his girlfriend, a Russian woman. Yes, incredibly dangerous. [17:20:15] And the State Department in fairness have been warning, sorry, U.S. citizens for some time about the dangers facing American passport holders in this country and warning people to stay away. And those recent cases and all those people in custody, they really sort of reiterate and underline those hazards and those dangers of being an American in Russia right now. TAPPER: Matthew Chance in Moscow thanks so much. The United States says it is standing by its allies in the Philippines after this video released by the Philippine Military shows one of its ships being sandwiched by the Chinese coast guard in the contested South China Sea. Multiple Philippine service members were reportedly injured. This class marks a clear escalation and could have serious implications for U.S. relations with China as CNN is Ivan Watson reports. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A high seas confrontation that could ignite a war. In the middle is a boat belonging to U.S. ally, the Philippines, sandwiched by the China Coast Guard in the heavily contested South China Sea on Monday. Footage released by the Armed Forces of the Philippines shows its uniformed sailors attempting to fight back. Some Chinese Coast Guard personnel armed with axes and knives. But Beijing says the Philippines started it. LIN JIAN, CHINESE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (through translator): Law enforcement measures taken by the China coast guard at the site were professional and restrained. WATSON (voice-over): Chinese says it seized guns and ammunition from the Philippine ship, which was on route to the Second Thomas Shoal. It is in Manila's exclusive economic zone, but Beijing claims almost all of the South China Sea for itself. In March, I was on board a Philippine Coast Guard ship on one of these routine trips. Chinese coast guard ships swarmed the Philippine ship. WATSON: It is just after sunrise and as you may see, there is a large Chinese Coast Guard ship directly in front of this Philippine Coast Guard vessel. WATSON (voice-over): A Chinese Coast Guard ship blasted another Philippine boat with water cannons. Monday's clash marks a clear escalation with multiple Philippine servicemen injured. Just last month, the Philippine President drew this red line. PRES. FERDINAND MARCOS JR., PHILLIPINES: If a Filipino citizen is killed by a willful act, that that is, I think, very, very close to what we define as an act of war. And therefore, we will respond accordingly. WATSON (voice-over): If that happens, the United States could be called to help the Philippines. And some experts argue Manila already has grounds to invoke its mutual defense treaty with the U.S. which has increased its military presence in the Philippines, angering China. RAY POWELL, GORDIAN KNOW CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY INNOVATION: The Philippines would be perfectly within his rights under the treaty to go to the United States and say, this meets the terms of Article Three, we need your help and enter into those formal high level consultations about what is to be done. WATSON (voice-over): In a call with his Filipino counterpart this week, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. commitment to defending the Philippines is ironclad. This simmering maritime dispute now threatens to boil over with all the potential for a much greater conflict. Ivan Watson, CNN. (END VIDEOTAPE) TAPPER: And our thanks to Ivan Watson for that report. Blurring the lines between church and state, is that what's going on? Louisiana is now requiring school classrooms to display the 10 commandments, one specific version of it. The new lawsuit plan to block this from happening is next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) …