The Lead with Jake Tapper Aired July 30, 2024 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:00:51] JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour as vice president Kamala Harris campaigns in a key battleground state, I'll be joined by one of her possible vice presidential contenders. Plus a tech billionaire going all in for the Harris campaign who is suggesting she should make a major change if she wins in November. Plus new exclusive reporting on what happened behind the scenes as the U.S. Supreme Court debated whether Donald Trump could be immune from criminal prosecution. And leading this hour, a failure on multiple levels, that's how the acting head of the U.S. Secret Service detail what happened with security protocol calls and the hours and minutes before the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Ronald Rowe testified during a contentious hearing before Senate lawmakers earlier today. He admitted that even though local officers warned about a man with a gun on a nearby roof, that information never made it to the U.S. Secret Service or to Trump's personal security detail. Rowe also promised that people will be held accountable once the multiple investigations into what happened had been completed. CNN's Whitney Wild starts off our coverage of this hour with more details on how the U.S. Secret Service is working to try to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RONALD ROWE JR., ACTING SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR: You're asking me, senator, to completely make a rush to judgment about somebody failing. I acknowledge this was a failure of the Secret Service -- SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Is it not prima facie that somebody has failed. The former president was shot. WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A fierce exchange between Senator Josh Hawley and Acting Secret Service Director Ron Rowe as Hawley pushed for more accountability after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. ROWE: I have lost sleep over that for the last 17 days just like -- HAWLEY: Then fire somebody to hold Secret Service accountable. ROWE: I will tell you, people will be held accountable, and I will do so with integrity and not rush to judgment and put people unfairly persecuted. HAWLEY: I can't believe that you are -- unfairly persecuted? We got people who are dead. ROWE: Unfairly, sir. We have -- WILD (voice-over): For more than three hours, senators pressed Rowe on how a gunman could possibly shoot at former President Donald Trump from the roof just 150 yards from Trump's podium. Rowe insisted that building was supposed to be covered by local law enforcement. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't that something that secret service should have covered? ROWE: We assumed that the state and locals had it. WILD (voice-over): For the first time the Secret Service provided photos that showed the Vantage Point local snipers positioned inside the building would have seen and that could have given them a clearer look at Thomas Crooks on the roof where he fired shots. ROWE: I cannot understand why there was not better coverage or at least somebody looking at that roofline when that's where they were posted. WILD (voice-over): Rowe detailed major breakdowns in communication saying local law enforcement knew Crooks had a weapon seconds before he shot. But that information never made it to the Secret Service. ROWE: It appears that that information was stuck or siloed in that state and local channel. Nothing about man on the roof. Nothing about man with a gun. None of that information ever made it over our net. WILD (voice-over): Rowe also described failures of technology. According to the FBI, Crooks flew a drone above the rally around 3:50 p.m. about two hours before the shooting. The Secret Service had technology to defeat drones, but the system wasn't working until after 5:00 p.m. ROWE: I have no explanation for it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. ROWE: It is something that I feel as though we could have perhaps found him, we could have maybe stopped him. (END VIDEO CLIP) WILD (on camera): Jake, the FBI was also in that hearing and they have not yet been able to determine a motive but they did offer a little bit more insight into the shooters mindset. The FBI saying that the shooter had two social media accounts on Gab, one of those accounts associated with the shooter seem to reflect anti-semitic and anti- immigration themes. Well, another one of those accounts appears to have offered different points of view, Jake. Again, still no motive there. TAPPER: All right, Whitney Wild, thanks so much. The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and Michigan Democratic Senator Gary Peters joins us now in studio. Senator, Mr. Chairman, thanks for joining us. So, the acting director of the U.S. Secret Service Ronald Rowe told your committee today that information about the shooter and his position before he started firing was quote, "siloed and stuck in local law enforcement channels." Were you satisfied with his testimony and why was that information siloed? Is -- was the U.S. Secret Service suggesting that was the fault of local police? Or were they taking responsibility? [17:05:17] SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Well, I think ultimately it is the responsibility in Secret Service. Their job is to protect the former president and the nominee as well as all those individuals who are there in a political rally, they need to be protected as well. And certainly Secret Service always relies on local law enforcement to provide additional resources for them. But ultimately, it's their call. But one thing that came out in questions that I asked involves the communication system is that you had silos. The Secret Service will talk to Secret Service, local police talk to local police, there was not a great way to have the two talk together. And we see this time and time again. I saw this in our investigation of January 6, same thing, people weren't talking to each other. It doesn't seem to get fixed. So, there needs to be more communication together. We had the shooter up on the roof running across, people were seeing him that wasn't getting the Secret Service. And even when we would -- it was related to question that I asked, even when the one police officer jumped up to look and then the shooter pointed the gun at him, he dropped down, they immediately said shooter with a gun on the roof. TAPPER: Yes. PETERS: And about 30 seconds went by before the shot and those counter snipers took the shot, 30 seconds, that's a lot of time. If you had -- if you were on the call immediately, it's a guy with a gun on the roof, immediately the counter snipers would have immediately zoned in and they have prevented the catastrophic shooting that we saw. TAPPER: Do you agree with Senator Hawley that more people -- I mean, obviously, the former director of the CIA -- I mean, of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle, obviously she's resigned. But do you agree with Josh, Senator Hawley, that more people should have lost their jobs by now? Because he seemed upset that 17 days later, in his view, there wasn't enough accountability? PETERS: Well, there needs to be accountability. There's no argument with that. There needs to be accountability. This was without question catastrophic. In fact, you heard the director in his opening testimony, he said, you know, he actually went up on the roof laid down where the shooter was, and he said, you know, I'm ashamed, and this, I have no way I can possibly defend this, this should have never occurred. TAPPER: So it raises all the questions we're going to raise, like what kind of security plan was in place? So, you know, he's pointing fingers at local law enforcement. But shouldn't their security plans see this vulnerability of the high ground relatively close, certainly within shooting distance of the stage? Why was that not secured by Secret Service agents and not a local police force? PETERS: Yes, when you look at the map, it seems pretty obvious that somebody should be watching that roof. It's close and it's right there. PETERS: Yes. TAPPER: I want to turn to another big issue for the Homeland Security Committee Immigration. Former president Trump is -- has a first major ad out, T.V. ad, hitting Vice President Kamala Harris hard on immigration. You're the chair of the Homeland Security Committee. I'm wondering, what you think about the fact that your nominee is now the person who was whether or not she was actually officially a boarder czar, she certainly had a leadership responsibility in -- on the issue of immigration, she was in charge of going to the countries in Central America and stemming the tide there at this Edit Source, that that person is now your party's nominee. To some observers, it might look like you're doubling down on a weakness for your party. PETERS: Well, she was not the czar. TAPPER: Right. PETERS: She was tasked with dealing with the triangle there with folks that are coming from Central America that are coming north, and how do you stem some of that migration? What sort of resources need to be put in place to have people stay? Most people -- TAPPER: She still had a leadership role on that issue, though, is my point. PETERS: Yes, there's no question about that. But she did not have all encompassing oversight of that by any means. And if you look at where we are right now, actually, the number of folks coming across the border are at a low for the Biden presidency and actually are a little lower than when Donald Trump was president. So there have been actions taken. But I think you have -- we also have to remember that for both presidents what we need to have and what we've been working on in Homeland Security is you need to have changes in law to deal with the asylum system. Those have to be legal, otherwise are challenged in court. We know what happened last time, it was overthrown. And we were very close. We had a bipartisan agreement, which was significant that was coming before the Senate and then Donald Trump told his folks don't vote for that, I don't want to solve the problem, I want to use this as a political issue. The American people have to know we were close to coming together in a bipartisan way to have probably passed the most significant legislation dealing with border issues and decades and Donald Trump's stop that from happening. TAPPER: So before you go, got to ask you, Axios was first to report you're in contention as a possible running mate for Vice President Harris. You have a lot of ties with labor unions from your perch in Michigan. Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee from Michigan told Axios, quote, "I know for sure that one of the reasons his name is in the mix is that labor really wants to have somebody who is undoubtedly pro union, and Gary fits that definition quite well." Our own reporter on Capitol Hill Manu Raju asked you about it, you didn't confirm or deny whether you're being vetted. Have you submitted any vetting papers? [17:10:23] PETERS: Well, I'm -- I respect the process. And as you know how these process goes, I don't want to talk about any of that. The process is something the Vice President is going through. She's looking at a number of folks. She's got a long list of people she can be talking to. And whoever is the nominee, I will fully support. TAPPER: Do you think it's important that you pick somebody from the swath of Midwestern states that goes from Minnesota to Pennsylvania. Whether or not it's you, somebody in that part of the country that Democrats cannot keep the White House if you don't win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan? PETERS: Yes, I think that's safe to say. I wouldn't say Michigan, I didn't say it's impossible to be a president if you don't win Michigan, but clearly Pennsylvania, Wisconsin are in that group as well. So it's critically important. But with also unions, as you mentioned, Joe Biden was, without question, the most pro union president, he was on picket lines with the UAW. I was out there with him. Members appreciated the fact that he was authentic. And that's a big issue in Michigan, particularly now with labor unions having success. The success the UAW had in their last contract negotiation, not only increase the wages of UAW members, but increase the wages of folks throughout Michigan because when unions are successful, everybody is successful. And pro union is a critically important topic. And I know Kamala Harris is pro union. I know she's been on picket lines since that fact, she walked up a picket line for the SEIU in Michigan. She cares about that, but we need to also make sure we're focusing on the union movement and how that strengthens the American middle class. TAPPER: Senator Peters, thanks for being here today. Appreciate it. We're following breaking news out of the Middle East where Israel says it is carried out its strike targeting the man blamed for killing 12 kids in the Golan Heights. New details are just coming in. That's next. Plus, a tech billionaire announces he's all in for Kamala Harris. But is there a catch? He joins us live coming up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:16:02] TAPPER: We have breaking news for you now on our world lead, the Israeli military, the IDF, just announced a strike in Beirut, Lebanon a few hours ago, quote, "eliminated," end quote, the Hezbollah commander that Israel blames for Saturday's rocket attack that killed 12 children in the Golan Heights. The man was also wanted by the United States, we should note, in connection with the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which killed hundreds. Moments ago in Atlanta, Vice President Kamala Harris defended Israel's actions but also called for a negotiated peace deal to end the fighting. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to address what's happened over the last few hours in terms of the Middle East. And be very clear Israel has the right to defend itself. And I unequivocally support Israel's right to remain secure and to defend the security of Israel. What we know in particular is, yes, it has the right to defend itself against the terrorist organization which is exactly what Hezbollah is. But all of that being said we still must work on a diplomatic solution to end these attacks and we will continue to do that work. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: With us now, retired U.S. Air Force colonel and CNN military analyst Cedric Leighton. A U.S. official, Colonel Leighton, tells CNN that Israeli forces targeted Fu'ad Shukr, senior adviser to Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, Shukr is also wanted by the U.S. for his role in the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the IDF just announced he was eliminated, and the strike What more do you know about him? COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: So basically, Jake, he was the number three guy in Hezbollah according to what the Israeli intelligence services have said, and also what U.S. intelligence is reporting. So the basic de hierarchy here for him was that he was basically the strategic adviser to Nasrallah. And that put him in a very key position within Hezbollah. So he was a key target, and a key person to eliminate. TAPPER: Obviously, people are worried about a wider conflict breaking out or Israel's fighting multiple fronts, although it certainly already is, in some ways. Do you think that the strike amounts to a limited action to send a message to Hezbollah, but not big enough, so that all out regional war would break out? LEIGHTON: But I think the Israelis have gambled that that's the case. In other words, they think this is a limited strike going after one particular individual. But this is a very high level individual. And it could very well result in an escalation. The Israelis believe that this will be a limited -- have a limited impact on what Hezbollah does next. But I think we have to really be careful, but with how this escalatory ladder minds unravel at this particular point. So that I think remains to be seen whether or not the Israeli gamble will pay off. TAPPER: Hezbollah has been firing rockets into Israel ever since right after the Hamas attacks. On October 7, Israel responding in kind. Is it possible that Saturday's rocket strike in the Golan Heights that killed these 12 kids was an errant rocket and not intended for that part of the Golan Heights? LEIGHTON: It's very possible that that is the case, Jake. One of the reports that we've seen from the Israelis is that they believe that it is actually -- was actually an errant missile. The range of the missiles was fairly short range, it's about a 10 kilometers six mile range. It is easy to misfire missiles like this. And if they don't have the right fuel mix, it's possible that they could have gone off by accident were targeted the wrong area. The fact that they targeted a Druze community also indicates that this may have been a mistake because Hezbollah normally does not want to alienate the Druze population. TAPPER: Right, Druze are a Muslim population in Israel. Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you so much for your expertise. [17:20:01] The cofounder of LinkedIn is putting money behind Kamala Harris. But he's getting some pushback over one big item on his wish list for Vice President Harris. I'll ask him about it next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) TAPPER: In our money lead, rich Democratic donors and business leaders are contributing money to Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign, but some are asking, is there a catch? Some of these donors are now openly suggesting she should replace, Harris should replace the head of the Federal Trade Commission, progressive darling Lina Khan. Khan is a progressive antitrust icon. She's aggressively been trying to prevent big tech, big oil and others from forming monopoly she says once it could wipe out smaller businesses. On Monday, media mogul and democratic donor Barry Diller said he would lobby Kamala Harris to remove Lina Khan. And there is a similar sentiment being expressed by mega donor Reid Hoffman who donated 10 million dollars to the Biden Harris campaign and is planning on a major fundraising push for Kamala Harris. [17:25:06] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REID HOFFMAN, CO-FOUNDER, LINKEDIN: I do think that that Lina Khan is a bad -- is a person who is not helping America in her job and what she's doing. And so, I would hope that Vice President Harris would replace her. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: Reid Hoffman joins us now. Reid, thanks for joining us. So you and other big money donors are giving money to Vice President Harris suggesting also that she replace the head of the FTC, which impacts policy in the economy. What do you say to somebody who watches this and says, this isn't how American politics should work, rich people getting to buy levels of influence? HOFFMAN: Well, I totally agree with not buying levels of influence, I separate my role as a donor and expert. So if you ask me as a donor, I say I'm giving money to Kamala Harris because I think she's the best future president for the U.S. for business, for a bunch of other things. If you asked me as an expert about what, you know, kind of Lina Khan is doing and where I think she is helping or hurting America relative to your anti merger policies, which are, you know, mostly to bring litigation versus, you know, really solidly grounded and kind of what's going on, what helps American business thrive here and overseas, then I give an expert opinion. But I think donor an expert should be kept separate. And I've never tied the two ever, in any conversation anywhere I've ever had. TAPPER: Right? But I mean, that world doesn't really exist where people say, OK, now I'm talking to Reid Hoffman, the donor, and Reid Hoffman, the guy with political ideas, I'm going to put into the other room. I mean, politicians are human. And if they know that you and Barry Diller and other big donors are giving a lot of cash and want to get rid of Lina Khan from the FTC, they might listen to that more than they would listen to it from somebody in a restaurant. HOFFMAN: Well, you know, this is one of the things where I don't ever show up at the White House saying, I think you should do this. I mean, one of the things that President Biden has said to me every time he's met me, is I never asked for anything, because all I'm trying to do is help our leaders be the best governors. Now, if I'm asked as an expert, and you know, for example, shows like this, CNN, you know, say, well, what do you think, is the right expert point of view? I would say, well, here's what I think as an expert, and maybe people will listen to me more, and maybe you'll have me on television, because I'm a donor. But I definitely myself distinguish between my role as a donor and my role as an expert. And I don't ever -- when I'm doing fundraisers or anything else, I never say, you know, I'm only going to do a fundraiser for you, if, or, you know, since we're doing this fundraiser right now, where I'm raising money for you, I want you to hear my opinion on X. I respond to questions and expertise on them. TAPPER: So you sit on the board of Microsoft, and that, of course, is a company that has multiple FTC run ins, right now, there's an open FTC investigation into whether Microsoft structured one of its deals with your startup Inflexion AI in order to avoid a government review, that's according to reporting from both CNN and the Wall Street Journal. You're donating millions to Harris, while publicly stating you hope she replaces the FTC head who is leading that very investigation? Doesn't that create an inherent conflict? HOFFMAN: Well, let me talk about as a venture capitalist, because I've never talked about these things as a board member, I would say that one of the things that is the theory behind what the FTC does is to say let's create more competition for our tech companies. But if what you're doing is making acquisitions much more difficult out of the tech industry because these are small nation companies like Inflexion has no revenue, you know, et cetera, et cetera has a little bit now before its commercial deal with Microsoft, then you're creating less incentive for investment, less incentive or creating potential competition because you're blocking M&A exits. And so, you know, when I speak to these things, I speak more as a venture capitalist, I never speak as a Microsoft board member. Now, even in the Inflexion case, it is complicating in a set of things across venture investments, that if anytime that you're prospectively going to be purchased by one of the large tech companies, it may take, you know, years and review, may have, you know, kind of arbitrarily being challenged or investigated, then you're going to -- it's going to quell investment. And that's bad for creating new competitors. TAPPER: But there aren't all these -- aren't like 100 Reid Hoffman. It's not like one of you is a donor and one of you has opinions on Lina Khan and one of you is on the board of Microsoft and one of you is a venture capitalist, you're all the same guy. And I don't think there's a politician alive, that's able to compartmentalize the way you're suggesting they should. [17:30:01] HOFFMAN: Well, But to be clear, for example, I've never had a conversation with Kamala Harris about this, right? This is all like, I made a comment because it was like, What do you think about Kamala Harris for business? And I said, look, I think she's great rule of law. It's one of the backgrounds I think, was one of the reasons she's better than Trump. But I do have some things where I, you know, just as an expert, I would say that there would be things that could be improved in a Harris administration and the stuff and that was an example. But like, I don't talk to her about that. Now, of course, we can have these conversations. And you can say, hey, you know, she's not making this distinguished. So let's have this long conversation on CNN about it. And so she might watch our segment. And that's the way she would hear about as you talking to me. …