Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Law Enforcement across U.S. Braces for Violence; Biden Nominates Burns for CIA Director; Criminal Liability for Insurrection at the Capitol; Biden Wants to Speed Vaccine Doses. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired January 11, 2021 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Jonathan, how could they not have seen this coming?

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: It's -- it -- it's stunning to me, Alisyn. You know, listen, since January 6th there's been a significant amount of evidence that's been presented to really codify the notion that this was a very highly publicized and well- coordinated event by the far right. And so much so that intelligence reports circulated by the FBI and other law enforcement entities, in advance of January 6th, really highlighted this risk.

For a long time, QAnon followers had talked about a siege on the Capitol with literally stating that we are going to occupy the Capitol through various, you know, digital online posts. So to suggest that there was no warning in advance of this is just not true.

It now comes to the question of, how were those signals missed by either the Capitol Police, how was there such a lack of planning for this event on this day.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And, Jonathan, what I'm hearing is there's real concern that it's not over, including from Republicans who felt that this was so far beyond the pale. They're very concerned about January 17th. They're very concerned about officials who are saying things like the Republican county chair of Nye County in Nevada, who's saying, Donald Trump didn't lose and he will still be president after January 20th.

What is the effect of people like that in positions of authority continuing to say those things out loud?

WACKROW: Well, it just solidifies the movement, unfortunately. And let me just say something, John, it is not over. What we are seeing, since January 6th, including up to this morning, in advance of this appearance, I was looking online, we are seeing amplified chatter of messages for an armed march on the Capitol on the 17th. We're looking at calls for marching on state capitals.

The issue is, this is no longer a probability assessment as to the likelihood of violence. We now know that there are people who are prepared to engage in domestic terrorism. And those individuals truly believe that there is an apocalyptic revolutionary ideology that they follow. This is a seminal moment in for law enforcement to go ahead and be proactive, to stop the individual actors and these groups from fermenting violence between today and on Inauguration Day.

And, really, my concern is less about the national Capitol region. We're seeing a large mobilization of law enforcement around the Capitol, the White House, and other key locations. My concern is individual states, softer targets, individual politicians, their residences. We just don't know where these attacks are going to develop.

CAMEROTA: Jonathan, first of all, what's the significance of the 17th? I mean, obviously, the inauguration is the 20th. And what will it look like around the country on the 17th? What should the police presence or preparation look like?

WACKROW: Well, listen, the -- what the police presence should be right now is highly amplified. They should be looking at and reaching out to all of their sources.

One of the good things for law enforcement, one of the advantages, is that they actually know who these groups are. They know who the Proud Boys are, the Oath Keepers, those who follow the QAnon conspiracy theories, the white nationalists who are really fomenting this violence. So they know who those actors are. They need to be very proactive in looking at, are there any warning signs coming out of those groups? What are the pre-attack indicators that, you know, could -- that they could actually key in on to stop violence at the nation's capitals or other locations prior to. I mean law enforcement has an extremely difficult job moving forward to stop the violence before it actually occurs.

But, listen, you know, when it comes down to it, you know, we're thinking about these mass attacks like we saw on January 6th. It could be a lone actor. And that's really what -- you know, the heightened risk right now is that it just takes one person with a particular ideology to launch an attack to change history.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

BERMAN: Jonathan Wackrow, thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: A radicalized ideology. I mean that's what we're seeing.

Jonathan, thank you very much.

WACKROW: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: President-elect Joe Biden has announced his choice to head the CIA. We have the breaking details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:38:19]

BERMAN: Breaking news. President-elect Joe Biden has just announced he will nominate William

Burns to be director of the CIA.

Let's go right to CNN's Jessica Dean, live in Wilmington, Delaware, with these breaking details.

Jessica.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, good morning to you, John.

The Biden transition confirming my colleague, Jeff Zeleny's reporting from earlier this morning, that William Burns will be President-elect Joe Biden's selection to be his CIA director. And if confirmed, Burns will become the first director in CIA's history to have his lifelong experience come from the State Department. We're told that Biden was really drawn to that diplomatic experience and Burns' perceived ability to restore credibility to the agency in the post-Trump era.

Burns, of course, has decades of foreign service experience. He's currently the president of an international affairs think tank in Washington, D.C. He's served five U.S. presidents.

Here is what President-elect Biden says about William Burns potentially becoming the next CIA director and his nomination to do so. He says, Ambassador Burns will bring the knowledge, judgment, and perspective we need to prevent and confront threats before they can reach our shores. The American people will sleep soundly with him as our next CIA director.

And, John, we're told that he does have support from Democrats and Republicans, which, of course, the Biden team hopes paves the way for an easy confirmation hearing. And interesting to note as well, in the Biden administration, the CIA director will not be a cabinet position. That is a difference from the Trump administration in which the CIA director did have a cabinet-level position.

[06:40:00]

John.

BERMAN: All right, Jessica Dean, thanks so much. Please keep us posted.

This morning, what legal jeopardy is the president of the United States in? We heard him tell the mob to march to the Capitol. Could he face criminal prosecution? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Republican colleague Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska says President Trump should resign. She said, quote, he's caused enough damage. Do you agree? SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA): Yes, I do. I think at this point, with just a

few days left, it's the best path forward, the best way to get this person in the rearview mirror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: That was Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, calling on President Trump to resign after he incited the violent rioters to storm the U.S. Capitol. Toomey also says the president may be criminally liable.

So, what does the law actually say?

CNN's senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Laura Coates, joins us now.

Laura, it's great to have you here.

[06:45:01]

So can the people, like President Trump, whose words drove that deadly mob to the Capitol building, be held liable?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, when (ph) does (ph) insurrection will likely lead to hundreds of charges, as you know, Alisyn, covering a range of crimes, from destruction of property, to seditious conspiracy, to murder. But the law does go beyond just punishing the people who actually commit the violence. The law can also punish anyone who incites it. And someone to do that, Matt Rally (ph) is going to put a magnifying glass on the words of at least four people who spoke at that rally and actually made statements that may have criminally incited a riot. We've got President Trump, his son, Don Jr., his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and even a fellow congressman, Mo Brooks.

But prosecutors actually have to prove it. And there's a deliberately high bar when it comes to punishing speech.

CAMEROTA: Explain that. So what would a prosecutor have to prove to make somebody criminally liable?

COATES: Well, they have to prove that they intended that their words were not protected speech and the defendant intended to actually use words that rallied people to take illegal action. The danger has got to be imminent. It can't be at some distant or indefinite point in the future. And the words must be said where violence is likely to happen.

So, here's what the law says about it. You know, in order to incite a riot, it includes but is not limited to urging or instigating other persons to riot. It's got to go beyond your old run-of-the-mill political rhetoric here. It's got to actually incite.

If you remember here, you have what they actually said. You've got the president saying, you'll never take our country back with weakness, confront weak Republicans. You've got Don Jr. saying, if you just roll over, if you don't fight, you're going to be the zero and not the hero. We are coming for you. The president's own lawyer saying, let's have trial by combat. And Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama saying, take down names and kick ass. See, these words rallied people. The danger was imminent. It focused on a particular joint session that was scheduled to begin not in the distant future but actually within minutes of the rally, and they said not just when violence was likely to happen, it did, in fact, happen here, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Right. But you know, Laura, they all say, well, that's not what I meant. We were just, you know, speaking sort of rhetorically. We didn't know that they would, you know, gin them up to violence. So how does a prosecutor prove intent?

COATES: Well, intent can be proven not only through direct, explicit statements, but also indirectly through actions and reactions. We (ph) pulled together kind of a timeline of what happened before the riot, during it, and afterwards to try to prove exactly what he intended.

Now, before the riot, you have him even saying and retweeting statements about there being a wild rally, about preparing the cavalry. And while it's actually happening, did he actually hinder law enforcement's responses? He didn't try to condemn it or clarify his words or even try to pull back the protesters. And you even have Ben Sasse saying that he was delighted, apparently, while watching Wednesday's events unfold. Sources told CNN that he was even borderline enthusiastic. And then he even tried to call senators during the siege to get them to delay counting the votes.

Now, the same, unconstitutional goal that started the riot, he was calling to ask them about during it. And, afterwards, he sent supportive tweets and messages to the insurrectionists saying that these are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is stripped away, but go home with peace and love.

CAMEROTA: Laura, look, we've all learned that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. That is not covered. You can't put people in danger. The First Amendment doesn't cover that. So where does the First Amendment come in here?

COATES: Well, that's what they're going to use as their defense here. They're going to say that the First Amendment essentially protected his speech. They're going to call it political hyperbole, like any other rally-esque speech. And how could they have known that this was going to happen? But for Trump, it wouldn't even be the first time that he argued that his words were that type of speech when he was accused of inciting violence. Do you remember this moment, Alisyn, from then candidate Trump?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (March 1, 2016): Get him the hell out! Get him the out! Don't hurt him. Don't hurt him. See, if I say, "go get him," I get in trouble with the press.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Got get -- get him out of here! Don't hurt him. The (INAUDIBLE) Court of Appeals settled that Trump's statements had led to members of that audience assaulting and even forcibly removing protesters did not constitute incitement because he added that caveat of, "don't hurt him." His speech was protected.

Now, that was a civil suit against a candidate, not a president. This would be from a criminal proceeding and maybe even an impeachment. But, either way, the House impeachment mangers or federal prosecutors are going to have to prove that his speech was not protected under the First Amendment to prove their cases.

[06:50:04]

But he will try to employ that similar defense and say he actually urged peace, not violence, in some of his follow-up videos.

You know, this time is actually different as well because he made additional statements in support of the violence that may legally negate his call for peace, especially when your colleague professed his love for this the special people and said, this is what happened when people are angry.

And, of course, none of this makes any difference if you've got corroborating witnesses who can prove that he intended to have this happen, that he wasn't really a passive observer, but actually perhaps a seditious conspirator who was trying to manipulate the masses to overturn a lawful election. And if Sasse is right, maybe even basking in the afterglow of an insurrection.

So prosecutors, you know, draw straight lines. They draw these straight lines why? Because they need to make sure they can prove that the conduct caused the result. And here the rally on the ellipse seems to go right down Constitution Avenue where the insurrection took place.

CAMEROTA: I mean, Laura, the way you spell it out, it seems so closely connected. You don't have to draw that long of a line to connect those dots.

Thank you very much for explaining us legality of all of this.

COATES: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: President-elect Biden's team announcing that they intend to release all available vaccine doses as soon as they take office. Is that risky? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:55:13]

BERMAN: In the first ten days of this month, 28,000 new deaths from coronavirus. In the first ten days of this month, 2.4 million new cases of coronavirus. And this comes as the incoming Biden administration announces it will take a different policy for vaccine distribution.

Joining me to talk about this, Dr. Jonathan Reiner. He's a professor of medicine at George Washington University.

Professor, thanks so much for being with us.

What the Biden administration says it will do is not hold any vaccine doses back. Of course, we all know that both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine require two doses for full efficacy. So what the Trump administration has been doing is making sure that there is that second dose available, holding that in reserve, even as it gives people the first dose. The Biden team is saying, no, no, no, we're just going to vaccinate as many people as we can, as quickly as possible.

Explain why to me and what you make of this.

DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Well, the Biden administration is trying to just, you know, basically flood the zone with vaccine, except vaccine availability is not the problem. The problem is getting it into arms.

So, as of yesterday, we had administered about 6.7 million doses of vaccine over the first four weeks of vaccine availability. But the problem is that there are -- there were 22 million doses of vaccine delivered. So even if you factor in, let's say, 5 million people still haven't gotten their second dose, there's still 10 million doses of vaccine to be administered.

And our busiest day in terms -- our most successful day of delivering vaccine into arms, of vaccinating people was Thursday, where we vaccinated about 800,000 people in one day. So we're nowhere near a million doses a day and we have about ten days of million-dose-per-day success on the shelf.

The problem isn't the amount of vaccine available. The problem is getting it into arms. And we need to think a lot differently about that. We need mass vaccination events.

I actually think what we should be doing now is getting rid of the priority system. The priority system doesn't work here. We need to make the vaccine available for everyone. If older folks get the vaccine, it will dramatically reduce deaths. If younger people get the vaccine, the younger people are really the large vector for transmitting this virus around the country. Then we'll also reduce deaths. We should be opening it up to everyone.

BERMAN: Yes, just to be clear, I think you make a good point. As of now, the problem isn't exactly supply. We have supply, or the supply we have, we are not getting them into people's arms. We are just not at this point.

If you say, get rid of the different classes, just vaccinate anyone who wants it, basically, then how do you make sure what happens nationwide or in different states isn't what's happening in Florida to a certain extent, which is some disorganization where you have seniors, you know, parked at libraries overnight for hours outside waiting for the vaccine? How can you streamline the process?

REINER: Right. So you can actually do it both ways. You can have reservation systems at pharmacies where -- which prioritize the elderly. But we should also be having mass vaccination events, first come first serve, mass vaccination events open to everyone.

There are reports in the media of states hewing so closely to these restrictions that at the end of the day, rather than giving vaccine to whoever wants it, the sites were throwing out vaccine rather than give it to somebody, you know, who didn't fit into one of these groups.

I mean years ago I was in a supermarket that wouldn't sell me the 11th item on the 10 item and fewer checkout line, and, instead, threw that away. And that's exactly what we're doing now, we're throwing out vaccine rather than giving it to folks. We need to open it up to everyone.

BERMAN: Doctor --

REINER: We need to literally flood the zone with this and focus heavily on mass vaccination events.

BERMAN: Yes.

REINER: We've seen lines in places like Texas for food giveaways. We should be doing that with vaccine now.

BERMAN: We flood the zone with it but make sure once it's in the zone it gets in people's arms in the zones.

REINER: Right.

BERMAN: We need all of it.

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, thanks so much for being with us this morning.

REINER: My pleasure.

BERMAN: NEW DAY continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president faces the increasing possibility that he will become the first president in American history to be impeached twice. He's also facing calls for his resignation.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): He has done something so serious that there should be prosecution against him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president touched the hot stove on Wednesday and is unlikely to touch it again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the president did commit impeachable offenses.

[07:00:01]

There's little doubt in my mind about that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We should certainly expect more violence. And, in particular, we should expect violence in and around political.