Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
House Delivers Impeachment Article Against Trump To Senate; Fourth Impeachment Trial In U.S. History, Second For Trump; Interview With Dr. Anthony Fauci. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired January 25, 2021 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:50:02]
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Yeah, history about to unfold here in the nation's capitol.
Kaitlan Collins, Norm Eisen -- guys, thank you very, very much.
I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM. Thanks very much for watching.
Erin Burnett picks up CNN's special coverage of the delivery of the House impeachment article to the Senate. She picks up our coverage right now.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.
We are just moments away now from the House of Representatives formally delivering to the Senate one article of impeachment against former President Donald J. Trump.
Now, that article charges Trump with, quote, incitement of insurrection for his role in the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol. So here's what's going to happen, what you're looking at on the other side of your screen.
Okay, we are going to see the nine impeachment managers walk from the House chamber through statuary hall, the capitol rotunda and onto the Senate floor.
Now, this is only the fourth time in American history that an article, or articles of impeachment will be delivered to the Senate. Two of those times, of course, taking against President Trump in a span of just a year.
So, this step is going to trigger of the start of Trump's formal Senate trial. It is expected by agreement between the Democrats and Republicans to begin on the week of February 8th.
So, let's get straight to Manu Raju here, OUTFRONT on Capitol Hill.
So, Manu, we'll keep a shot on that, as we said any moment expected to go through this formal process. What can we expect next?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's all will happen. They'll walk from the House side of the capitol, through the capitol rotunda, into the Senate side in which they'll be greeted by the acting Senate sergeant in arms. They'll come into the Senate chamber.
The sergeant in arms will essentially command the senators to be present, to be there or face potential punishment. Those are standard words that are announced to the senators on the Senate floor. And then at that point, the House impeachment manager, the lead manager Jamie Raskin will lead the article of impeachment, charging Donald Trump with inciting an insurrection that led to the deadly riot that happened here on Capitol Hill.
At that point afterwards, House members will retreat back to their chamber. The Senate essentially will be done for the evening and tomorrow will be the day in which senators will officially get -- will be sworn in, because they're acting as jurors in this case.
And unlike 2020 when Chief Justice John Roberts oversaw the trial of Donald Trump who was charged with abusing power and obstructing Congress, this time, Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democrat from Vermont, the Senate president pro tempore, the most senior Democratic member of the chamber, will preside over this proceeding because of how it's so unusual, unprecedented. A former president being tried, not a current president that would require a chief justice to come and oversee these proceedings.
And one of the arguments that will take place privately when they file their briefs behind the scenes and publicly when those arguments happen in the week of February 8th will be whether or not this is a constitutional proceeding. Democrats arguing it is absolutely constitutional, within the rights for them to go after a former President.
The Republicans, the former president's defense team, will say it is unconstitutional. That will be a key argument here and a key question, too, Erin. Will 17 Republicans break ranks, join with Democrats who are 50 members in the chamber, convict Donald Trump, prevent him from ever serving in office again? At the moment, that seems highly, highly unlikely.
BURNETT: Yeah.
RAJU: Most Republicans expected to side with Donald Trump other than a few who are considering convicting the former president -- Erin.
BURNETT: So let me ask you one other thing here, Manu, as we're awaiting this. There were seven impeachment managers, tell me if I'm wrong, on the Ukraine issue. And there are nine now on an issue that is, obviously much more clear-cut in terms of the evidence and understanding of it.
Can you explain why they have more, what role they're playing? What are you aware of at this point?
RAJU: Well, the reason why they have those managers, they represent different aspects of the house Democratic caucus. Everybody brings their own type of expertise to the table. The question will be, how much will they argue publicly? We'll probably hear each of them say something on the Senate floor.
It's unclear how they're going to divide up the work. But the lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin is a constitutional law scholar, and he is going to make the case about why this is a constitutional process going forward.
But another key question, too, Erin, is whether or not they bring witnesses before this trial. Of course, all the senators here witnessed what happened on January 6th, but I am told that in this discussion I've tried to bring in someone who has more insight to Donald Trump's thinking.
But does that person exist? Will that person cooperate? Will that lead to a protracted fight to bring someone who may know what Donald Trump was doing and thinking into how he's acting in a run-up to the January 6th riot? That is unclear.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, just told me just earlier this evening that he does not know himself if they will pursue witnesses in this trial.
[18:55:02]
So, a lot of big questions here. Also uncertain how long this will, probably less than 21 days, which is the amount it took in 2020. But it could still eat up much of February, the key time in Joe Biden's agenda here.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you, Manu, and please stay with us, because, of course, as this happens, we're going to talk to Manu. We're waiting this happening any moment.
Let's go straight to our experts here.
And let me begin with you, Dana, as you cover this. The article about to be formally transmitted to the Senate. We're all going to watch it here live, and then Manu is going through this a little bit, what the calendar looks like. You get the Senate sworn in tomorrow, as he said.
The trial, though, doesn't begin until February 9th, an agreement between Schumer and McConnell.
So, what exactly happens between then and now?
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: What happens is each side prepares. The Trump team, especially, they have to form a team. We know that he has retained a lawyer, but we don't know if there are others that have come on board. It's a big job to, as we saw a year ago when the then-sitting president went before the trial happened. He had a team of lawyers. And we're going to see that happen.
Of course, the nine managers you were talking about with Manu, they have to come up with their plan and have to decide about witnesses. We're going to see briefs and so forth. That's what they're going to do as they prepare.
The main reason is not just preparation, is for delaying it, is to give President Biden more time to get his cabinet confirmed and perhaps push through a stimulus bill.
BURNETT: Right.
OK, and I just want everyone to understand what we're looking at. That is the door that we expect Congressman Raskin to walk through, obviously, to do this as the lead manager. So everyone understands why we're doing this, you just saw the former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell walk by, so just to give everyone a sense of a running walk- through of what's happening.
Gloria, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy is the president pro tempore of the Senate. Our understanding is he's going to preside over this instead of Chief Justice Roberts, of course, whom we also saw, you know, president over the last impeachment trial of President Trump, that's because the Supreme Court justice presidents over a sitting president, he had leeway here, though. What is the significance of his decision not to preside?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think he's busy. I think he had leeway here and he took it.
BURNETT: Yeah.
BORGER: If you'll recall, the last time he presided over a trial for a few weeks, it took him a huge amount of time, he couldn't conduct the business of the court. Well, he would do the trial, then go back and try and work, and it was very, very difficult for him.
And I think that perhaps there is a sense that this is a president who is already out of office, and he has a little bit of leeway to say, I'm not going to do it, thank you very much.
BURNETT: And so, as you say, he took it.
BORGER: Yeah.
BURNETT: John King, though, every day matters. So, they've reached a deal where they'll deliver it but they don't have to actually start deliberations the next day as would ordinarily be the case. But, you know, between now and February 29th, yeah, that's time to prepare.
It's also time for this to recede more into the rearview mirror.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right, in an odd way, Erin, it could help both President Biden and former President Trump in the sense that former -- the current president does get that two-week window. Can he get more of his team confirmed? We're seeing more action on that even today, and in the next couple of days. Can he get some of his agenda passed? There's a hang-up to bipartisan agreement on stimulus plan will be hard to come by, but the negotiations are underway.
So can Joe Biden achieve something in this two weeks? Maybe. It's a chance for him to do that.
But as you mentioned, with every passing day, what Republicans are hoping, especially Republicans who condemned the president, the former president's conduct repeatedly. But you're not going to see a lot of people stand up and defend Donald Trump's -- former President Trump's conduct, you just not.
But a lot of Republicans don't want to vote to convict for whatever reason. Marco Rubio, for example, up for re-election in 2022 in the state of Florida. Does he want a Republican primary? Does he want Trump in his face the entire time?
We could go through the long list of reasons Republicans have. Their calculation is that with every day that passes, they'll be able to say, yes, the insurrection was outrageous. Yes, we're not going to go against the president's words, he's a former president now. Why don't we move on?
That's the political climate they're hoping for, which raises the bar for its managers. Getting 17 votes, as Manu noted, almost impossible if you look at the math today. But not impossible, not impossible.
So, what witnesses might they bring? How will they introduce the evidence? It's a giant steep hill. Right now, you would not think the managers can make it and the clock is also working against him, which means a lot of pressure on those managers.
BURNETT: Yeah, it's going to be interesting when they hear what they say tonight, and then, of course, we can go through some of these big decisions they have to make, especially on witnesses.
Abby, what does Trump's defense look like at this moment?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, so far, Erin --
(CROSSTALK)
BURNETT: And here they are. Sorry. Let me just let everyone know what you're seeing. The House Clerk Cheryl Johnson leading there with the nine impeachment managers. Many faces you will recognize with the masks on. These are the nine impeachment managers. David Cicilline there, Joaquin Castro, Eris Swalwell, Ted Lieu, Stacey Plaskett, Madeleine Dean. You see all of them. There are nine in total, as we said, seven for the last, nine here.
This is part of the formal process, as I said, only the fourth time in American history that you've seen this, walking across from the House to the Senate to formally deliver this article. It is just one article of impeachment for the former President Donald J. Trump.
You see the lead impeachment manager there behind, Ms. Johnson, Jamie Raskin. One thing that is interesting to think about here, Abby, is that this is only the fourth time this has happened in American history. And yet, the third time, we're all used to this picture because we just saw it 12 months ago. PHILLIP: That's right. And I mean, this is unprecedented in so many
ways, but that's really the main one is that the proximity of the last impeachment to the second impeachment is really amazing and all within one presidential term for a President of the United States. So in some ways that is one of the factors here as we go into this process, thinking about whether Democrats can get 17 Republicans to vote to convict.
There are a lot of Republicans who feel a sense of fatigue about this process, who believe it's politically untenable for them, because their base believes that just how rapidly one impeachment followed the other is something that Republican voters just can't stomach. And I think that it has become actually a sort of an elephant in the room as part of this process, even as Democrats make the case that this is a president who has done something that no other president has done, which is to incite a riot and an insurrection against another branch of government.
So that's the dynamic here and I don't expect that we'll see a huge amount of change in the Republican standpoint, because it seems like Republican voters, in particular, are not moved by the case that Democrats have been making.
BURNETT: Yes, go ahead, Dana.
BASH: And Erin, I just want to say like as we're watching them, some of the infamous photos that we have now become used to seeing of these rioters in those halls were taken just steps away from where these impeachment managers are right now. Just steps off the Senate floor, never mind on the Senate floor. And it's just a reminder of how personal this is. It's another way that this is unique from any other impeachment proceeding in the past.
BURNETT: Just to set the stage here, they're waiting. You see the lead impeachment manager, Jamie Raskin, waiting by the door. The impeachment managers are going to be escorted to the floor of the Senate by the Acting Sergeant at Arms or the Secretary of the Senate, so that's what's about to happen now. Then they're going to read a proclamation and then Congressman Raskin, as the lead manager, will read the article aloud.
So that's what's going to happen here. They're waiting by the door. Go ahead, Gloria.
BORGER: I was just going to say to follow on what Dana was saying, when you think about it and you watch these people walking in this somber way into the Senate chamber, it was just 19 days ago that the rioters were inside the Capitol, in that very place or near that very place. And this has happened also quickly, it is quite remarkable.
I remember when we went through the first impeachment. That was not lightning speed like this is. I think that there were many in the Congress who believed they had no choice but to act, even if Donald Trump was no longer in office and that's what we're seeing.
BURNETT: All right. Let's listen in here. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE: ... representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the House concerning the impeachment of Donald John Trump, former President of the United States.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): The managers and the part of the House will be received and escorted to the well of the Senate.
Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
[19:05:01]
HEMINGWAY: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States an article of impeachment against Donald John Trump, former President of the United States.
LEAHY: The managers on the part of the House will proceed.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Mr. President, the managers on the part of the House of Representatives are here and present and ready to present the article of impeachment, which has been preferred by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, former President of the United States.
The House adopted the following resolution, which with the permission of the Senate, I will read.
House Resolution 40 in the House of Representatives United States January 13, 2021 resolve that Mr. Raskin, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. Neguse and Ms. Dean are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against Donald John Trump, President of the United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of the employments and that the manager so appointed may in connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial exhibit the article of impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include the following: employing legal, clerical and other necessary assistance and incurring such other expenses as may be necessary to be paid from amounts available to the committee on the Judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives to sending for persons and papers and filing with the Secretary of the Senate on the part of the House of Representatives any pleadings in conjunction with or subsequent to the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers considered necessary. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
With the permission of the Senate, I will now read the article of impeachment.
House Resolution 24 in the House of Representatives United States, January 13, 2021 resolve that Donald John Trump, President of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article one, incitement of insurrection. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment if the President shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Further, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding any office under the United States'.
In his conduct, while President of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the Office of the President of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Donald John Trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the United States.
In that on January 6, 2021 pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a joint session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College.
In the months preceding the joint session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by state or federal officials.
Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump addressed a crowd at The Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that we won this election and we want it by a landslide. He also willfully made statements that in context and courage and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the capitol, such as if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
[19:10:02]
Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he addressed in an attempt to among other objectives interfere with the joint session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts. President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior
efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of State of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to 'find' enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.
In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Mr. President, that completes the exhibition of the articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump, President of the United States. The managers request that the Senate take order for the trial. The managers now request leave to withdraw.
LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Raskin. And the Senate will duly notify the House of Representatives when it's ready to proceed with the trial. We thank you.
BURNETT: All right. You're seeing the nine impeachment managers walk out here, another moment in American history here. The second time for an impeachment trial for President Trump. There have only, of course, been four impeachments in the House in American history, two for Trump. So you just saw history being made here. And, of course, as a former president, this is a moment in history.
You see there, the Clerk, Cheryl Johnson. They are preparing along with the nine managers to walk back to the House of Representatives. This is part of the circumstance and part of the moment, part of history here. And there they walk back to the House of Representatives.
John King, it is a moment in American history to think about what is happening here that you just had Jamie Raskin, the lead manager, go to the floor of the Senate and read that article for the former President Donald J. Trump, who, of course, is no longer in office. They are making the case that this is important to prevent anything like this happening again. And, of course, to prevent him from ever serving in office again, which may be their most compelling case and one he made a very clear point of making. JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. And Erin, whatever
anyone's views are watching at home, whether they think this impeachment is warranted and the President should be convicted and barred from ever running again or whether they think this is the Democrats overplaying their hand, we're watching a very important ritual, and indelible stain on the former president. Twice impeached now and even in some ways, I would argue, more important for the history books is they're walking through a crime scene.
This is a ritual March as you're saying. This is part of the ceremony, but it's taking place in a crime scene. A building that 19 days ago was attacked by people holding Trump flags by screaming hang Mike Pence to looking for the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. And that stain on the president regardless of the outcome of this issue indelible. He did incite this rally that turned into a riot.
[19:15:05]
And so now we wait. We have two weeks to wait. The House managers, as I said at the beginning, have monumental decisions to make about how big of a case they want to present, whether they want to bring in new reporting, things like the New York Times saying there was a plan in the Justice Department to perhaps try to get the President to fire the Acting Attorney General to make one last gasp effort to advance the big lie, how much of a case do they bring in.
And I also think one of the interesting parts here is to watch this play out. Most Republicans want this to go away. There will be a handful, at least, that vote to convict the President. I suspect that's where our count is right now, but most Republicans want this to go away. And I would say this, we can have an argument about is it constitutional to convict a former president, is impeachment the right approach. Those are all fair debates and everybody should make the debate about whether they think that is appropriate process.
But where have the Republicans been in standing up and saying, here's an alternative. What the President did was reprehensible, now former president. But he was president. He was the President of the United States when he sent that rally to attack up to the Capitol a branch of the government, to attack his own government.
And so where are the Republicans standing up saying here's the alternative punishment. It's crickets. It's silence with the exception of a very few.
BURNETT: Right. No, it's complete crickets. It's very few and, right, it's unity. Let's just move on. That's all you're getting, nothing about holding anyone to account.
Manu, I know is inside the capitol there. And Manu, I want to go back to you because, obviously, we could all see the managers walk there to the Senate floor, presided over by Sen. Leahy, who will be presiding over the trial and see the lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin speak.
But you can tell us who was really in the room to listen and tell me who was there and how significant it may be. Obviously, there's COVID. That means you've got fewer people and all sorts of restrictions. But other than Mitch McConnell, who was there?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Only a handful of Republicans. This is according to our colleague, Ted Barrett, who was in the room watching the Senate chamber, only watch what was happening on the floor. He saw Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader in his seat. He saw Mitt Romney who was the lone Republican senator to vote to convict Donald Trump back in 2020. And he saw also Roger Marshall, who's a new freshman senator from Kansas.
Someone told me just earlier today that these charges should be dismissed. Someone who voted to overturn the electoral results and as a House member have signed on with that Texas lawsuit to invalidate millions of votes, so we know where his vote is going to be.
Romney has been leaning towards the idea of convicting the President. He seems to be signaling that Mitch McConnell, a bit of a wild card, privately suggested that Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses. But talking to a number of his colleagues and allies, there's an expectation he will likely side with the rest of the Republican conference, which is overwhelmingly leaning towards acquittal on the grounds in their view that this is unconstitutional.
But those Republican senators were not there in the their seats at their desks to listening to the reading of that article. Most of them have left for the night after the votes in the Senate tonight. On the Democratic side, almost all of them were there, according to our colleague, Ted Barrett. But they almost all certain or almost all of them, if not all 50 are expected to vote to convict, so they are definitely listening to this very closely.
Tomorrow will be different story. There'll be all sworn in as jurors tomorrow afternoon and then that trial will begin and they are expected to be in the audience at that point, starting the week of February 8th, Erin.
BURNETT: Of course, we talked about and John King was discussing how this is a crime scene. They're walking through a crime scene with this very important ritual to deliver those articles. Abby, this is the big question, of course, when they decide, the Democrat, the impeachment managers, how big they're going to go? Who are they going to call as witnesses? They're going to call sitting members of Congress who were there that day? Are they going to call Mike Pence as a witness? What are they going to do?
PHILLIP: That's such a good point, because in so many ways, many of them, including some of the impeachment managers themselves are witnesses to this event that the President is being impeached over. And so in some ways they have a lot of options in terms of potential people who could be called.
They also have a lot of evidence that is being collected by the FBI, by federal officials who are prosecuting the cases against the rioters who have collected evidence that seems to indicate that many of them believed that they were incited by President Trump. So whether Democrats decide to bring witnesses themselves or bring in
evidence from some of these cases, day by day, the amount of evidence that is available to them is enormous. And I think that it really, in some cases, could help them build the case. The problem is, it may not end up mattering at the end of the day.
Many Republicans don't seem interested in the arguments for or against conviction. They're more interested in finding a way out of this political problem that they have.
[19:20:00]
BURNETT: Dana, this is an interesting thing. On the more evidence part, everyone who was there saw what happened and experienced what happened. The whole country saw what happened. And everyone heard what Trump said in the words that he said in the months before. And everyone's heard the word echo of the people who were there that day echoing him.
All of that is already there. The question is do they go bigger. And this point about The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times reporting that Trump was pushing the Department of Justice to try to go directly to the Supreme Court to invalidate the election win, that he was trying to push his Justice Department to do that. He only stopped when basically the entire senior justice department staff, including his own acting Attorney General said they would quit if he did so.
Is there any evidence like this that would sway Republicans?
BASH: The answer is yes if they are not where Abby just described, which it seems as though she's, of course, dead right about where many of them are, which is looking for an exit ramp and looking for an off ramp. And some of them have latched on to the belief, even though there are real disagreements among constitutional lawyers that it is not constitutional.
Others are finding other excuses to vote no even though privately they will tell you that they believe that the President was highly involved in this and that he did instigate it. I mean, it was obvious from what he said.
The question is whether or not the impeachment managers are going to be able to get anybody at the Justice Department who might be a witness to or a part of conversations that the President had beforehand or even people who were in and around the President on that day, the day before to testify to his involvement beyond what we might know.
That notion of them actually getting somebody to agree to do that is going to be very difficult. It doesn't mean they're not going to try.
BURNETT: Right. Gloria, I mean, and certainly they will try and all of us has spoken to people around the President, the former president, who could speak to a state of mind, incredibly unstable in those final days. I want to quickly though bring in Kaitlan Collins, though, at the White House. Kaitlan, you just got a one on one interview off camera with President
Biden. This whole impeachment process is not something we know that he wanted, but here we are. What did he tell you about the impeachment trial?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And Erin, he hasn't really weighed on it that much since taking office. Of course, he's been focused on his first few days in office. But he did say last week, he thought that the trial should be delayed further not get started this week, which very well could have if there not been that agreement on Capitol Hill between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.
And so I asked what his opinion is on the trial, how is he viewing things given, of course, the concern about what it can mean for his agenda. And he told me, Erin, quote, just a few minutes ago, "I think it has to happen." He said that he did understand the effect that it could have, of course, given that it will basically be all consuming for the Senate, given however long it could last.
But Erin, he said he thinks the effect of that trial for President Trump, former President Trump, didn't happen would have a worse effect if it did not go forward. And so we talked about this, of course, Joe Biden is someone who served in the Senate for a very long time. I asked him if he thinks that Donald Trump would be acquitted for a second time.
He said that he does not believe 17 Republican senators would vote to convict him. He said that, of course, he served in the Senate for a long time, it's changed a lot since he was there, but he said it has not changed that much. So he doesn't actually think that that's going to go forward.
But he did say that he believes this trial is something that has to happen and so that's how he's viewing it, regardless of the effect that it very well could have on his agenda.
BURNETT: It's a really interesting point, Kaitlan, that you said he's being very honest about how he sees the chances here. Obviously, that's the honest view of it. But I think it's interesting that he's saying that to you, that he doesn't think that the votes are there. He's being direct about that.
COLLINS: Yes. And that was kind of a concern, because right when this first happened, you saw people like Mitch McConnell, break with Donald Trump in a way that we had never seen during his time in office. And so I think there was a period where people wondered if 17 Republicans would actually get there.
But President Trump being out of office, of course, has changed a lot of this. And I think that President Biden recognize that. He recognized that reality as I just grabbed him in the few moments when he was walking over from the Oval Office back to the residence for the evening.
And so I think that that's the realization because we had heard privately from White House officials that they were worried about the effect that it could have, but they weren't weighing in on it too much. But now, of course, the President himself is.
BURNETT: Yes. Thank you very much, Kaitlan. And I think it's so significant, Gloria, what Kaitlan just asked the President and the President saying he doesn't think that the votes are there on the Republican side. What then Gloria do Democrats get out of this if you don't convict someone for doing what Trump did and everybody knows that he did and you don't prevent Trump from serving in office again, because you can't do that without convicting him, what did they get out of this?
[19:25:02]
BORGER: Well, they go on record saying that the United States House of Representatives, by the way, for the second time in just about a year, impeached a president for behavior it believes was not worthy of the office of the presidency. And that in this case, a President of the United States incited a riot and the wording is incited violence against the government of the United States.
And let me let me add one thing about what we're not seeing tonight. We're not seeing Republicans out there saying it was a perfect rally, like we saw them say it was a perfect phone call. I mean, we did hear the former President say that what he said was appropriate in this, although, of course, that's ridiculous, but we are not.
What Republicans are doing is talking about process. They are saying you shouldn't do this, because it's divisive to the country when we need to unify the country. You shouldn't do it because it's unconstitutional to do it. And that's a point legal scholars can argue.
What they are not saying is that it's a hoax, because they were there. They understand what occurred. Their lives were in danger from this mob and so they cannot say that this was perfectly fine, that the President's behavior was perfectly fine. I think President Biden knows how to count votes. He was in Congress for 36 years. He gets it. He understands why Republicans may not vote to convict, but we are not hearing what we heard the first time.
There is no saying this was fine. Even the President's defenders are not saying his behavior was acceptable.
BURNETT: Yes. And I think that's an important point. John, one thing you are seeing is though, I'm looking for the right words for, but almost like a political cannibalism within the Republican Party. You have people like Mitt Romney standing up and saying they think this is unacceptable. Certainly, Mitch McConnell has said it, although we don't know how he'll vote, but he said it and he's put the blame directly on the President very clearly.
But you have others, Matt Gaetz, Congressman, he's going to Wyoming to try to speak out publicly against Liz Cheney to try to take away her leadership position in the Republican Party. I mean, you have this within the Republican Party sort of a civil war. KING: Yes. Yes. You do have a civil war. Now, the House is very
different from the Senate. House members in both parties live, almost all of them live in relatively safe districts. Matt Gaetz knows that in his district, he can go home and pound his chest and say, I'm still out there fighting for Donald Trump, even going to get Liz Cheney's grill, if you will, in her home state. So yes, that's part of the problem.
And this is going to take through not just this impeachment trial. This impeachment trial is round one. Then we're going to see the Biden agenda and some tough votes on things like immigration, things like climate change, how does that play out. 2022 midterms, 2024 primaries, this Republican fight identity crisis, soul searching, civil war pick your term for it is going to continue not just here in Washington for the next year or the next few months for the next couple of election cycles.
One other quick point, though, on what Joe Biden, the President of the United States just told Kaitlan Collins, Gloria is right, Republicans are talking process, but so as the Democratic president, so as the Democratic president. It has to happen. Democrats get it.
They understand this is inconvenient for a new president, the timing of this, because he truly wants to try to be bipartisan. He truly wants to at least try to get Republicans to work with him and this will complicate that. But what most Democrats would like to hear Joe Biden say he's the leader of their party right now and the leader of the country is that this must happen. That President Trump, former President Trump must be held accountable. What he did was reprehensible. That's what they would like to hear.
And so the former senator, now President Joe Biden is also talking process, because this is so inconvenient to him.
BURNETT: Abby, let me give you the final word.
PHILLIP: One of the problems for Republicans also to what you were just discussing with John is this idea of disqualifying President Trump from holding future office. You would think that this would be something that maybe they might look to as a way to rid the Republican Party of him.
But what it really becomes is a vote where they expose themselves and very few Republicans right now, say for a handful that Mitt Romneys of the world want to be in the position of voting to say I want to disqualify a Donald Trump from holding federal office again.
In some ways, I think, it has actually made this process much more difficult. If you were dealing with a Trump and this is actually one of the things that Joe Biden - President Biden told Kaitlan Collins a few minutes ago. If this were six months ago, it would be a different dynamic, but now they're facing the possibility of having to take an impossible vote for Republicans in a Republican Party where President Trump still has something like 75 percent support among Republican voters.
[19:30:10]
BURENTT: Yeah.
PHILLIP: It's still extraordinarily high and there's no room there for a vast majority of those members to break from him, at least not if they're going to be doing it alone.
There's no -- you know, there is strength in numbers in the Senate and they're just not the numbers to give the people the sense of security that they need to go against Trump in this moment.
BURNETT: Certainly not people to say, as Mitt Romney did --
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Can I say one last thing?
BURNETT: Go ahead, Dana. Yeah?
BASH: I know John was talking about the process that the President Biden told Kaitlan about, which by the way, that's pretty extraordinary. We covered the White House. We know that's not an easy thing to just get the president in the hallway.
BURNETT: Yeah.
BASH: But he also said it has to happen. That's on the substance of it, and that's a nod to the Democrats who were looking to him for a little bit more support.
BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much.
And I want to go back to Manu Raju, because, Manu, as we're trying to understand where this goes next, you have some new information here in the past few minutes on Trump's defense.
RAJU: Yeah, he's trying to fill out his defense, the more learning more of the people who are on the team which is lead right now by South Carolina attorney, Butch Bowers. We're also told, Jeff Zeleny, our colleague, and I are told that another individual from South Carolina's been approach to serve on Trump's legal team, that's Charlie Condon. He's a former South Carolina attorney general.
You know, this comes as the president has had challenge of sorts trying to get his team in place. He's trying to bring on an experience legal team, not everyone who was on this team before it is going to join his team this.
And Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican senator who put him in touch, with the initial leader of this defense team, Butch Bowers, told me just moments ago that he spoke to Donald Trump yesterday. He said Donald Trump was on the golf course, at the time. And he also said that Donald Trump is ready for this trial to get over quickly.
So, that is the mood of the former president at the moment, filling out his team. He now has, led by one person from South Carolina, potentially another as he's trying to bring people who will argue his defense in just a couple of weeks here, Erin.
BURNETT: So, Manu, you know, we talked about this because Lindsey Graham, of course, had recommended, one of these attorneys to the president. But this does raise a question. If Lindsey Graham has now done, and this person is now fully on board, does that cause an issue for Lindsey Graham to sit as a jury in the trial, as of course, he's scheduled to do?
RAJU: Well, he's made very clear where he stands. He said that this -- should not go forward. And, you know, these senators on both sides, really say that even though they are jurors, many of them have already made up their minds.
Lindsey Graham no exception, says this trial should not go forward. He wants it dismissed, and it is very clearly consulting with Donald Trump, one of the very few Republican senators who are still talking to Donald Trump. And as I just said, talk to him yesterday while the former president was on the golf course, told him he wants this trial over quickly.
BURNETT: Yeah. All right. Manu, thank you very much.
And I want to go now to constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe from Harvard Law School, also the author of "To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment".
And, of course, I'll note, Professor, that Jamie Raskin, who was the lead impeachment manager, you know, who we just saw on the floor there, present the article, was your student as a constitutional law student. I know you stayed close to him.
So, everyone kept referencing in that panel, and anyone the show has seen this, right? That this is -- the constitutional issue that Republicans are raising is a question for the scholars. I read an interesting article this weekend in "The Wall Street Journal", and it said the impeachment powers imported to America from England where parliament impeached only two men during the 18th century, both former officers, no U.S. state constitution unlimited impeachment to sitting officers and some allowed impeachment only of former officers. In 1781, the Virginia general assembly subjected Thomas Jefferson to an impeachment inquiry after he completed his term as governor.
It would seem that there is a very clear track record that this is for formers.
LAURENCE TRIBE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: A very clear track record, and in the United States, it's been clear, too. In 1876, a former secretary of war impeached.
The whole point was to make sure that if someone commits some terrible offense against the United States, close to the end of his or her term as president, that that doesn't prevent the special remedy that the constitution explicitly makes available of disqualification, doesn't prevent that from being invoked. Otherwise, a president who goes on a crime spree at the very end, or resigns before impeachment is possible gets -- get out of -- not just, jail but get out of a disqualification card free.
[19:35:01]
It doesn't work that way.
Almost all scholars agree --
BURNETT: So, this issue then, as they use that, you're making a very clear, right, there is no standing on that.
What about now the issue of witnesses and I understand that every single person who is going to be voting was a witness, right? They were almost all there, right? So, there's that, that they have -- they all saw it themselves. Would you call witnesses, though, and I guess what I'm asking, Professor, is -- I mean, there's a difference between Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state of Georgia, and that whole phone call, and calling Mike Pence and other people who were in the room on that day.
TRIBE: Well, my former student Jamie Raskin is going to make that call in conjunction with a very talented group of managers and Nancy Pelosi, and I'm not going to forecasts with they will decide to do. I trust their judgment.
But when all of the people of this country, as well as every senator, was a witness to the mob scene, in which the president basically climaxed weeks of efforts to undo a free and fair election by riling up the mob, and aiming them straight at the Capitol to do violence and to cause death and to threaten assassination and kidnapping and to threaten to hang the vice president, witnesses might out a little bit of color, but we've all seen it, we all know it.
BURNETT: Yeah.
TRIBE: That is why the Republicans, who desperately don't want Donald Trump to be riling up further mobs and don't want him to be running people against him in primaries, that's why they're hiding. They're hiding behind a technical legal argument, which just doesn't happen to hold water. They want to be able to say, we're not approving the sacking of the capitol, oh no we're not approving threatening to hang Mike Pence.
We are just saying we are without power, our hands are tied. It's unconstitutional for us to have. Give me a break.
BURNETT: That argument obviously doesn't seem to add up. I want to ask you about something else, Professor, I saw you actually mention this on Twitter. Present Trump's former attorney, his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, said over the weekend that he thinks the president may have secretly, secretly pardoned himself, his children and Rudy Giuliani. This is something that you then said you'd had concern about, but hadn't wanted to raise publicly because you hadn't wanted to sort of put out the conversation out there for the president.
Can you explain what could have happened here and what do you think did happen? TRIBE: Well, I'm hoping he didn't try that technique of secret pocket
pardons. It's never been done. I'm not at all sure it would succeed.
If somebody suddenly whips out pardons as guess what, it's notarized, it's authenticated, I now hereby, you know, give you an exit card from this trial, there's a good chance that the court would say, secret pardons are not part of the American tradition, part of the whole idea of a pardon is that you accept it publicly. And thereby in a sense, make a public acknowledgment of your guilt.
But I don't think that's a really important issue at the moment because it turns out that almost all the non-secret pardons he gave were so sloppily written, that they're written with loopholes. Manafort, for example, can still be prosecuted for the things not covered by his pardon.
So, I think the -- talk about secret pardons, it's sort of a distraction. Right now, it's crucial and we saw the solemn beginning of it. What's crucial is that not only is the former president on trial, the Senate of the United States is on trial. The Republicans are on trial.
Do they have the courage to say that a president who engages in what amounts to treason, though technically has a different name. It's sedition and insurrection, do they have the courage to say that such a person is too dangerous to have running the country ever again in the future, because not only is it a crime scene, it could be a scene of repeated crime if we don't disable this demagogue.
That's why it has to happen, otherwise we have said that at the end of a president's term, he has a get out of prison card free, he has a way of violating the Constitution attacking the government, committing insurrection and then waltzing out into the horizon and gathering up money and running yet again. That's not the way this system is designed to work.
BURENTT: All right. Well, Professor Tribe, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much as always, sir. Thanks.
And, next, you know, they were only a few Republicans in the room there when Jamie Raskin presented the article of impeachment, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell. And now, all eyes are on Mitch McConnell.
[19:40:00]
What will he do? Someone who knows him well, his former senior adviser, is OUTFRONT.
And, breaking news, the U.S. just tonight confirming the presence of a new strain of coronavirus first identified in Brazil, a variant Doctor Anthony Fauci calls more ominous than the one from the U.K. Dr. Fauci is my guest tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BURNETT: Breaking news, a new variant of coronavirus first identified in Brazil has been detected here in the United States for the first time. A person in Minnesota has tested positive for the variant which Dr. Anthony Fauci has described as, quote, more ominous than the strain found in the U.K.
And Dr. Fauci is OUTFRONT with me tonight.
So, Dr. Fauci, first of all, let's just start with this strain that has now been discovered in Minnesota. I would imagine this doesn't surprise you, but how widespread do you think it could be given that we're not really testing widely for variants that has now shown up?
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Well, first of all, if it has the capability of spreading more efficiently, likely it might actually get more and more dominant. But we have to wait and see, because we have a couple situations. You know, we have a California mutant that was recognized in California that's different than the Brazil one that seems to be more efficient in spreading.
You have to keep your eye on all of these things. And with regard to genomic surveillance, we're really ratcheting that up a fair amount.
[19:45:01]
You're absolutely correct. Up until recently, we haven't had a comprehensive genomic surveillance, which the CDC is really increasing with a little bit of collaboration -- in fact, a lot of collaboration with the NIH, that will get a much better feel for what is circulating in our own country.
BURNETT: Right, and you mentioned California, I mentioned Brazil. There's South Africa. There is the U.K.
I only say that in the context of, if there's all that, there's more, and it's obviously able to mutate very quickly. So we don't -- you know, there could be many more variants out there.
FAUCI: Right.
BURNETT: And I suppose it's a big question for you. How confident are you that one of the ones you know about or that we don't even know about yet could change the game here on mortality or vaccine effectiveness?
FAUCI: Well, one of the things you have to do is continue to monitor it, and that's the point, Erin. You have to do that.
So if you look at what we know about the U.K. variant, that the antibodies that are induced by both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccine seem to be really quite effective in blocking that variant.
As I mentioned, the South African and the Brazilian variant are a bit more ominous because some of the monoclonal antibodies, those proteins that we've been using for treatment, several of them are blocked by the in -- in the sense of the mutant. They do not do very well against the mutant. When you -- when you put the vaccine-induced antibodies, it's
diminished when you're dealing with South Africa and Brazil, but mostly South Africa. We have to look at Brazil as carefully as South Africa. Although it's been diminished somewhat, it's still well within the cushion range of being an effective vaccine.
So, the good news is the vaccines as they exist now still would be effective against the mutants. The sobering news is what I think you were alluding to, that as you get more and more replication, you can get more and more evolution of mutants, which means you've also got to be a step ahead of it --
BURNETT: All right.
FAUCI: -- which is the reason why two things need to be done.
One, you've got to increase your surveillance and you've got to have the flexibility the way we're doing with the South African isolate, which is essentially making a version of the current vaccines by allowing us to perhaps give a boost sometime in the future months from now, to be able to cover those mutants.
So, you've got to always stay a step ahead of the game because the virus continues to mutate.
BURNETT: Yeah.
FAUCI: One more comment that I think people need to understand. The best way you prevent the evolution of mutants is to suppress the amount of virus that's circulating in the population.
BURNETT: Right.
FAUCI: And the best way to do that is to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as you possibly can.
BURNETT: So, let me ask you. You know, you've spoken out now, I know, Dr. Fauci about some of your frustrations about President Trump receiving information that you say was based on no data. You know, we all remember, you know, infamously when people said, where are you getting your numbers? He said here -- you know, here in my head and just through his head.
You know, I remember talking to Dr. Scott Atlas on the show and he was talking about how -- you know, no issue with people not wearing masks at crowded rallies. Obviously, he had promoted the controversial idea of herd immunity to the president, an herd immunity not via a vaccine, right, via transmission.
Then, there was the doctor with the false claims about hydroxychloroquine. The MyPillow founder talking about unproven plant extract that's a cure for coronavirus. The president also talked about that.
How bad was the misinformation that was being given to the president regularly? FAUCI: Well, you know, there was a combination of good information and
bad information. Unfortunately, the concept of anecdotal as opposed to science-driven information seemed to prevail above that.
I mean, I think if you look at the pushback that I got from people in the White House, including the president about hydroxychloroquine, was one of the reasons why I felt it was essential for me to not in a confrontative way. I took no great pleasure out of contradicting the president, but I had to get up just to maintain my own integrity, but also to be standing up for science that the data did not show what they were claiming.
I mean, anecdotes are okay to give you the spurring on to take a look at a scientific approach.
BURNETT: Yeah.
FAUCI: But to be ruled by anecdote is folly.
BURNETT: Right and that obviously is what happened. I mean, we heard it, right? There was the ingesting bleach. I mean, it -- there's no anecdote on that. Obviously, that one was just --
FAUCI: Right.
BURNETT: That one was just beyond the pale.
I mean, can I just ask you when he said that -- I mean, Dr. Birx obviously had the unfortunate -- she was unfortunately there.
[19:50:06]
What went through your mind when he said that?
FAUCI: I just said, oh my goodness gracious, I could just see what's going to happen. You're going to have people who will hear that from the president. They're going to start doing dangerous and foolish things, which is the reason why immediately, those of us who are not there, said this is something you should not do. Be very explicit.
The CDC came out I think the next day --
BURNETT: Yeah.
FAUCI: -- and put it in one of their publications. Do not do this. I've got asked on a number of shows, certainly on CNN, and I said, absolutely, this is not what you want to do.
BURNETT: So, you came out and said that, and as you point out, you took no pleasure in contradicting the president but you had to do it multiple times. And as a result, Dr. Fauci, you've got disturbing threats. You've talked about some of them -- and threats against your wife, your children.
You've got that envelope with white powder. And you feared that could have been something deadly, anthrax, ricin. All this coming because you came out and were disagreeing with the president.
I mean, when --
FAUCI: Right.
BURNETT: When you saw would happen on January 6th -- the insurrection, right, the people who believed every single word that he said and they were there echoing that, did it seem inevitable to you, because you had firsthand experience? The threats of violence?
FAUCI: Yeah. Well, it did and in fact what it did to me is to just underscore the intensity of the divisiveness in our society because if nearly articulating a commonly held public health message of something that every public health official in the country would agree with, because I articulate that publicly, if that triggers death threats against me, harassment on my family, my children and my wife, somebody sending me an envelope with powder that explodes in my face to scare me and my family, boy, that tells you the depth of the divisiveness.
And then January 6th to me was like, oh, my goodness, here it is in its ultimate. It's purely reflection of divisiveness that is such -- so deep that it's disturbing.
And to me, you know, as a person who -- you know, I don't want to seem melodramatic -- who loves our country, I just see that be nothing but destructive and it's very scary.
BURNETT: I mean, you get (ph) an envelope and it explodes in your face. I mean, at that moment, what do you -- what do you think?
FAUCI: Well, you know, it's very interesting, Erin, is that I -- this is the life I've chosen and this is what I do, and this is what my job. You know, I'm not a hero at all by any means, but I was very fatalistic about it.
You know, as I said in the interview with "The New York Times", I said, oh my goodness, it's either a hoax or anthrax and I have to take ciprofloxacin for one or two months, or it's ricin and I'm dead. You know, there's nothing.
But then once I got past that, I realized what a terrible effect it would have on my children. Until the examination came back and we found out that it was harmless powder, my children were very, very distraught by that, and that was more painful to me than somebody, some jerk threatening my life.
I mean, that's just the way it is with me. I just don't want to see my family get involved. I mean, I chose this life, and this is what I do. They did not choose that. They did not choose that life.
BURNETT: Well, no, and to be honest, I -- when you chose that life I'm sure you did not expect anything like this to happen. I mean, you know, to this point, Dr. Fauci, and I know you say you're not a hero and I know you're well aware that a lot of people see you as one, right? And perhaps you're a reluctant one. But you made a decision every day to stay, right? To stay and do what you were doing, because -- because that was your calling and you felt like it was the right thing to do.
Can you tell us something that you were able to accomplish by staying? You know, something that you feel specifically you were able to make better by staying through all this?
FAUCI: Yes. You know, even though there was a lot of extraordinary, surrealistic things going on like what you were just referring to, the anecdotal, the people coming in, the strange ideas about anybody calling up and saying, I think this works and takes as much footing in some parts of the White House than the data that I would present as a scientist, I felt if I left, there would not be that honest broker there.
And, you know, it would leave Debbie Birx and Bob Redfield sort of -- and Steve Hahn kind of alone there.
[19:55:01]
So, I mean, they were -- they were presidential appointees, I was a nonpresidential appointee. So, with all the threats that, you know, I'm going to get fired -- I was not going to get fired.
So I felt that if I stood there with them and continued to speak the truth, I would be, one, to be representing science at the White House publicly. And I felt if I left, that that would be a void there.
Not that there weren't scientist there. I mean, with all due credit, you had Bob Redfield and you had Debbie Birx and you had Steve Hahn, but -- and Jerome Adams, too. I mean, Jerome is fine.
BURNETT: And you thought -- you did feel that he was -- he was good at what he was doing and, obviously, he's taken a lot of heat for his initial comments on masks. But as the science changed, he changed his point of view on that.
FAUCI: Yeah.
BURNETT: But you think he did a good job?
FAUCI: Yes. I really do. I mean, one of the things that's unfortunate is that there are -- and I know people who are very, very much against the last administration, understandably -- that there are some good people in the White House. So, I mean, back then in the Trump administration, some people on the task force who really cared. They were put in a very difficult position.
BURNETT: Yeah.
FAUCI: I mean, I said to myself, I'm sorry. I'm not going to stand by and not object, and I did. And I had to do that. That's just my character. There is no way I could not have spoken out.
And, luckily, I mean, I didn't get fired. I mean, to be honest with you, I didn't think they could fire me anyway.
BURNETT: I don't think they could have. I think you did put yourself in a position where that was impossible.
So you mentioned Debbie Birx and I know that you think highly of her. You've worked with her since the 1980s. You know, we've reported she expressed interest in keeping her role on the task force during the Biden administration.
And I actually remember Olivia Troye, you know, who is Vice President Mike Pence's attache at one point, right? She talked about Dr. Birx sort of traveling tirelessly around the country with her rolling bag through this, right, trying to tell people to do the right thing, even when the president didn't back her doing that.
Do you think that Biden should have kept Dr. Birx on?
FAUCI: You know, I don't -- you know, Erin, I don't want to make that judgment. I think with the Biden administration did right in the beginning was a good thing. They wanted to start right from scratch fresh and bring back their style into the White House.
And I got to tell you, not only what the president is saying publicly, but what he's told me and the team privately is so refreshing, because it wasn't like he was doing it for effect, he was just saying with everything we do is going to be based on science. Science is going to speak.
And then he said something else that I really liked.
BURNETT: Yeah.
FAUCI: He said, we're going to make some mistakes. We may stumble, but when we do, do you know what we're going to do? We're going to fix it. We're not going to blame anybody. We're just going to fix it.
Boy, you know, when you saw me get up in front of the White House press room about 20 minutes after that, everybody said, you had a very refreshed look in your face. It was because I had just come out of a conversation with the president that was really very refreshing.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Dr. Fauci, I appreciate so much you're taking the time to talk to us and to keep talking. You know, I know it's exhausting. You've been tireless in it through all of this to tell the truth to the American people, and thank you.
FAUCI: Thank you for having me, Erin. It's a pleasure to be with you.
BURNETT: All right.
And OUTFRONT next, more of our breaking news. That article of impeachment just delivered to the Senate. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BURNETT: And our breaking news coverage continues with the article of impeachment. Let's hand it off now to Anderson.
