Return to Transcripts main page
At This Hour
White House Clarifies Biden's Remarks on Potential Russian Invasion; U.S. Vice President Says If Russia Invades Ukraine, Cost Will Be "Severe"; Interview with Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary- General, on Potential Response to Russian Invasion of Ukraine; Supreme Court Allows January 6 Committee to Get Trump Documents. Aired 11- 11:30a ET
Aired January 20, 2022 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan.
At this hour, defensive and defiant: President Biden says he outperformed what people thought possible in his first year. But he faces a new setback in the Senate.
A green light for Russia: Ukraine's new warning that Biden's words could help pave the way for an invasion. NATO's secretary-general is our guest.
And a big win for the January 6th committee: the Supreme Court decides against Trump over hundreds of documents that he wanted to keep secret. Now they're headed to Congress.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
BOLDUAN: Thanks for being here. We begin this hour with a new concern over the crisis in Ukraine after President Biden's marathon news conference last night. The White House is now trying to clarify what the president said about what he thinks Putin will do, how he thinks the U.S. will respond and whether NATO allies will be unified.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.
But if they actually do what they're capable of doing, with the force amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine. My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: The initial response: shock and dismay from Ukraine. The administration now working overtime to make clear, the President of the United States was not trying to give a green light for Russian president Vladimir Putin to attack Ukraine.
But can they unring this bell?
More on that in a moment.
The president also marked a year in office by repeatedly defending his accomplishments and pushed back against any suggestion he's fallen short.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: I didn't overpromise. But I have probably outperformed what anybody thought would happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Hours later, though, the president suffered another setback when the Senate failed to win enough support to change their voting rules that would have made it possible to pass the Democrats' voting rights legislation.
Two members of Biden's own party voting with Republicans to keep the filibuster in place. CNN's John Harwood is live at the White House to start us off at this hour, where we are expecting this hour to hear and see the president.
John, after last night, what are you hearing there today?
JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, as you just indicated, Kate, we're about to hear from the president on one of those things that he did get accomplished last year, that he intends to talk about more this year.
That's the infrastructure bill. He'll talk about the implementation of that. But largely what we're hearing today is the White House, attempting to clarify things the president said, that were either confusing on their face or were interpreted in ways that the president didn't intend.
So on Build Back Better, he said yesterday, break up the bill into smaller chunks. They're still looking at only one substantial bill of the scale of $1.7 trillion or thereabouts, if they can get 50 votes for that. The breaking it up part refers to things that are getting thrown overboard. They'll try to get those later.
In terms of voting rights, the president got some criticism for saying, just like Trump, he's suggesting our elections are illegitimate. He was not, like Trump, questioning the counting of votes. He was talking about the structure of elections, about legal votes being thrown out. That's why they're seeking the voting rights bills that they were unsuccessful on.
But the most important thing is the clarification on Ukraine. For obvious reasons, Ukraine was concerned, upset about things the president said, that were interpreted as giving a green light to the Kremlin to have a smaller incursion rather than a large-scale one. And Vice President Harris was on all the morning shows this morning to
try to say that's not the case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS (D), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will interpret any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by Russia and Vladimir Putin as an aggressive action.
And it will be met with costs, severe and certain. We are very clear and we've been very clear with Putin that any aggressive action taken by Russia will mean a cost, a severe cost.
[11:05:00]
HARRIS: That the president has been very clear and we, as the United States, are very clear, if Putin takes aggressive action, we are prepared to levy serious and severe costs, period.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARWOOD: Now the things the president said yesterday in public were things that diplomats and national security officials have been saying in private about the sort of sliding scale of reactions, depending on whether there's a cyberattack versus an incursion of Russian troops across Ukrainian territory.
The question is whether that changes the course of events. The president's remarks did not make clear exactly what he was talking about. And the White House is cleaning that up today.
BOLDUAN: Thank you, John. That is the view from Washington.
Let's get the latest on the view from the region, as Ukrainian leaders are not mincing words, saying that there is no such thing as a minor incursion. Nic Robertson is live in Moscow with the very latest.
The reaction was swift and clear.
What are leaders saying there?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, in Russia, the Kremlin, I think, is really trying to make up its mind and understand what President Biden was meaning.
There was some optimism from the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, saying there were some things in what President Biden had said that gave them some small sense of optimism.
But you know, still a lot of questions remain. And that clear expectation and demand, that there is a written response to Russia's demands, their security demands, or proposals as they call them, that there must be this written response from the United States.
But the Kremlin spokesman also holding out the possibility of more interpresidential diplomacy, saying that President Putin would be ready to have a conversation with President Biden; no indication of when.
But that's what we're hearing again today as the Kremlin tries to make up its mind. But in Ukraine, a completely different picture. The president there, Volodymyr Zelensky, very clear in a tweet -- and I'll read it for you, because he is clearly upset with what he heard last night.
Saying, "We want to remind the great powers that there are no such thing as minor incursions and small nations, just as there are no minor casualties and little grief for the loss of loved ones. I say this as the president of a great power."
The foreign minister in Ukraine doubled down on it, saying there's no such thing as half aggression.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DMYTRO KULEBA, UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): One can't be half invaded or half aggressive. Aggression is either there or not. And we concerns (ph) the concrete fact that the aggression of the Russian Federation against the state of Ukraine has been going on since 2014.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTSON: Ukrainians want to see the message from the United States and the Europeans zipped up, tied up, absolutely watertight.
We heard that from the European Commission president today, Ursula van der Leyen, saying, again, as she said before, as so many European leaders have said, that, if Russia acts with aggression in Ukraine again, there will be consequences, financial and economic, she said.
BOLDUAN: So important to hear that. Nic, thank you so much for that.
Joining me now is another key voice in this crisis and any path to return to stability there, NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg.
Secretary-General, thank you for being here on a very important day because you have President Biden's comments making a distinction in the response to a minor incursion, as he described it, by Russia and Ukraine, and a full-scale invasion.
What was your reaction to hearing that?
JENS STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Well, this clearly is that all NATO allies have made it clear several times that we will react if Russia once again conducts aggressive actions against Ukraine.
We have made it clear that we are ready to step up our support; allies are stepping up support to Ukraine. We are ready to impose sanctions. And, of course, we are also considering to increase deployments of NATO troops in the eastern part of the alliance.
At the same time, we also invited Russia for a series of meetings, trying to find a political solution. BOLDUAN: Do you know what -- what is your view of a minor incursion?
Do you know what President Biden was speaking about when he talked about a minor incursion?
STOLTENBERG: There are many different types, a wide range of aggressive actions, ranging from cyberattacks, sabotage, efforts to try to undermine the Ukrainian government, destabilize the Ukraine society, to a full-fledged military intervention. All of these are examples of aggressive actions.
[11:10:00]
STOLTENBERG: And NATO allies are ready to respond. We have made it very clear that aggressive actions against Ukraine will come at a high price.
Allies throughout (ph) support Ukraine and that also increases the cost for Russia. Allies training, brought (ph) equipment and, of course, that will increase the cost of Russia to impose any kind of military action against Ukraine.
We helped them with their cyber defenses and allies also making clear that they are ready to impose political, economic sanctions.
BOLDUAN: The reaction, as we know from the region, especially from Ukraine, was swift. And they reacted with dismay.
Would you agree with the statement, that the president's words, how he said it last night, did not help with the crisis, as it is currently?
STOLTENBERG: Well, the United States has as a NATO ally, as one of the 30 allies, made it clear repeatedly in different statements, NATO meetings -- as all the (INAUDIBLE) made it clear today from Washington -- that we stand united. Allies are united.
And we have proven, not only in words but also in deeds that we are united in responding to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine.
Since 2014, there have been serious sanctions. We have provided significant support to Ukraine. The Ukrainian armed forces are much more better trained, equipped and much stronger now than in 2014 when Russia went in for the first time.
And we are now considering also to increase our military presence in the eastern part of the alliance. Since 2014, we have deployed battle (ph) groups in the eastern part of the alliance for the first time and now we are considering to do more of that, to send a very clear message to Russia.
(CROSSTALK)
BOLDUAN: Sorry, Secretary-General. I do want to ask you about unity amongst NATO alliances. But I need to drill down on this point, because Ukrainian officials, the foreign minister even told "The Wall Street Journal" today, that the comments that the president made, President Biden made last night, could serve as an invitation for Putin to attack.
No matter what Biden intended to say, do you think a green light is what has effectively been offered or put on the table here for Putin?
STOLTENBERG: Not at all, because the United States has been very clear, all along, period of time ever since this military buildup started; the United States has conveyed a very clear message, together with all the other NATO allies that we will not, in any way, also accept further use of military force against Ukraine.
And the United States has stepped up the support for Ukraine with equipment, with training, as all the other allies do. And the United States is leading the efforts to coordinate all NATO allies in our response to the aggressive actions from Russia against Ukraine.
So what we see every day here at NATO is the United States playing a lead role in sending a clear message to Russia. And I thank actually the United States for being so important in coordinating the joint efforts, united efforts of NATO allies.
BOLDUAN: I want to play for you what President Biden said last night about the NATO alliance and a possible collective response to Russia. Listen to this, please.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: So I've got to make sure everybody is on the same page as we move along. I think we will, if there's something that is -- that -- where there's Russian forces crossing the border, killing Ukrainian fighters, et cetera, I think that changes everything.
But it depends on what he does, exactly to what extent we're going to be able to get total unity on the NATO front.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Biden said in another point, Secretary-General, that NATO nations are not all on the same page here.
Is that true?
STOLTENBERG: We are 30 different nations from both sides of the Atlantic. And, of course, we need to discuss. So we need to sit down and coordinate and consult.
But the strength on NATO is that we are always able to come to the same conclusions and agree and to decide and implement decisions together, as we have done, after extensive consultations, also in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine.
We have done so since 2014. The biggest reinforcements are a collective defense of NATO, especially in the eastern part of the alliance, with more NATO deployments there, sanctions and more support Ukraine.
So this is not only the kind of (INAUDIBLE), it's something we have proven.
[11:15:00]
STOLTENBERG: And therefore, I'm absolutely certain that, if we see further Russian aggression, there will be further reactions from NATO allies, as we have stated and as we are preparing for and closely consulting and coordinating on every day here at the NATO.
But this is a dual-track approaches. It's about strength, sending clear message, the costs of any further incursion from Russia but also an invitation to dialogue. So therefore this week, I invited Russia to sit down (INAUDIBLE) meeting and actually check whether they are serious about seeking a political solution.
BOLDUAN: Well, and finally on that, I wanted to ask you, if Russia interprets, if Vladimir Putin interprets what came from the president last night, despite clarifications this morning, if they interpret that as some kind of weakness in the resolve to respond to aggression against Ukraine, if they see that as a green light, even though you say that you do not think that is the effect, if they see it as that, what is your message to Putin from the NATO alliance today?
STOLTENBERG: That 30 allies are united, that 30 allies have a very clear message and that is that, if Russia further invades Ukraine, further uses military aggressive means against Ukraine, there will be a high price.
NATO allies will make sure that that happens, as we have done in the past and as we will do in the future. We are training, helping Ukraine with equipment, training their forces so they can resist. They have a inherent job for (ph) self-defense.
And we are, as we speak, also considering to deploy more NATO troops in the eastern part of the alliance. So if Russia wants less NATO in the eastern part of our alliance, their actually -- their aggressive actions are leading to the exact opposite: more NATO in the eastern part of the alliance.
BOLDUAN: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, thank you for coming on.
STOLTENBERG: Thank you so much.
BOLDUAN: Thank you.
Coming up for us still this hour, the Supreme Court delivers a major blow to Donald Trump, rejecting the former president's fight to keep White House records secret from the committee investigating the January 6th insurrection.
So what is the committee now going to get?
A live report is next.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:20:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
BOLDUAN: Developing this morning, hundreds of document are on their way. The House committee investigating the January 6 attack now receiving Trump White House documents that Trump fought to keep secret.
The final decision from the Supreme Court last night, meaning hundreds of documents now, from call logs to handwritten memos, will now be transferred to Congress as part of the committee's investigation. CNN's Evan Perez is live with us now with more details on this.
Evan, what's the impact now of this ruling?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SR. JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It's far-reaching, beyond just the documents. Just a few minutes ago, in federal court, a judge cited the Supreme Court's ruling to say that this shows that the Select Committee overseeing this investigation has a legitimate purpose; that it does have a legitimate legislative purpose, which is one of the arguments that the former president and some of his allies have been making for what they say is -- you know, they shouldn't be turning over documents or the committee does not have any right to these documents.
For former president Trump, however, we're talk about 700 pages of documents that should be protected under his claim of executive privilege.
And they range from call logs, things that showed what was happening inside the West Wing, inside the White House, in those key weeks and days around January 6th, including memos, handwritten notes written by Mark Meadows and other White House staff, White House lawyers, who were seeing some of the activity that the former president was making, was involved in trying to overturn the election results.
Obviously, for the committee, this is a very important step, because they have a limited amount of time. And they're trying to put together a story, a narrative of what was happening, what was the president thinking about in those key times -- Kate.
BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Thanks for laying it out.
Nick Akerman served as an assistant special prosecutor during Watergate.
You call this a significant decision for the rule of law. Tell me why.
NICK AKERMAN, ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: I think because if you took it from Donald Trump's standpoint, he truly believes the three people he appointed to the Supreme Court have to be loyal to him, that they owe him.
He looks at it as a quid pro quo type of arrangement he's used to in business. The fact of the matter is, these Supreme Court justices stick to the rule of law.
And in this particular case, what they did is they relied on the 1974 decision of U.S. v. Nixon, where Nixon tried to do the same thing and conceal his Oval Office tapes from the prosecutors based on executive privilege.
What the court did was essentially adopt the same decision that was given on Nixon. I mean, this was history repeating itself.
Back in the Nixon time, everybody was concerned that, well, he appointed a number of justices to the Supreme Court and, therefore, the Supreme Court was going to go in Nixon's way. That was also an 8 to zip (ph) decision. This decision was 8-1.
[11:25:00]
AKERMAN: So I think both decisions are a resounding plus for the rule of law in this country and it shows how important it is to have an independent judiciary.
BOLDUAN: For sure. So the court did leave still unresolved the question about an ex-president's ability to claim executive privilege. I want to read part of this from the order.
"Because the court of appeals concluded that president Trump's claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former president necessarily made no difference to the court's decision."
What does this mean, then, Nick, for all the other people who were leaning on executive privilege to keep them from having to cooperate with the committee?
AKERMAN: Well, I think it leaves them nowhere. There's no executive privilege they can assert here because executive privilege, as the court said in the Nixon case, you can't use it for conversations in furtherance of criminal activity.
With Nixon, it was in furtherance of the conspiracy to obstruct the Watergate case. Here it's relating to basically an insurrection that was perpetrated on the Congress.
And there's no way under any circumstance that any court is ever going to say that those conversations are legitimate, executive privilege- covered conversations. The executive privilege relates to legitimate government business that the president is engaged in -- most notably military actions, national security and the like.
So this is certainly why they're saying that it doesn't make any difference whether Trump is a sitting president or not. These conversations are not covered by executive privilege.
BOLDUAN: You've also said, Nick, that between this Supreme Court decision on Trump's records and the sedition indictment last week of the Oath Keepers, that Trump is inching closer to facing a major criminal indictment. What do you see that suggests that?
AKERMAN: Well, I think the big issue here is, if he's going to be indicted on similar crimes the Oath Keepers or for obstructing Congress in any way, the key element here is showing that he acted with a corrupt motive.
And the courts define that as being an improper purpose. Right now, the state of the evidence is that Trump got up at that rally and basically told his supporters to go up there and fight.
During his second impeachment trial, he basically said, look, I was just exercising my free speech; I didn't tell them to go commit violence or perpetrate violence on anybody.
So the real question here is, now that they've got all of these White House documents, what evidence is going to be in here that's going to relate to his knowledge about the violence, whether or not he encouraged the violence, knew that he was encouraging the violence?
This all goes to his state of mind.
And so whether it comes up in these tape recordings that were done, where he was doing a video to tell supporters to go home, where there were several different takes on this because his staff wouldn't allow those to be issued or whether it's in the notes or memoranda or emails, this really is going to answer the question.
Can they make a criminal case on Donald Trump for obstructing Congress?
Which is an extremely serious federal felony, carrying imprisonment of 20 years.
BOLDUAN: A lot to come before then. Thank you so much, Nick. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Coming up for us, one year in, the president insists that he has outperformed expectations. But he suffered another defeat in the Senate last night and now the White House is shifting focus. That's ahead.
