Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

President Biden Hits Russia with Dozens of New Sanctions; Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is Interviewed About U.S. Hitting Russia with Sanctions; Closing Arguments Start Monday After Defense Rests. Aired 4-4:30p ET

Aired April 15, 2021 - 16:00   ET

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

(MUSIC)

[16:00:12]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

We begin today with the world lead. In minutes, President Joe Biden will speak after imposing sweeping sanctions on Russia, blocking 46 Russian officials operatives and entities all of them from entering the United States, and also preventing Americans from doing business with them. The Biden administration also today expelling an additional ten Russian diplomats/operatives from the United States.

The moves are, the administration says, punishment for Moscow's interference in the 2020 election, its occupation of the Ukrainian territory Crimea and the massive SolarWinds cyber attack, publicly acknowledged in December. You might recall, that was a massive cyber breach of U.S. companies and different U.S. government agencies.

The United States, for the first time today, formally named the Russian foreign intelligence service called the SVR, as the perpetrator of the SolarWinds attack and the Biden administration revealed new details about Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The U.S. now disclosing what has long been suspected but never stated outright by the U.S. government, that Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik, who received those sensitive internal polling data information the Trump campaign in 2016, specifically from Paul Manafort, that he gave that information, Kilimnik, to Russia's intelligence services.

You might recall, former President Trump denied and downplayed Russia's actions. He ultimately pardoned Manafort for separate offenses.

Now, as CNN's Alex Marquardt reports, today's move suggests clearly a very different approach regarding Russia than that of Biden's predecessor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Harsh and wide ranging punishments today from the Biden administration against Russia, an aggressive response to Russian interference in U.S. elections, and their recent historic cyberattack.

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Our objective here is to impose costs for what we feel are unacceptable actions by the Russian government.

MARQUARDT: Among those actions, Russia's attempt to influence the 2020 presidential election. Thirty-two people and entities were sanctioned today, including for the use of disinformation websites like these, spreading lies, directed by Russia's main intelligence agencies.

Russia's efforts and operations were global, a network in Africa and companies in Pakistan. Then there's the 2016 presidential election.

The U.S. Treasury Department's also targeted Russian Konstantin Kilimnik for giving Russian intelligence polling data and campaign strategy in that race. Kilimnik was also sanctioned for interfering in the 2020 race. He's a longtime associate of 2016 Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who officials also say promoted the idea that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election. A conspiracy theory also pushed by former President Trump.

For the first time, today, the U.S. also named the Russian intelligence agency behind the unprecedented cyberattack known as the SolarWinds hack uncovered late last year, a sophisticated campaign into at least nine U.S. federal agencies and around 100 companies. Cracking down on Russian intelligence, the Biden administration sanctioned six technology companies connected to them and announced it would kick out ten Russian diplomats from the embassy in Washington, including known spies.

One issue where Russia was not punished is for the reported bounties that Russia put on the heads of American troops in Afghanistan, reports that Biden used during the campaign the blast Trump.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As president I will never, never, never stand silent in the face of intelligence reports that the Kremlin has put bounties on the head of U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan.

MARQUARDT: The intelligence on that, Biden officials now say, isn't strong enough to demand action now. Instead, they'll respond through diplomats and the military.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT (on camera): And the Russians knew that this U.S. action was coming because President Biden told President Putin on a phone call they had a few days ago. Now, Biden says he's going to talk about that call with Putin in just a little bit.

Before these sanctions came out earlier today, Jake, Putin's spokesman said they consider them to be illegal.

TAPPER: All right. Alex Marquardt, thanks so much. Joining us now to discuss, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Chairman Schiff, thanks for joining us.

So, the intent of these new sanctions is to deter Russia, but you say that sanctions alone are not enough. What other actions do you think the Biden administration needs to take?

[16:05:03]

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, particularly in the cyber arena, there are certain things the sanctions are not going to deter. If the Russians think it's within their advantage to steal certain information, whether it's trade secrets or national security secrets, they're going to try. And we are just going to have to really harden our cyber defenses.

If we're really, really good, we might detect in advance maybe, I don't know, 25, 50, even 75 percent of planned attacks by Russia or China, probably a lot less, frankly. The rest are going to get through, and so we need to make sure that first and foremost, our defenses are much stronger than they are today.

TAPPER: These sanctions reveal a new acknowledged, public link between the Trump campaign in 2016 and Russia. The U.S. now designating Konstantin Kilimnik, a known Russian agent, and revealing the Trump campaign official Paul Manafort gave Kilimnik sensitive internal polling, which we already knew, and campaign strategy information, but now, the U.S. intelligence is acknowledging for the first time that Kilimnik gave that information to Russian intelligence.

Now, you led the committee's probe into Trump and Russia. You've gotten a lot of heat, frankly, for suggesting that there was proof of conspiracy or collusion that Mueller did not definitively prove. So what do you make of this announcement?

SCHIFF: Well, I think it's just further evidence of the fact that the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was giving internal campaign polling data and strategic information to an agent of Russian intelligence. And, you know, I think if that were done by a Democratic president administration, then I think Republicans universally would say, well, that's exactly what collusion is.

It doesn't matter what party is responsible. That kind of unethical, immoral conduct, unpatriotic conduct ought to be condemned. But, look, it's a direct link between the Trump campaign getting that information at a time when the Russians were engage in the trying to help Trump win through this social media campaign, in which that very data, given to Russian intelligence, would help that clandestine social media campaign.

TAPPER: There's another thing we learned today, perhaps for flattering to President Trump, which is about this bounty story. Now, as a candidate, Biden accused the president of betraying his duty by not punishing Russia after reports they put bounties on soldiers in Afghanistan. But now, President Biden is not punishing Russia for that specifically because the intelligence community says that they have low to moderate confidence it's a true story.

So, it looks as though Trump might have had the right response, don't you think?

SCHIFF: Well, I don't think Trump didn't have to right response in that he didn't confront the Russians on them didn't appear to take it seriously. You know, it's my sense that the intelligence community believes the Russians did engage in this conduct, but they don't have to right level of confidence in that conclusion to go forward with sanctions on that basis.

What it also tells us, though, is with respect to those areas that they have moved forward on, just how solid they view the intelligence to be in terms of Russia's intervention in 2016, in our 2020 election, in terms of Russia's responsibility for the SolarWinds hack and other maligned activity, it just shows you how very confident they are in that intelligence.

TAPPER: So Biden spoke with Putin this week. In the readout of the call, Biden did not bring up imprisoned Russian dissident Alexey Navalny nor did he bring up either of the former U.S. Marines that are currently in Russian jails unjustly, Trevor Reed and Paul Whelan. Was that a mistake not to bring those three men up?

SCHIFF: I believe, and I can't be 100 percent sure about this, but in the last call with Putin -- this is the second call that I know of. He did raise the issue with Navalny, and those things need to be front and center in terms of our relationship. But, you know, I think the president obviously had a whole array of priorities in this particular call with Putin, and I think that those issues, though, if there is a summit, they absolutely have to be on the table and we have to impress upon Putin in every way we can that we will respond when they poison Putin's opponents, and we will respond when they unjustly imprison people, particularly when they take action against U.S. citizens.

TAPPER: Let's talk about that proposed summit which Biden proposed, might happen in the coming months with Putin. Today, Biden administration officials say Biden wants to build a more stable and predictable relationship with Russia.

How can that happen based on all the activities Russia is engaged in?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, I think what the president has done, which makes sense, is to push back hard in areas where the Russians are acting in ways that are antithetical to our interests and to the international institutions and rule of law.

[16:10:12]

But at the same time recognize there are some common interests. Limiting nuclear weapons is a deep common interest. Avoiding unexpected warfare, blundering into warfare is a common interest. And so, I think it was very smart of the administration, quite

frankly. At the same time they're embarking on a strong pushback of Russian maligned activities to keep to door open and say, we recognize there's some common interest and we want at least some predictability in the relationship.

TAPPER: All right. Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California of the House Intelligence Committee -- Chairman, thanks for your time today, sir. Good to see you.

SCHIFF: Good to see you.

TAPPER: We're waiting for President Biden to come out and address these new Russian sanctions -- these new sanctions, rather, on Russia for the hack attacks, for the election interference, for Crimea. We're going to bring that to you live when he comes out and hits the microphone there.

And as the defense rests in the Derek Chauvin murder trial, police in Chicago are releasing Chicago of a different deadly police shooting. This one involving a 13-year-old. It's different from the Floyd case, but it is disturbing nonetheless.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:15:35]

TAPPER: And we're back with our national lead now.

All of the evidence has been presented and every witness has now testified in the murder trial of former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin.

Today, both the prosecution and the defense officially rested their case, and closing arguments are expected to start on Monday morning, putting Chauvin's fate in the hands of a jury of his peers, which means we could theoretically be days away from a verdict in this crucial trial -- as CNN's Sarah Sidner now reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEREK CHAUVIN, DEFENDANT: I will invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege today.

SARA SIDNER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the first time since the start of the trial, former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin spoke in court.

JUDGE PETER CAHILL, HENNEPIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT: Do you feel your decision not to testify is a voluntary one in your behalf?

CHAUVIN: Yes, it is.

SIDNER: He chose not to take the stand as a witness in his own defense, leading the defense to rest its case.

ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, at this time, the defense rests.

SIDNER: The prosecution then brought back its star medical witness to refute the idea brought up by yesterday's defense expert.

DAVID FOWLER, FORMER CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: It is an extremely toxic gas.

SIDNER: That exhaust from the squad car's tail pipe possibly led to carbon monoxide poisoning of George Floyd.

JERRY BLACKWELL, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Do you agree with that proposition that's highlighted there?

MARTIN TOBIN, PULMOLOGIST: No, I do not. It's simply wrong.

SIDNER: The prosecution attempted to introduce new lab result evidence about carbon monoxide poisoning.

BLACKWELL: It was discovered yesterday by Dr. Baker. It would return a value for the carbon monoxide content and that would show whether or not that result is in the normal range or not.

SIDNER: The defense argued the late evidence entry by the prosecution should lead to a mistrial.

NELSON: It's our position these new test results should not go in front of jury, first and foremost, and second, if they were I would be moving for a mistrial.

SIDNER: The judge agreed.

CAHILL: I find that Dr. Fowler's report gave sufficient notice to the state that carbon monoxide -- the carbon monoxide that was potentially in George Floyd's blood could have affected cause of death. The late disclosure has prejudice to the defense. It's not going to be allowed.

SIDNER: A short time later, all witness testimony came to an end.

BLACKWELL: The state of Minnesota rests.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SIDNER (on camera): So, the defense and the prosecution have both rested as you heard there, which means the jury will hear closing arguments on Monday, the judge says, and they could very well get the case on Monday as well and start deliberating.

I do want to mention this -- just a few minutes ago, about five minutes ago I spoke with Philonise Floyd who talked about what it was like being inside the court and watching much of the trial. He said it was extremely difficult, extremely emotional, and he believes all the evidence anyone needed to see in this case is the video that the world saw, and he said he's hoping the jury, in his words, gives the family justice -- Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Sara Sidner, thank you so much.

Let's discuss with our panel.

Jennifer, let me start with you. The defense rested today. They called seven witnesses over two days.

They only have to sway one juror, only have to convince one person that there's reasonable doubt to have a hung jury. Do you think that the defense might have succeeded in achieving that?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think so, Jake. You know, their goal was to throw a bunch of arguments out there and hope that something resonated with the jurors, but, you know, I just think it's too much to overcome with that video. You know, their witnesses, I think, were not as strong as the prosecution's. The cross- examination was very effective.

And so, while they only need one, jurors tend to collegial. They tend to collaborate. When they get back in their jury room, they often sometimes compromise. So hung juries aren't as common as some people think, and I think this jury will likely be able to reach a verdict here.

TAPPER: Van, what do you think?

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I certainly hope so. I don't think we should forget how hard it is for so many people to accept that someone with a badge, someone with a uniform, someone who's been entrusted by society to enforce a law, could just really be a despicable, horrible human being, which is obviously what we're looking at.

We've seen no remorse from this officer, no emotion from this officer. The idea a sociopath could be walking around with a gun and a badge in our society, for some people, it's just too much and they'll look for ways to reaffirm their own view that all police officers are saints and superheroes.

The question is, when they were in the jury selection process, how effective was the prosecution in weeding out people who think that way?

[16:20:04]

If they were effective at getting those kind of extreme people out, they should be fine. But all you need is one to slip through, and you've got a problem.

TAPPER: Jennifer, explain to us what happened today with this carbon monoxide argument. The defense, Chauvin's team, had presented an argument from a medical expert that there are a number of factors that could have led to George Floyd's death, including the exhaust coming from the car. Then there was some sort of debate and discussion today.

Explain what happened.

RODGERS: So, apparently what happened is Dr. Baker, when he saw that testimony from the defense's expert, realized that there was a report about the levels of carbon monoxide in George Floyd's blood that was not turned over, and ultimately, that means that it can't be used. It's too prejudicial to the defense to turn over expert reports late in trial, and indeed after the defense's expert had already testified about that topic. So that was excluded.

Prosecutors were effective in their cross-examination on this topic of the defense's doctor and also were able to recall Dr. Tobin who kind of got around it by using different information that actually was in front of the jury, so I don't think it hurt them, but it's an own goal. You should never have a report that just slips through the cracks and doesn't get turned over to the defense, because you could wind up in a mistrial situation. So, that was unfortunate.

TAPPER: An own goal by the prosecution?

RODGERS: Yes, that should never have happened. They should have been able to use that report for much more than they did. It would have totally eviscerated this argument about carbon monoxide had they been able to just have it come out during Dr. Tobin's testimony in the first place.

TAPPER: Van, the jury is going to be sequestered during deliberations. The judge said, pack for a long stay, hope for a short stay. Do you think we're going get a quick verdict? What do you think?

JONES: The longer it waits the worse it is for the family, the worse it is for the community and the worse it is for justice. This should be open and shut.

I agree the prosecution did make a mistake in this area. But I'm somebody who's, you know, I'm very -- I've spent 25 years courting litigation and suing police officers, trying to close prisons, et cetera. I have never seen a prosecution team go after a cop like this. They did a great job.

Keith Ellison, the attorney general, needs to be commended for making sure they did a great job. And it should be open and shut.

If they start haggling and haggling and haggling, what you could end up with is a compromise thing, you know, where you convict him on something small, and the sentencing is 12 months or six months and then you're going to have a very bad outcome. So, the longer it waits, it goes, the worse it is.

TAPPER: And, Jennifer, the jury cannot ask to hear any more testimony. They can ask the judge questions, will have access to all the evidence that's already been presented. So, now, the question will be which testimony, which witnesses stuck with them the most.

RODGERS: Yeah, and it's really hard to tell. Apparently -- and judges differ on their rules on this -- he's going send back all of the evidence for them to peruse at their own leisure, so we won't even know what they're looking at. Oftentimes, and this is how it works in federal court, they'll actually a question, will ask to see testimony again to have it read back to them so everyone will know what they're focusing on.

We won't know that here, but they'll have access to all after that. They can ask legal questions. There will be plenty to mull over on these three different charges they have to consider.

TAPPER: All right. Jennifer, Van, thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it. We're standing by for President Biden to speak from the White House at any moment. But first, tense moments in a House hearing today with Dr. Anthony Fauci caught in the middle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I don't want you to answer my question. The American people want Dr. Fauci to answer the question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your time expired, sir! You need to respect the chair and shut your mouth!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The pressing pandemic questions that led to that exchange. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:28:37]

TAPPER: In our health lead today, Pfizer's CEO says that people will likely eventually need to get a third vaccine dose, a booster, maybe as soon as six months from their first inoculation because protection against COVID reduces over time them.

This news comes as Alexandra Field reports now, we're still in a holding pattern regarding the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine because the CDC says they need more time to figure out whether they're going to change distribution recommendations.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The future of the Johnson & Johnson single-dose COVID vaccine still in limbo.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Hopefully, we'll get a decision quite soon as to whether or not we can get back on track with this very effective vaccine.

FIELD: Following reports of at least six cases of rare and severe blood clots among women who had been giving the shot, including one death, and a similar one man during the clinical trial, as a CDC committee chose not to vote on next steps, citing a need for more information, fueling mounting frustration among some in the community. DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Every single day, there are tens

of thousands of people who will get infected by COVID. Hundreds of people are going to die. So, I think they could have done something.

FIELD: Also frustrated, some Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, one of them took on Dr. Fauci today about the pandemic's future.

JORDAN: What measure, what standard, what objective outcome do we have to reach before -- before Americans get their liberty and freedoms back?

FAUCI: You know, you're indicating liberty and freedom. I look at it as a public health measure to prevent people from dying and going to the hospital.

JORDAN: You don't think Americans' liberties have been threatened in the last year, Dr. Fauci?

[16:30:00]