Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Republicans Seeking to Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas; President Biden Decides on Response to Jordan Attack. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 30, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:29]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right, the latest from inside the hearing to impeach a Cabinet secretary for the first time in nearly 150 years.

SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: And browsing online by using just your thoughts. Elon Musk says one of his companies just implanted a brain chip that will give people new powers with their minds.

BERMAN: And you thought you had heard everything. The conspiracy theories involving Taylor Swift, the Super Bowl, and who knows what else, you would not believe where they are being taken seriously, or, actually, maybe you would.

Kate is away today. I'm John Berman with Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SIDNER: But we begin with breaking news. Just moments ago, you saw here President Biden told reporters he has decided what he will do in retaliation to the drone attack that killed three American soldiers in Jordan.

Let's bring in Arlette Saenz.

Arlette, we heard a couple of different comments about a lot of different things, but this was first on people's minds. What did he say?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, President Biden and his national security team have been working over the past few days trying to decide how the U.S. will respond.

And just moments ago, as he was leaving the White House, he told me that he has, in fact, made that decision. Take a listen very quickly to what the president had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) how you will respond to the attack?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SAENZ: Now, we know that this is something that he's been deliberating for quite a few days. I also asked the president, what will be different this time? Of course, the U.S. has tried to respond to these types of attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in the past, but, so far, these attacks have been undeterred.

I asked him what would be different this time, and he said, "We will see."

Now, this all comes as the U.S. and the White House have really been quite careful and deliberate in their language, saying that they do not want to provoke a broader regional conflict, specifically with Iran. The White House, of course, has assigned some responsibility to groups they believe are responsible for this, saying that they believe it is the responsibility of Iranian-backed militant groups in Iraq and Syria.

But President Biden today was also asked specifically whether he holds Iran responsible for the deaths of the three U.S. service members. He told reporters that he holds them responsible in this fact that they are providing weapons to some of these groups that have carried out these types of attacks.

So we will see whether the White House has more to elaborate that on this moment. But the president right now is really trying to strike a very delicate balance, vowing that there will be a forceful U.S. response with the hope of deterring these types of attacks in the future, while also trying to prevent this from spreading into a wider conflict.

Now, the president is on his way down to Florida today for a pair of political fund-raisers, showing the balancing acts he's also playing when it comes to acting as commander in chief, while also turning some attention to his reelection campaign as well.

We also know that the president in these private fund-raisers is often a bit more candid with his thoughts. We will see if over the course of the day we perhaps get some more insight into how the president has arrived at his decision and what that could be, as the U.S. is vowing that there will be a forceful response after the death of those three U.S. service members.

SIDNER: So, the big headline that you helped us get, Arlette Saenz, is that President Biden has decided on the response that is going to be made by the United States to that attack from Iranian-backed militia that killed three people, three service members in Jordan.

That is the big news at this hour. Arlette Saenz, thank you so much for bringing all of that to us -- John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now, CNN military analyst retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton, and Kim Dozier, CNN global affairs analyst.

Kim, I just want to start with you because the president's words were quite careful, I think. Number one, he said Iran's responsible for the funding. Number two, he said he didn't want to see a wider war in the Middle East. What does that point to in terms of the response that he told Arlette that he had decided on?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, according to CNN's reporting, it is a combination that's being considered of strikes and cyberattacks, other measures.

So I think what you're going to see is, just like they have done with the Houthis, that the U.S. goes after the capability, goes after the Kataib Hezbollah branches inside Syria, perhaps even inside Iraq, with multiple strikes against troops, weapons depots, and combine that with likely some more sanctions against Iranian leaders and possibly a covert cyberattack that we will hear about later.

[11:05:18]

BERMAN: Colonel Leighton, could you follow up on that with maybe some specifics in terms of the U.S. military action? Where exactly do you think they would strike here?

I have a map up here just so people know that shows where U.S. troops are. So when you consider where the U.S. will respond, you can see how many thousands of U.S. troops might be in that area. So where do you see the U.S. responding, Colonel, and with what?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, John, I think the basic idea is that the U.S. response is going to concentrate mostly in Iraq.

There's a possibility it could also go into Syria. But, as Kim mentioned, Kataib Hezbollah, the primary group that is an Iranian proxy in Iraq, is probably going to be the main target. It seems as if the administration has decided or the intelligence has shown that this group may have been behind the attack on Tower 22 that killed those three U.S. service members.

So I think what they're going to do is probably going to use some airstrikes. I think they will also perhaps -- there's a potential, at least for some special operations activities, and, of course, as Kim mentioned, a cyberattack. So those are the kinds of things that we can probably see.

They may go after command-and-control nodes. So they will try to go after the Kataib Hezbollah headquarters and personalities. So that could involve a potential high-value target attack against individuals. But those are the kinds of options that they have and probably the most likely scenario within that area.

If they want to avoid a wider war, John, they will probably not go after some of the Iranian assets that are helping the Houthis. But that is also a possibility that they could do that.

BERMAN: So, Kim, if we're talking about, as Colonel Leighton suggests there, some kind of U.S. response in Iraq -- and these are the outlines of where Iraq is, 2,500 U.S. soldiers there -- it's a little complicated.

At this point, the United States has a somewhat complicated and increasingly strained relationship with the Iraqi government. Yes, these are terror forces operating within that country, but how would Iraq feel if the U.S. responded there?

DOZIER: Yes, the U.S. has already ruffled feathers inside Iraq and got the prime minister and the Parliament talking about possibly expelling U.S. and foreign forces that are currently there at the Iraqi government's invitation when the U.S. struck a target inside Baghdad, the capital.

So, I think they will probably stick to the hinterland of Iraq, someplace that won't create such a huge response, because you have to look at the wider conflict that's going on between Iran and the U.S. for influence throughout the region.

Iran considers those U.S. troops that are based in Jordan, based in Syria, and based in Iraq as being in its backyard and fighting for influence with the Iraqi government and other regional governments. Iran wants them out.

Iran is in a constant ideological war with the United States, as well as this physical war being fought through proxies. So anything it can do to raise the cost, raise the stakes for the U.S., that is something it wants to carry out.

The White House is mindful of that, so they're going to be careful to try to thread the needle to hit those responsible so that, back in the U.S., Democrats and Republicans crying for a response can't say, well, you didn't do anything, but also not enough to give Tehran an excuse to expand this conflict.

BERMAN: And, Colonel Leighton, obviously the other thing happening in the region right now is the war against Hamas.

There are these hostage negotiations. At what point could whatever the U.S. does in response to the attack that killed three U.S. shoulders in Jordan, at what point could that slow or stop the hostage negotiations?

LEIGHTON: Well, I think it really depends on Hamas' reaction to this.

Of course, they see themselves as allied with Kataib Hezbollah and any of the other groups in Iraq that are supporting Iran. At least for the moment, they feel that they're allied with them. So Hamas may decide to slow-roll some of the things that they're looking at right now in terms of that peace proposal.

So that is, of course, cease-fire proposals. So that's going to, I think, be a major factor there, John. The other thing that could happen in this particular case is that there could be a wrinkle because of Israeli actions in the area as well.

But as far as the U.S. response is concerned, I think it depends on the degree of the U.S. response and how Hamas reacts to that response. [11:10:03]

BERMAN: All right, Colonel Cedric Leighton, Kim Dozier, thank you both so much for being with us -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right, if you missed it in 1876, you can watch it play out this morning on Capitol Hill.

A House committee is poised to vote to impeach a us Cabinet secretary, something they have never done in 150 years, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on the hot seat. This is some of the back-and-forth we just heard in the House Homeland Security Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARK GREEN (R-TN): We have not approached this day or this process lightly. Secretary Mayorkas' actions have forced our hand. We cannot allow this border crisis to continue.

We cannot allow fentanyl to flood across our border or criminals to waltz in undeterred. And we cannot allow a Cabinet secretary with no regard for the separation of powers or the rule of law to remain in office.

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): Extreme MAGA Republicans who are running the House of Representatives are deeply unserious people. They don't want progress. They don't want solutions. They want a political issue. And most of all, they want to please their disgraced former president.

The MAGA-led impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas is a baseless sham. And the few rational Republicans left in the House know that, even if they refuse to admit it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Wow.

Let's get straight to Lauren Fox. She is joining us from Capitol Hill this morning, where she is every morning.

Lauren, this is heated, as we expected. What are you hearing?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, you are hearing Republicans defending these moves, saying that this isn't political, that they believe that Mayorkas has acted in bad faith in his job as the secretary of homeland security.

Meanwhile, you have Democrats saying repeatedly, and I have heard this from multiple members this morning, that policy disagreements are not grounds for impeachment. They have impressed upon Republicans that, if they are serious about wanting to fix the situation at the southern border, there is a proposal coming out of the Senate that they could look at as a potential road map to fixing some of those issues that they're so concerned about.

But I will tell you, Sara, in talking to some of the members in this committee, including some members who hail from swing districts, including Representative LaLota, who I just spoke with, he told me that he -- if the deal coming out of the Senate looks like some of the reports he's saying, he does not support it.

He said it would be irresponsible to say he didn't back a bill without reading the text of it. But he says he does have concerns. And I think that does echo the sentiment coming from Republican leadership, including the sentiment coming from the House speaker.

He wrote in that letter on Friday that, if this Senate deal looks like the bill that has been reported on, that he believes it will be dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. I also pressed the chairman of this committee, Mark Green, to give me a sense of whether or not he thinks they're going to actually have the votes on the floor of the House of Representatives to actually move this impeachment forward.

Here's what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: How confident are you guys that you're going to have the votes on the floor?

GREEN: From my perspective, I'm doing what is, I think, my duty. And votes will be what votes are. But I feel pretty good. I mean, but it doesn't matter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: Of course, it ultimately does matter what the vote count is when you're talking about impeaching a Cabinet secretary for the first time in 150 years, Sara.

But I think the point that he is making here is, is, Republicans view this as an essential issue that they are taking up right now. The reality from Democrats is that they view this as a political cudgel that Republicans are trying to use in a presidential election year -- Sara.

SIDNER: There is certainly a crisis at the border. Everyone can agree with that. How to fix it is a whole different matter.

Thank you so much, Lauren Fox, for all of your reporting there on Capitol Hill -- John.

BERMAN: A new proposed hostage deal between Israel and Hamas, where does it stand this morning?

And how much extra time must you have on your hands to dream up a conspiracy theory involving Taylor Swift, the Super Bowl and President Biden? Go grab your tinfoil hat and run.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:18:59] SIDNER: Just moments ago, President Biden left the White House for campaign events in Florida today. And he was asked whether President Trump should be allowed to remain on the 2024 ballot. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Should Donald Trump be allowed on the ballot?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As far as I'm concerned, that's fine.

QUESTION: Why is he leading you in the polls if he's a threat to democracy, as you say?

BIDEN: Because of guys like you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All right, his response: "As far as I'm concerned, that's fine."

This comes as Illinois' state Board of Elections holds a public meeting where they will decide whether Trump can appear on the state's primary ballot or if he is barred by the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban.

Joining us now, CNN political analyst and PBS White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez and Axios senior contributor Margaret Talev.

Thank you both for being here.

Let me just first ask you about this question you have Biden responding to. A lot of states are looking at whether President Trump, former President Trump, can be on the ballot. Does his answer -- is his answer a good one, to say let the people decide? The courts are going to ultimately.

[11:20:03]

I will start with you.

MARGARET TALEV, SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR, AXIOS: Sara, I think what the president seems to be doing there -- and he seemed to be able to hear the question -- a lot of times, in the chaos of the chopper blades, kind of haphazard answers happen.

It sounded like he understood exactly what he was saying, what he was being asked and what he was saying. But it sounds that he is separating himself from these legal arguments. I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court is going to say, well, there's -- President Biden's fine with it.

So, I think they're going to decide on the legal merits. But as a political matter, President Biden seems to be signaling he is not joining active efforts to try to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. I think that's interesting and that the White House is going to be asked a lot of follow-up questions about it.

SIDNER: There was another question asked about the border. The border is a huge issue, the southern border. It's going to be an issue, of course, in November.

Biden is pledging now to shut the border down, and he's making some concessions. How -- when you look at the situation, is impeaching Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, helpful in all of this? Or is this just a talking point that can be used with the Trump base that they did this or they went forward with this?

I will start with you, Laura.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's certainly a talking point that Republicans are going to use, Sara.

I mean, what it's also reflective of is how far right the House Republican Conference has moved, which is that they -- this was something that was long called for by the hard right flank. They wanted to see Alejandro Mayorkas impeached essentially since House Republicans took control of the House after the midterms.

And they feel more emboldened because of the fact that former President Donald Trump is -- now appears to be running away with the nomination and this is something that he eagerly wants to see done. He also wants to see the border deal squashed.

Now, what's striking is the disconnect between the House Republicans and the Senate Republicans, because Senate Republicans, some of whom are very, very conservative, like Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, are negotiating right now with Secretary Mayorkas and wanting to see some type of border deal come to fruition.

SIDNER: Yes, those are all good points.

Margaret, leaving the conference meeting this morning, the House Republicans have said that their speaker, Mike Johnson, made clear that the Senate immigration deal has, he put it, no way forward in the House. Johnson is denying that he vowed to kill the Senate border deal for Donald Trump, but admitted to talking to Trump at length.

So do we believe him?

(LAUGHTER)

TALEV: Well, I mean, in the end, this has now become a highly politicized issue. A lot of polling shows that immigration and border issues are supplanting Americans' concerns about the economy as the economic indicators get better. And Republicans want to be able to hammer this as an election year issue.

I think we have seen President Biden surprise a lot of Democrats and, to be honest, surprised a lot of Republicans by suggesting he wants to lean into more executive power. He wants ideas like what the Senate may provide him, which is the idea to have more power to suspend asylum at ports of entry when thresholds hit certain numbers. It's -- on the one hand, Biden could face some strain inside his own

Democratic flank for that. On the other hand, if he knows Republicans aren't going to give it to him anyway, he has nothing to lose. So this allows him to posture himself as willing to take a stronger stance on immigration.

And Republicans are betting that if they prevent him from getting that, voters will blame him anyhow when the crisis continues. So this is now just -- it is -- there is -- it's clearly going to be a deeply political issue. This is also if the House votes to impeach Joe -- Mayorkas, it's going to further weaken impeachment as an actual tool for an actual crisis.

SIDNER: Yes, but that's actually a really good point to be made, weakening of impeachment, which is high crimes and misdemeanors in this particular case.

I do want to talk about what Nikki Haley said. She is the third person in this race weighing in on the issue. Here's what she said this morning about the border.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I haven't seen the details of this border issue. I don't think the president should say wait until the election to get this done. We can't wait one more day.

But what I do think is important that I haven't heard is they don't have the remain-in-Mexico policy in that bill. You have to keep people from coming on U.S. soil, period.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Laura, your thoughts on Nikki Haley's take on all this.

BARRON-LOPEZ: Well, look, I think she's trying to express what a number of Senate Republicans have said, which is -- and even James Lankford said, one of the key negotiators, which is that the entire reason that border negotiations are even in conversation right now as attached to the national security package with Ukraine aid and with Israel aid is because Republicans wanted that to happen.

[11:25:10]

They demanded something on border security and on immigration for their votes to support more Ukraine aid. And so that's why the Senate is pursuing this negotiation. And then, after months of saying that they would potentially entertain giving more money to Ukraine as long as border was attached, now you're hearing from a number of Republicans in both chambers saying, never mind, that they don't want to support any type of deal, and so basically pulling the rug out from under the negotiators.

I think it's also an important point here, Sara, which is that I think it's lost when we're talking about whether or not you can fully stop people from crossing the border. We don't know the details of this potential deal yet.

We do know that it gives the president some pretty strong authority, expulsion authority. But one thing that I think gets lost that may be a big change here is the change to asylum law, which is that, right now, under U.S. law, asylum seekers have the right to claim asylum whether you are entering at a port of entry or you're entering in between.

And so the idea that you can stop every single migrant from crossing the border, I'm not sure is an entirely realistic one.

SIDNER: And we're only talking about the southern border. We never talk about the northern border, where people also cross, just not in these kind of numbers.

Laura Barron-Lopez and Margaret Talev, thank you both for coming on and discussing all this with us -- John.

BERMAN: All right, new drama inside the courtroom on the discussion between the parents of a Michigan school killer and school officials advocating for an intervention just before the shooting took place.

The astronomical verdict against the maker of the weed killer Roundup.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)