Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Trump Could Host Jan. 6 Rioters After Pardons; Trump's War On DEI; At Least Two Injured In Nashville School Shooting. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired January 22, 2025 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:44]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: From the Big House to the White House. Sources telling CNN that President Trump is considering a White House visit for some of those who stormed the Capitol four years ago on January 6th.
Plus, the Trump administration showing the door to government DEI staffers shutting down programs and initiatives and making good on a controversial campaign promise.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: At a school shooting in Nashville. At least two students are wounded after that shooting which began in the cafeteria. We are following these major developing stories for you and many more all coming in right here to CNN News Central.
SANCHEZ: We are grateful that you're sharing part of your afternoon with us I'm Boris Sanchez alongside Erica Hill in for Brianna Keilar today in Washington. Great to have you.
HILL: It's nice to meet with you.
SANCHEZ: Yeah. It's been a busy few days for the second Trump administration. The President moving quickly to transform the federal government. Right now, DEI is on the chopping block. Employees who work in diversity, equity and inclusion roles have just three hours left to vacate their offices. They've been put on administrative leave as part of Trump's broader effort to scrap diversity initiatives altogether from federal agencies.
HILL: Meantime, as Trump is facing backlash for pardoning those convicted in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, we're now hearing Trump administration officials are actually considering inviting some of those rioters to the White House. CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny is live with more for us now. So I guess this goes from storming the Capitol to now a potential presidential meet and greet. What more do we know about these plans?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Erica, that certainly is possible. I mean, on day three of this administration it is pretty remarkable the degree to which the January 6th matter is hanging over this new administration. Of course, the President has been non-apologetic about issuing the mass pardons. And there has been a discussion, of course, of having some of the January 6th convicts up on Capitol Hill.
Congresswoman Lauren Boebert just told our Manu Raju a short time ago she would be happy to give them a tour of the White House. And there is discussion, we are told, about potentially having some of them here at the White House. These are just discussions right now, it's unclear exactly what will transpire or how much the White House will want the focus to be on that because they do really want to be in some respects talking about a variety of different things.
And at this hour, we are told that the President is meeting with three Republican lawmakers. And this is a very interesting meeting because these three Republican lawmakers are the only three in the country who won in districts that Kamala Harris also won. There used to be split districts across the country, now only 16, but three of them are Republican districts.
And just a few moments ago, Congressman Don Bacon and two others walked through the White House briefing room. And Congressman Bacon, we caught up with him. He had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DON BACON, (R) NEBRASKA: I haven't been in the White House in the West Wing in four years, so it's good to be back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: So look, this is part of the beginning of this new administration inviting lawmakers up. But again, these three moderate Republican lawmakers who won in Democratic districts there also are needed for the Trump agenda. And these lawmakers are among those who have had deep concerns about this mass pardon. So it's unclear if that will come up during this.
But look, this is just one of the many things hanging over this administration. In the raft of executive orders, there are so many of them that have gone through the January 6th ones without a doubt are certainly weighing heavy.
SANCHEZ: Jeff, talk to us about the action concerning DEI staffers across all federal agencies. They've been placed on leave as of 5 p.m. today?
ZELENY: Look, and this is also the consequences of one of those executive actions that we saw signed in in the opening hours of the new administration. This is on DEI diversity, equity and inclusion, the offices across the Federal Government by 5 p.m. as you said, Boris, they are on paid leave. And as soon as next Friday, they may be dismissed.
And this also is coming as all of DEI related diversity related issues at the federal government are going to be a disband. Now, this is something that the President talked about a lot.
[14:05:02]
Of course, there are many federal protections for many employees here. So we will see how this plays out.
But it certainly is something the White House has wanted to encourage and get credit for. And also urged the private sector to arraign in some of their DEI efforts as well. It's been one of the many divisive things that this president campaigned on and now he's addressing. Boris and Erica.
HILL: Jeff Zeleny. Appreciate it. Thank you, Jeff.
Joining us now to discuss Stephanie Creary. She's an assistant professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. And former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who's the CEO of the nonprofit organization the 1792 Exchange. It's nice to see both of you today.
There has been a lot of pushback, I don't have to tell either one of you, against DEI efforts, and there's been some pushback that this is actually not leading to people getting the jobs who deserve them. Stephanie, when you look at that, and especially what you see in your role at Wharton, does it actually lead to less productivity? Does it lead to issues in the workplace to have a more inclusive workforce?
STEPHANIE CREARY, ASSISTANT PROF., WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA: Yeah. Well, thank you for having me on. And let me start by saying that making any changes as large scale as this to DEI practices, by getting rid of staffers and DEI leaders and DEI offices altogether, it doesn't just hurt black people, women, or historically marginalized groups, which is what most people believe. In fact, most people believe that DEI practices are firmly about who gets in the door.
Most DEI practices, by and large, are about what happens to people once they are already in the door. So what are the implications then for those of us who have jobs? And so let me give you an example, because again, most people don't understand what DEI practices are and aren't focused on what is exactly happening when we are getting rid of them.
So most of us are evaluated on a regular basis for our performance, and our direct supervisors or managers are the people who determine what our performance ratings are. But research and my work with companies shows two things. First, managers often rely on their gut instinct and not universally agreed upon criteria in order to assess performance. And second, no two managers often assess people using the same criteria.
DEI practices were holding managers and organizations accountable for one, using the same criteria and two, creating calibrations processes so that managers are using the same scales in the same way to evaluate performance. So that's an example of when we get rid of DEI leaders, staffers, employees and offices, we get rid of the accountability mechanisms that are ensuring fairness for all of us.
SANCHEZ: Daniel, do you think Trump made the right decision?
DANIEL CAMERON, (R) FORMER KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Boris, thank you guys for having me on. I wholeheartedly believe that he made the right decision. In many ways, the federal government now becomes the gold standard, if you will, for hiring practices moving away from diversity, equity and inclusion to merit, excellence and intelligence or integrity.
And the fact of the matter is, is that you can hold people accountable and be good employers without basing it on quotas. For instance, in my work at 1792, we promote and encourage people to utilize key performance indicators. That has nothing to do with your race or what you look like. It has everything to do with your merit and ability to get a job done. And I'm excited to see this in the federal government.
Look, we -- if we take a step back, what this in large part is about is making the federal government leaner. President Trump came in talking about he wanted to make us safer, secure and more prosperous. Having a diversity, equity, inclusion department doesn't secure our southern border. It doesn't make us safer.
So this is in many ways a reflection of an administration and a president who campaigned on the idea that he wanted to move us to merit, excellence and intelligence, wanted to make us safer, secure and more prosperous. And on now, in the first couple of days, he is making that commitment clear, and I'm excited to see it.
SANCHEZ: So we obviously have two very differing views on DEI. Stephanie, I wonder how you respond to Daniel's view of things.
CREARY: Yeah, well, I spent the past 20 years actually studying what companies do across various sectors in different industries. And hiring practices is one small piece of what constitutes DEI practices. In fact, it's the one that is getting mentioned most often by people who are a bit confused about what it is that organizations are trying to do.
By and large, most of what falls under the auspices of DEI practices in organizations is about the environment for people who work in an organization, it's about fairness in promotion, evaluation, compensation practices. It's about an environment that rewards people fairly based on their merit and based on the work that they put in.
Only focusing on what happens at the hiring level. Focusing arbitrarily on quotas that often don't exist in many organizations is taking the attention off of what the implications are for you and I and for other people who are fully employed in these organizations whose DEI practices are at risk.
[14:10:05]
HILL: Daniel, is there some misunderstanding of what DEI actually encompasses?
CAMERON: Well, look, I appreciate Professor Creary being on with her today. The fact of the matter is, is that we have seen now over 10 companies and some iconic brands, if you will, make a decision to wind down their DEI practices, whether it's Walmart or McDonald's.
And look, some of this is changing because the legal landscape has changed. There was a case in front of the Supreme Court last year, the Fair admissions case, in which they struck down race conscious decisions in admissions related to students. A lot of people, myself included, argue that that potentially could be applied to the private sector. In fact, McDonald's, when they made a judgment to wind down their DEI practices, mentioned that case.
Again, this does not have anything to do -- we all agree at the end of the day that we need to have a colorblind society. And I think employers recognize that they can do that without ultimately making a judgment that it has to largely come down to quotas or looking at someone's skin color.
Again, merit, excellence and intelligence is the way to go. The Trump administration has made that clear. And I think a lot of organizations and corporations are making that judgment as well, seeing that a lot of them are making the decision to move away from DEI.
SANCHEZ: This is one of those conversations I wish we had an hour for. Daniel Cameron, Stephanie Creary, unfortunately, we have to leave it there, but we look forward to having you both on for further discussion in the future. Thanks for joining us.
CAMERON: Thank you so much.
CREARY: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: So President Trump today sat for his first Oval Office interview since returning to the White House. And the interview is with Fox News host Sean Hannity, set to air later tonight. According to the network, the focus was the President's new executive orders and what to expect from his first hundred days in office.
HILL: Fox News also reporting that President Trump did reveal some more details about the letter former President Biden left for him in the resolute desk, Trump saying that Biden wished him, quote, all the best for the next four years.
Joining us now is Susan Page, former President of the White House Correspondents' Association. So when we look at this, it is perhaps not a surprise to anyone that Donald Trump chose to sit down first with Sean Hannity. We're supposed to learn more about these executive orders. Do you think there will be any other surprises in this interview?
SUSAN PAGE, FORMER PRESIDENT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS' ASSOCIATION: Yes, I think if you talk to Donald Trump for any extended period of time, you're likely to get --
HILL: (Inaudible)
PAGE: some surprises. And you know, this is his first interview. But he did a 45 minute news conference as he signed executive orders, taking questions from the press pool. So I think this is encouraging. That's one of the things we expect presidents to do, which is to do interviews, answer questions from the reporters who cover them.
SANCHEZ: Susan, as Erica mentioned, you're the former Head of the White House Correspondents Association. Trump has promised to shake up the press room. There have been calls to bring in podcasters to take out traditional media outlets. What kind of power -- what kind of influence do these news organizations have to keep their place in the briefing room and prevent certain propaganda networks perhaps from being elevated?
PAGE: Well, there's tradition. The tradition is that the White House Correspondents Association designates who gets those seats in the White House briefing room. But it's not a law. And so it's going to be, I think, a matter of discussion with this new administration.
You know, a lot of the things that protect press access to the President are the result of tradition and the way things have always been done. That doesn't mean that's the way it always has to be done. And that is something that we should all be watching pretty closely.
HILL: It's also, -- and part of that would be, I mean, they issue the credentials, right? The White House does. So is there a concern that some of these more well-known news organizations will not get the credentials that they've traditionally had?
PAGE: You know, it's possible. There are the traditions like the White House hard pass for press generally requires you to get a credential from the Standing Committee of Correspondence on the Hill. That's been a safeguard to make sure that it's legitimate journalists who are getting those hard passes.
But that isn't written into law either. So as we've been seeing with other areas, with immigration law, with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and other fronts, these are things that could be endangered or subject to some changes with this new administration.
SANCHEZ: I'm curious, Susan, what you think about how news organizations should approach a second Trump administration, seeing as how he has proven to be quite savvy in kind of guiding the discourse.
PAGE: You know, I think we should have learned some lessons from the first Trump administration, which was disruptive for us as it was for the whole system. And one of the things -- one of the lessons I think we've taken at USA today is let's not focus on shiny objects on the most provocative tweet. Let's focus on the policies that affect our readers, where they live.
[14:15:02]
And that's what we're going to try to do.
HILL: Yeah. And it can be tough sometimes, right? Because we know that the goal sometimes is to really flood the zone with information, to be able to pick that out. It's --
PAGE: And also, you cannot ignore when a President makes a very provocative statement --
SANCHEZ: Right.
HILL: It's true.
SANCHEZ: Right, it's a challenge.
HILL: It's true, yeah. Susan, appreciate it. Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Thank you so much.
Still to come on News Central. Sources telling CNN that President Trump is considering this White House visit for supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. We're going to have a Republican congressman on to give us his thoughts.
HILL: Plus, we are following the latest out of Nashville, where two students have been shot at a high school. The latest details ahead on CNN News Central.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:20:20]
SANCHEZ: Just about all of those convicted and sentenced for their actions on January 6th are now getting out of jail. It's been two days since President Trump issued sweeping pardons and commutations for more than 1,200 Capitol rioters, including those who assaulted police officers.
Now, we're learning the Justice Department has been notifying some of those officers who testified at trial that the rioters they helped to convict are being released. Former capitol officer Staff Sgt. Aquilino Gonell posted these notifications saying that each call or text you see on your screen reflects one of the multiple attackers who assaulted him that day.
Let's discuss with someone who was there who helped defend the Capitol on January 6th. Republican Congressman Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania. Sir, thank you so much for being with us. We talked about the potential for pardons for January 6th rioters back in June of last year. And you told me that you looked in people's eyes who wanted to do nothing but create chaos and cause harm. Do you think it would be a mistake for the President to invite those people to the White House?
REP. DAN MEUSER (R-PA): Hey, Boris, I'm no more than 30ft away from exactly where that occurred. And yes, they were there to do nothing but cause mayhem. And listen, there's no question anybody who assaults a police officer is, I'm disgusted with, is a disgrace, OK. Very, very wrong.
But let's face it, those who have done -- who did that have been in jail now for three to four years. And frankly, that is the average, maybe it should be higher, but that is the average of how long a typical person wrong as could be assaults a police officer. So it's not -- so it's not like they didn't do any time. And I can't help but add, Boris, you know, there were as many prosecutions, slightly more from that four hours of melee here that were prosecuted during the entirety of the so called Summer of Love, which was summer of violence and hate in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Georgetown, Minneapolis and Portland. So that's why this is looked at first glance, people can't stand it. But if you consider the facts, you can understand why the President pardoned them.
SANCHEZ: Many people, sir, were prosecuted and convicted for the protests that we saw unfold in the summer of 2020. Not many of them carried out the kind of attack that we're watching on our screen right now. I do hope that you could answer for me whether you think those folks that assaulted police officers should be invited to the White House.
MEUSER: Well, I don't know about that. That's news to me if that is in fact the case. And listen, President Trump, one thing as well, Boris. He said what he was going to do. He said he was going to pardon the J6ers.
Now, you have people, and you've looked at this that were arrested for sedition, 20 year plus sentences, and some of these that assaulted police, they're at 20 years plus as well. That's excessive. That's beyond the fullest extent of the law, right? So that's why this was done. I don't know anything about the White House situation, but the whole thing needs to be have a certain feel for people.
Like I just got off the phone with someone. I asked him what he was arrested for. It was trespassing. And he was in jail for three months. He's a constituent of mine. So they went excessive in the prosecutions. And America knows how in excessive or how biased it is for others throughout our society.
I mean, you know those illegal immigrants, I have it on my phone that assaulted and kicked and punched police. They were out the next day, Boris, with no bail. So it's these frustrations that people have. And that's what the President, why he said, I'm going to -- I'm going to commute and pardon some of the J6ers because of -- because of the frustration that exists out there. And they did time. They did three to four years.
SANCHEZ: This is a very different tone from you sir --
MEUSER: I'm not condoning it, but I understand it.
SANCHEZ: Sure. It is a very different tone than what you shared with me in June because you said you'd had a private conversation with President Trump in which he differentiated between those convicted of trespassing and those who assaulted police. And you argued that his intention was specifically to pardon the trespassers and not the assaulters. That's obviously not what happened. And it sounds like now you're sort of saying that they did their time and they should be out.
[14:25:03] MEUSER: Well, looking at the facts, the typical time for such assaults. We're not talking murderers here, as President Biden has, as we've seen has pardoned. I mean, President Biden just released someone who murdered two FBI agents. Now, that was a long time ago, but murdered two FBI agents. The FBI is livid over it, and they sent a letter to the Biden administration, please don't do that.
So these folks, these people who were unbelievably wrong once again did the average time. It wasn't like they didn't do any time. And I'm not changing my viewpoint. I just know the facts a little bit better and I'm explaining them. Not necessarily condoning or agreeing, but explaining.
SANCHEZ: So you're referencing Leonard Peltier who was in prison for four decades. Obviously, none of the folks convicted of assault, as you pointed out, will spend more than four years behind bars. I do want to play the sound bite of our discussion because I disagree with your characterization of it. Let's listen to our conversation from June.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: He's talked about -- well, he's talked about pardoning those folks that you were talking about being violent and that hurt a lot of Capitol police officers and other people as well.
MEUSER: Right. Well, no, no, no. Not violent. Not people who hurt police officers. Those who were part, who got caught up in the riot, if you will --
SANCHEZ: He's called them political prisoners, sir.
MEUSER: No, no, I'm talking about the trespassers. There are some that have been --
SANCHEZ: You've heard Donald Trump differentiate between those folks? Because I have not.
MEUSER: -- strongly prosecuted. OK. And we have weak prosecution on most violent crimes in my cities --
SANCHEZ: You've heard Donald Trump differentiate between the folks that were there on January 6th on the Capitol. The ones that you're describing is just getting caught up in the riot and violent rioters --
MEUSER: Well, I've had private with him, so certainly I have. And of course they should. OK. If somebody's beating a police officer and some did. OK. They're far cry different from those who basically wandered in to the Capitol and they were wrong, but they should say -- they should receive no more of a penalty than anybody else who would be --
SANCHEZ: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure there were a whole lot of folks --
MEUSER: -- trespassing.
SANCHEZ: -- just randomly wandering into the halls of Congress --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Aside from those who were trespassing. You don't hear a difference from what you were saying then, that Donald Trump privately told you that he was trying to help those who were trespassing, caught up in the riot, as you say, and those who assaulted police officers. It seems like you --
MEUSER: Boris --
SANCHEZ: -- might have been caught off guard by the release of folks like Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes and some folks who bashed police officers with pipes and batons. Were you surprised that they were released? Do they deserve to be free?
MEUSER: You know what, If I'm not mistaken, the person you just mentioned, I don't even think was there. He got 20 years for organizing the mayhem. He wasn't even there. The person, I believe you just mentioned --
SANCHEZ: He was convicted conspiracy, nevertheless.
MEUSER: But he didn't -- he went -- he didn't assault the police officer and he got over 20 years. So my -- look, what I stated back in June, I did state that violent criminals, but I did state that they should get what the fullest extent of the law. That's -- you just gave credibility to my current position and --
SANCHEZ: I don't know about that, sir.
MEUSER: (Inaudible) that interview. The fullest extent of the law. They went -- they're going beyond that. 22 years, 24 years for sedition, 22 years for, you know, what was done. Look, I'm not condoning it. They were dead wrong. Many of them did their time, Boris. I'm not even saying what my decision would have been.
But I will tell you this, President Trump promised to commute and pardon J6ers. He did it. Joe Biden promised not to pardon his family or his son or some other murderers that were on death row, and he did it. That's a big difference between the credibility and character of the two presidents.
SANCHEZ: Well, aside from whatever --
MEUSER: He said he was going to do it and he did it, and the American people voted for him. ] SANCHEZ: Sure, but you were saying as of last summer that he was going to focus on trespassers and not people who assaulted police officers.
MEUSER: And for the large part, that's certainly what occurred. The 95% of those being pardoned or commuted who have been sitting in jail, by the way, some of them were, in fact protesters that are still sitting in jail. And by the way, with no bail, some of them didn't get trials for a year. It was overdone. It was beyond the full extent of the law --
SANCHEZ: Congressman, do you --
MEUSER: -- and, you know, that's how the President saw it.
SANCHEZ: Do you believe that you are safer today with these folks being pardoned and being out on the street, folks that, as you noted, were convicted of seditious conspiracy, who are now talking about how emboldened they are by being released?
