Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

SAG Awards Pave The Road To Oscars Gold; Senators Brace For Contentious Start To Impeachment Trial, Texas Voters React; Prince Harry Publicly Addresses Decision To Leave Royal Life; Source: Trump Wanted High-Profile Team To Defend Him On T.V.; FBI Expects Extremist Groups To Attend Pro-Gun Rally In Virginia; Biden Wants Sanders' Apology. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired January 19, 2020 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:04]

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Stephanie Elam, and we are live on the silver carpet for the SAG Awards. And, right now, with me is Brett Gelman, my favorite creepy guy from "Fleabag" and also "Stranger Things." Do you like being known as the private, creepy guy?

BRETT GELMAN, ACTOR: Sure, yes. No, totally, it means that I got through to you.

ELAM: That's true.

GELMAN: Yes.

ELAM: You definitely did.

(LAUGHTER)

ELAM: Just one of the great actors that you recognize walking down the carpet here as we get ready for the Screen Actors Guild Awards. We'll be out here before the show and afterwards, so stay tuned. More CNN right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

And it's all eyes on the U.S. Senate this week as Washington braces for what is expected to be a contentious start to President Trump's impeachment trial. Today, the House impeachment managers gathered on the Hill. They are hashing out their strategy after laying out their case in a brief this weekend that runs more than a hundred pages long.

And in it, they assert President Trump's conduct is the Framers' worst nightmare. History will judge each senator's willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly, and defend the Constitution.

The President's lawyers now have until tomorrow to file their detailed brief. But in a six-page initial response to the Senate last night, they took a scorched earth approach to this case laid out by the House, declaring the articles themselves and the rigged process that brought them here are a transparently political act by House Democrats.

Now, 100 U.S. senators will decide this case, and Tuesday's debate over the trial rules will be the first test of whether Republicans are open to breaking from their president.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is in Austin, Texas, where the President is speaking at an event tonight. Vanessa, impeachment is on the President's mind tonight, isn't it?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Ana. Yes, the President just taking the stage a short while ago. He's speaking to thousands of farmers here in Austin, Texas.

He's mainly been on message, touting his two trade policies, that Phase One trade agreement with China and USMCA which he is expected to sign soon. But he did make reference, of course, to this impeachment trial that's set to begin just next week, and it got quite the reaction from the crowd here. Take a listen to what he said moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're achieving what no administration has ever achieved before. And what do I get out of it? Tell me. I get impeached. That's what I get out of it.

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: By these radical left lunatics. I get impeached. But that's OK. The farmers are sticking with Trump.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: They're sticking with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YURKEVICH: And you hear that reaction from the crowd. Definitely, many of the President's supporters here in the audience, many who voted for the President and still have supported him despite being affected by a nearly two-year trade war. We asked some of these farmers who are attending hear how they feel about impeachment. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHARLA MORTIMER, ARIZONA FARMER: Well, I want to see it tried fairly, completely, and I want to see it put to bed, so.

YURKEVICH: Put to bed in which way?

MORTIMER: Trump is innocent. He didn't do anything that he shouldn't have done. He was doing -- everything that he did was for our benefit as his country, and we need to recognize that and let this move forward.

Let the -- let the country get to work. Quit messing with all this crap going on up there. It doesn't -- I mean, the politics of it is it doesn't -- it doesn't help us on the ground at all. It needs to go away.

DONALD FUCHS, TEXAS FARMER: I'm a little concerned about what's going to come out of this thing because I think he's done quite a bit for our country. And I hope we're not spending a bunch of thing -- a bunch of money and time on things that probably shouldn't be done.

T.J. VERVER, TEXAS FARMER: I go by what we see and what impacts us directly. The political side of it, there's always going to be that. That's just the nature of Washington, D.C. But as far as that goes, that doesn't have any impact on how I will vote the next time around.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YURKEVICH: You hear that continued support for the President, Ana. And despite the fact that voters here are paying attention to impeachment, what they really care about are these trade deals, the Phase One agreement and USMCA. These are big deals for the farmers here.

And as we look forward to next week, they say that they will be paying attention, but they're really looking forward to the President closing even more deals in 2020. And the big question, Ana, is will that translate to votes?

Many supporters here say this is the -- the President still has their support, and they'll vote for him again next year already in 2020, Ana.

CABRERA: OK. Vanessa Yurkevich in Austin, Texas, tonight where the President is speaking. Thank you.

It is, at this moment, unclear if we're going to hear from witnesses at all in this trial, the impeachment trial, about to get under way. But Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown says he would be fine with Hunter Biden testifying. Here he is on CNN earlier today.

[19:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: We take the position that we want to hear from witnesses. I don't know what Hunter Biden has to do with the phone call the President made or the --

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: But you're fine hearing from him?

BROWN: I'm fine with hearing -- I mean, I understand, I -- yes, I'm not a lawyer. I understand both sides get to call witnesses. I'm not sure that a lot of Republicans think -- I mean, I think many Republicans think that's a distraction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Joining us now, the director of Defending Democracy Together, Bill Kristol, and "The Atlantic" senior editor, Ron Brownstein.

Gentlemen, good to have you here.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Ana.

CABRERA: Bill, if Hunter Biden were to testify, wouldn't this be a big victory for President Trump? Because all he ever wanted was the appearance of an investigation into Hunter Biden and by extension, Joe Biden, who was and still is a frontrunner.

BILL KRISTOL, DIRECTOR, DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: Yes, I don't think so, Ana. I mean, let him testify, and let's see what he has to say. And I don't think he'll say much that's relevant to what President Trump was trying to do. I mean, he may hurt himself a little bit, I suppose, and maybe hurt his father a little bit in this presidential race.

But each side -- I mean, I think what Senator Brown said is very important for us to remember. This isn't some kind of a game where the senators get to negotiate, and Mitch McConnell gets to be majority leader. It's a trial.

The Senate is required now to try this, to act as the citizen (ph) court of impeachment. The House Managers should try to call who they think could help their case. The President's lawyers should try to call who they think can help their case. There could be objections, just like at any trial, in terms of relevance, and the Chief Justice would rule on those. Fifty-one senators could overrule the Chief Justice.

I think, honestly, if the Republicans try to turn this into some ludicrous spectacle, calling Hunter Biden and others, it will backfire. There are decent Republicans, I think, still in the upper chamber in the Senate who do not want to have this look like a joke. And I'm not so sure they have the votes to call Hunter Biden, but I am very much in favor of letting both sides call witnesses at this point.

CABRERA: Ron, Senator Brown says he thinks most Republicans see Biden's testimony as a distraction. Do you think that's really the case, or do you think they're eager to put him on the spot?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think -- as Bill said, I think it varies in the party. I mean, there is this -- there's a portion of the party in the Senate that essentially wants to, as you suggested, use the trial to advance the goal that the President set out in the first place, which is to create this impression of wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens even though there has been no credible accusation however unseemly Hunter Biden's decision to go on the -- you know, the board of an oil company in -- a natural gas company in Ukraine seems. But I think there are many other Republicans who would be reluctant to

go down that road and bring in someone who is not relevant to the direct issues at hand, which is whether the President and the -- really now, we are seeing, more broadly, the administration try to coerce the Ukrainian government into launching this investigation by withholding not only a White House visit but also military aid.

So I think many of them would view it as a distraction, but it is certainly one of the wild cards. The biggest wild card, of course, is whether we're going to have witnesses at all.

CABRERA: Exactly. And, Bill, weeks ago, you wrote a piece explaining how it would take just four Republican senators to band together with Democrats to allow witnesses, to vote for witnesses. And it seems like that's what is perhaps happening. We have Senator Susan Collins working with a small group of Republicans, she says, to get this done. How do you think this will turn out?

KRISTOL: You know, I think Mitch McConnell will get his rules through, which will have the initial arguments on both sides, and then the vote on witnesses. We'll have to see which witnesses the House Managers request and whether the Republicans actually do object or not.

But I -- yes, I do not think McConnell has 51 votes against -- to prevent any witnesses from testifying. How they testify, whether they're deposed in private, whether they testify in public, what kind of cross-examination there is, those are all questions. But I think enough Republicans are feeling the heat that there needs to be an actual trial here and that there are witnesses who have important evidence that I think we won't go simply without witnesses.

CABRERA: On this question of witness testimony, it's really interesting to hear responses from Republicans who just don't want to give a straight answer about whether they want to call witnesses, especially not the vulnerable Republicans like Martha McSally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as a part of the impeachment trial?

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R), ARIZONA: Manu, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you.

RAJU: You're not going to comment? About this?

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no? Why aren't you telling us?

MCSALLY: Because we're going to vote on Tuesday to start the trial, and let them present the -- excuse me --

INGRAHAM: But how are you going to vote on the motion for more -- for witnesses? MCSALLY: We're going to get to that. I mean, I'm not going to tell

everybody whatever my votes are going to be, but, obviously, my point --

INGRAHAM: It's an easy question, don't you think, Senator?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Ron, it doesn't seem like it was the person asking the question who was the problem, but the question itself. Why is it so difficult for Republicans to answer this question?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, first of all, what you saw from Martha McSally was REALLY striking and an extent -- and a measure of how much kind of the Trump strategy of essentially running against any institution that is not part of the core Republican coalition is spreading through the bloodstream of the Republican Party.

It's a huge gamble for her in a purple state that -- where the suburbs just voted against her and had her lose her race in 2018. It's just extraordinary to see her do that.

[19:09:58]

I think the reason they're so reluctant to say on this is because it is such an indefensible position not to have witnesses. You know, people ask, what did Democrats achieve by delaying the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate?

One thing they achieved was to pressure Mitch McConnell into repeatedly arguing in public that what he is doing, by breaking this into two parts, is following the precedent of the Clinton impeachment where they voted on the rules. First, heard the opening presentations --

CABRERA: Right.

BROWNSTEIN: -- and then voted on witnesses. But, in fact, they did have witnesses. That's the other half of the Clinton precedent.

CABRERA: Right.

BROWNSTEIN: They did have three witnesses that they deposed. And I think it will be very hard after he stressed so much that he's following that precedent for Republicans to turn around and say, we're going to stop following that precedent because we don't want to have witnesses.

CABRERA: And there were 41 witnesses in the trial of Andrew Johnson. I want to play this clip, guys, from "Jeopardy!" earlier this week. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: U.S. Representatives for 12th.

ALEX TREBEK, HOST, "JEOPARDY!": 153rd of California's House delegation is this Intelligence Committee Chairman.

(BEEPING SOUND)

TREBEK: His name is Adam Schiff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Bill, if some of, arguably, the smartest, most informed people in the country don't know who the lead prosecutor in the impeachment trial is, has President Trump already won?

KRISTOL: No, I don't think so. If you really look at the last few months, his approval went down a little bit once the -- after Ukraine -- after the Ukraine story broke. And people aren't comfortable with that story.

When you see Trump's supporters say, we got to move beyond this, we got to move beyond this, why do they want to move beyond it? They want to move beyond it because they kind of know that what the President did was inappropriate. They may not think he should be removed from office for it.

So I do not think this trial is good for President Trump. That's not the reason to do it. That's not the reason to call witnesses or not call witnesses. This is a serious constitutional matter. The senators just swore an oath.

And the degree to which people are just willing to talk about it, how is Mitch McConnell going to manage it as Majority Leader, is bad, actually, for the country, honestly. I mean, this is not just Washington, D.C., inside baseball stuff. These are serious questions of the rule of law and the separation of powers and accountability of the executive branch.

You can come down in different places on how it should be resolved --

CABRERA: Right.

KRISTOL: -- but this kind of dismissal of it as mere politics is really unfortunate.

CABRERA: I just got to say, though, that clip was really interesting to me because I --

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

CABRERA: It was sort of this lightbulb moment about how closely people are paying attention when we think that, you know, we're hitting them over the head over and over and over and over again with this stuff. They didn't even know who Adam Schiff was.

I got to run there, Ron Brownstein, Bill Kristol. Guys, thank you very much for the conversation.

As Prince Harry and Meghan Markle begin a new chapter outside of the royal family, we are now hearing from Prince Harry himself. Why he's expressing great sadness that it has come to this, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:16:44]

CABRERA: For the very first time, Prince Harry is publicly addressing his decision to step away from royal life. In a video posted to the couple's Sussex Royal Instagram, Harry makes clear the decision to leave was his, and that it's not one he wanted to make but felt he had to make. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: Good evening, everyone. And thank you very much for being here for Sentebale, a charity that myself and Prince Seeiso created all the way back in 2006 to honor our mother's legacy in supporting those affected by HIV and AIDS.

Before I begin, I must say that I can only imagine what you may have heard or perhaps read over the past few weeks. So I want you to hear the truth from me as much as I can share, not as a prince or a duke but as Harry, the same person that many of you watched grow up over the last 35 years but now with a clearer perspective.

The U.K. is my home and a place that I love. That will never change. I've grown up feeling supported from so many of you, and I watched as you welcomed Meghan with open arms as you -- as you saw me find the love and happiness that I had hoped for all of my life. Finally, the second son of Diana got hitched, hurray.

(LAUGHTER)

PRINCE HARRY: We both do everything we can to fly the flag and carry out our roles for this country with pride. Once Meghan and I were married, we were excited, we were hopeful, and we were here to serve.

For those reasons, it brings me great sadness that it has come to this. The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly. It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges.

And I know I haven't always gone at it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option. But I hope that helps you understand what it had come to, that I would step my family back from all I have ever known, just take -- to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Just minutes after that video was released, I spoke to Princess Diana's former chief of staff you see there, Patrick Jephson. Here's his reaction?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: What did you just hear and see there? What was your reaction?

PATRICK JEPHSON, PRINCESS DIANA'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, Ana, I think this is one of the most poignant bits of royal videotape I have ever seen. I think that really is Harry speaking from the heart, and I was just jotting down some of the things he referred to there.

The U.K. is my home, where his wife was welcomed with open arms. He is taking this step back with great sadness. And I think there's no doubt from the way he delivered it and from the choice of subjects he gave as his examples, there's real sadness here.

And indeed, what we do know is that right across the family, there is sadness because this is primarily a family -- a family crisis before it's a national or international news story. And the Queen addressed that quite directly in her statement.

[19:20:03]

CABRERA: Do you see much of Diana in Harry?

JEPHSON: I've always seen a lot of his mother in Prince Harry ever since he was a little boy when, if you wanted him to do something, the best way was to get him to do the opposite. His mother was also pretty contrary. If you wanted to stop Diana doing something, suggest she should or vice versa.

And I think there is also this extraordinary gift that both Harry and his mother share, which is the great talent to be able to speak right past men in suits and communications offices and secretaries straight into the hearts of people.

And I think he's just doing it again here in this videotape, especially here to the charity, Sentebale, but also, as he would have known, to the wider world and to all those Brits and others who admire and love the monarchy, that he still recognizes its great qualities. He holds them dear just as people around the world share those -- that great faith and affection for the institution.

CABRERA: In an interview last year, we heard Prince Harry talking about his relationship with his brother. And he appeared to confirm there had been some kind of a riff. I just want to play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCE HARRY: Part of the -- part of this role and part of this job and this family being under the pressure that it's under, and never to be stuff -- you know, stuff happens, but, look, we're brothers.

We are -- we'll always be brothers. And we're certainly on different paths at the moment, but I will always be there for him and, as I know, he will always be there for me. And we don't see each other as much as we -- as much as we used to because we're so busy, but, you know, I love him dearly.

And, you know, the majority of this stuff is -- well, majority of this stuff is created out of nothing. But, you know, just as I said, as brothers, you know, you have good days, you have bad days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: You mentioned some sadness that you sensed throughout the family right now. What do you think this change means for Harry and William's relationship?

JEPHSON: Well, we have to hope that this big decision is going to take Harry and Meghan and Archie, as Harry himself said, towards a more peaceful life, a happier life, a life where, in Meghan's words, they can thrive.

It does, of course, mean, though, that's -- that this is going to throw more work onto the remaining members of the royal family. William and Catherine, especially. And this, I think, Ana, really underlines the fact that, although this is a family business, a dynasty, it's also a great institution of the British state.

And we see here, in pretty raw terms, where the family meets the duty. That always, as the Queen has shown by her own example as the longest- serving monarchy in British history, that when it comes to a competition between family and duty, duty must come first.

And that I think is what we're seeing. This is the consequences of having to put duty first, you're in or you're out.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: With House impeachment managers meeting this hour on Capitol Hill, the clock is ticking down to opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. CNN has new details about how the President picked his legal team and the lengths he took to personally woo at least one of the potential lawyers.

[19:23:37]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Tonight, a source close to the White House tells CNN the President specifically sought a high-profile legal team that could perform on television for his impeachment trial.

But one member of his team, Alan Dershowitz, has been downplaying his role, even telling CNN's Vicky Ward, quote, my wife thought that it would be better for me to remain independent and not present the argument in the Senate. President Trump spoke to her and said how important it was for the country, and my wife is still quite ambivalent about my role but she supports me.

Dershowitz has been all over T.V. the past couple of days arguing against Trump's impeachment, saying it would set a terrible precedent and go against the constitution. Here he is just this morning on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, COUNSEL, TRUMP LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM: There is a confusion between the reasons of having impeachment, and those include we don't want to see presidents who are dishonest, we don't want to see presidents who abuse their power. That's all true.

But then when it comes to coming up with the criteria for impeachment, we don't use terms like dishonesty or abuse or maladministration or malpractice. We have to focus in on specific criteria to avoid weaponization of impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: But listen to what he once told CNN's Larry King back in 1998.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime.

But remember that because the executive power is vested in one person, the president -- unlike the judicial power, which is vested in justices of the Supreme Court and inferior judges or the legislature power in a hundred senators and 400 and something representatives -- we have one president.

And to impeach a president is like a nonviolent revolution. It is the most dramatic act of undoing democracy that is possible, and that's why the Framers used the term treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors to suggest the English analogy to great offenses of state.

[19:30:04]

We look at their acts of state, we look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they tried to subvert the Constitution, the way Iran Contra did by going behind the back of Congress by lying repeatedly and by misstating to the American public matters of great state issues, and we didn't impeach and we shouldn't frankly, if it were my view, we shouldn't have impeach the President for Iran Contra, but it's not even a close question historically, and whether we should bring impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Joining us now is a man who has known or worked with many of the people who are currently on Trump's legal defense team, former Federal prosecutor and CNN Legal Analyst, Michael Zeldin.

Michael, when you hear what Dershowitz said then and compare it to what he is saying now, how do you square that?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They're not easily squared. What Dershowitz's position is principally that the abuse of power, and the obstruction of Congress should be a crime, I know he said differently to King, but then he sort of waffled at the end. I think his principled position is that high crimes and misdemeanors

implies criminal conduct. He's in a distinct minority among constitutional scholars in respect of that.

I think that Hamilton himself in the Federalist Papers made clear that it is an abuse of trust. That is the core of what is an impeachable offense.

I think Alan is going to have a hard time convincing many that his argument of criminal predicate behavior is necessary before the President can be impeached and removed.

CABRERA: Now one of the other big names on Trump's legal team, is former independent counsel during the Clinton saga, Ken Starr, before that announcement was made -- he was joining the Trump team here -- he appeared on Fox, and he said this about having witnesses at Trump's impeachment trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNETH STARR, COUNSEL, TRUMP LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM: I predict there are going to be witnesses. We've had too many indications from too many different senators that they want this.

QUESTION: Who's the witness then who appears?

STARR: Oh, I think the top one is John Bolton, right, for the Democrats and then the Republicans really do want Hunter Biden.

QUESTION: And you think that will happen? That's what you're saying now?

STARR: Oh, there will be a battle royal over Hunter Biden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Michael, do you think Starr is arguing that this idea of witnesses are going to happen to the President himself behind the scenes?

ZELDIN: I think that Ken Starr understands based on his impeachment efforts on behalf of Clinton that witnesses are a prerequisite to a full and fair trial.

Ken Starr knows that. He is articulating that it is a prerequisite to fairness. I think that he is ambivalent as is everybody about what relevancy Hunter Biden would have on this, but Bolton, Mulvaney, Duffy, maybe Lev Parnas, Ken Starr knows as a prosecutor and as a former independent counsel that those guys have to testify if this is not going to be a sham cover up operation, but rather a real trial designed to get at the facts that underlie the President's behavior.

CABRERA: Robert Ray is another member of the Trump team now. He has been on this show a number of times. You're in a position to really understand the arguments he is going to bring to Trump's legal team considering on cnn.com, you and Robert Ray have been debating the legal issues at stake, what strategy will he bring?

ZELDIN: So Robert and I have written four articles in the last month for cnn.com debating the merits of impeachment. Robert thinks like Dershowitz, that there must be a crime, that there isn't a crime. The case should be dismissed without witnesses. He and I disagree strongly on that.

Robert is a good trial lawyer, a good tactician. I think he and Jane Raskin are going to play pivotal roles in the evolution of the legal strategy as the case unfolds in the Senate. I think Cipollone and Jay Sekulow will make the opening arguments, the narrative that they've prepared in advance that Robert and Jane will be the day-to-day sort of tacticians during the course of the trial.

CABRERA: It's all interesting. We'll have you back as the trial unfolds to discuss some of the nitty-gritty. Michael Zeldin, thank you for laying it out for us and providing some insights into the legal team.

There's a state of emergency in Virginia's capital city this hour ahead of a plan gun rights rally in Richmond tomorrow. We'll have the details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:38:42]

CABRERA: Tomorrow, of course is Martin Luther King Day and many communities around the country are planning special events to commemorate the Civil Rights leader.

But Richmond, Virginia is bracing for a gun rights rally planned at the state capitol. Thousands are expected to attend this protest against new gun control measures in the state including extremist groups.

Governor Ralph Northam has now declared a state of emergency and put a temporary weapons ban in place on the State Capitol grounds.

Meanwhile, his Federal authorities track suspected Neo-Nazis around the country, several men have already been arrested on fears that they were planning to violently attack at this rally.

CNN's Elle Reeve and Sarah Sidner are joining us, both of them covered the violence that erupted in Charlottesville nearly three years ago.

Elle, let me start with you. Clearly, officials are determined to do all they can to prevent a repeat of what happened in Charlottesville. Exactly what has been banned from the Capitol grounds? What do we know about the potential threat?

ELLE REEVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anything that could be used as a weapon, so not just guns, but knives that are longer than three inches, everything down to laser pointers and helmets.

There's a much bigger police presence here than there was in Charlottesville, and it's clear that they understand that there's a threat coming in.

In Charlottesville, they just kind of could run violence the night before, without anyone doing anything. It's not like that here tonight.

CABRERA: Sara, what has the rhetoric been like in the lead up to this event?

[19:40:10]

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's interesting, you sort of get two types. There is a great sense here from the locals who put this together, that they do not want this to be hijacked by, you know, hate groups or white supremacists or white nationalists, similar to sort of what happened in Charlottesville.

But in Charlottesville, that is who was organizing the gathering. This is a different sort of group. But you are hearing from a lot of militias around the country, not just from right here in Virginia. And we gave a bit of a sample. We listened to quite a few online. Some of the things that people were saying. We've got someone from Georgia that you're going to be hearing from. We have someone from Oklahoma, who you're going to be hearing from.

And you listen to a little bit of the rhetoric because while they say they do not want this to turn violent, and they are telling people not to be violent. There's a lot of talk about conspiracies and an upcoming Civil War.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On my channel, I frequently get asked the question, is another Civil War on the horizon? Are we getting closer each day? And as much as I don't like to think about that very real possibility. What I'm seeing in Virginia makes me believe that we are closer than we've ever been.

CHRIS HILL, 111% SECURITY FORCE FOUNDER: If the ending is, I'm there to support my brothers in arms in Virginia. I feel like the government is going to go forward with passing their constitutional [bleep]. And it's not going to fly. And if its Civil War Two, electric boogaloo, then, you know, get it on.

TAMMY LEE, MILITIA ORGANIZER: It's always dangerous, and there's always that possibility, always. If this was easy, we wouldn't be in this war to begin with. Right or wrong? It takes a special kind of person to decide to put the country and the people ahead of themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: That last person that you heard from is Tammy Lee. She actually signed documents, a consent decree that she would never show up again in Charlottesville because she was an organizer for militias in Charlottesville. Thirty two people showed up there and she was standing alongside the Unite the Right folks and remember how that went.

One person killed, you know, dozens people who were injured, terrified of what happened there, and I think what you are seeing here they're hoping not to see a repeat; even she herself has said, this cannot be violent. Let's respect the group that started this.

The group that started this, the Virginia Citizens Defense League is basically coming on a day that Virginians are allowed to come here on the 20th. It's a day setup for lobbying where a regular average Joe, can you go and find their legislator and tell them what they think about this bill or that bill.

But this is expected to be one of the largest gatherings, a pro-gun rally that this state has seen, and that is because of a couple of things. One, the Democrats flipped the legislature, they flipped the State House, and so they are now in charge. And they had promised that they were going to be changes to gun laws.

They passed three laws, one of which has a lot of people talking, you can only get one gun a month, for example. But there are other laws that were being considered that really have people up in arms.

CABRERA: Elle, I want to ask you about what we know of the people who are arrested, these so-called Neo-Nazis. Who are they? What do they -- what group do they belong to and what were their intentions?

REEVE: They belong to a group called The Base. It's a smaller number, although it's not clear how many belong to it, and while both The Base and people who were at Charlottesville are white supremacists, they believe very different things.

In Charlottesville, they wanted to look middle class or aspirational, and they wanted to be influencing mainstream politics, The Base have been -- and often in groups like that, they want to do violence.

They want to scare people. They want to bring about the collapse of society. They're called accelerationists, and they want to do that by doing violence.

The idea is that if society collapses, then people will be more willing to accept extreme options.

CABRERA: All right, Elle Reeve and Sara Sidner. Appreciate you ladies being there for us. Thank you. Fingers crossed. Everything goes really, really peacefully there tomorrow.

Coming up, when the campaign trail isn't so friendly. Hear why Joe Biden now wants an apology from the Bernie Sanders campaign. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: In the fight for 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden is demanding an apology from Senator Bernie Sanders for circulating what he called a doctored video misconstruing his record on Social Security. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is a little doctored video going around saying that -- put out by -- should I just -- anyway put out by one of Bernie's people, saying that I agreed with Paul Ryan, the former vice presidential candidate about wanting to privatize Social Security.

I'm looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[19:50:02]

CABRERA: Now here's what Biden is talking about. It's a video allegedly being circulated to voters by the Bernie Sanders campaign. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: Paul Ryan was correct. I mean, he did the Tax Code, what's the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare.

Now we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare. That's the only way you can find room to pay for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Not so much a doctored video, but a snippet from a year and a half old speech that all by itself appears to show Biden in favor of making major changes to Social Security and Medicare.

But if you let that speech run on for a few more seconds, you'll hear Biden say this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: We need a pro-growth progressive Tax Code that treats workers as job creators well, not just investors. That gets rid of unprotected loopholes like stepped up bases and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay. It still needs adjustments, but can stay and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: This is the second straight week that one of the top contenders is accusing the Sanders campaign of underhanded tactics.

Last week, it was Elizabeth Warren expressing her disappointment that Sanders volunteers were on the ground disparaging her.

Joining us now is Astead Herndon. He's the national political reporter for "The New York Times." He has been on the campaign trail a lot. You, I know, have been in the thick of it. Do you get the sense that this race is getting a lot nastier?

ASTEAD HERNDON, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I don't know about a lot nastier, but certainly there is a sense that as we get closer and closer to Iowa, that it's all heating up.

As you said, last week, there was the spat between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, particularly on their recollections of this 2018 meeting about whether a woman could win the presidency. This week, you see Vice President Biden and Senator Sanders going back and forth about those Social Security comments.

As you mentioned, it is not that the video is doctored, it is about the context in which those comments are presented. Now, if you are a Sanders supporter, you can still see that video and say when he mentioned things like adjustments, and that when you look at his record, he has shown an openness to being willing to move on Social Security in a way that Senator Sanders has been more rigid.

If you are Biden, you are saying that the full context of video shows that he was not with Paul Ryan, and he was a kind of touting a more Democratic line.

It's a kind of beauty in the eye of the beholder situation. But again, this is Sanders and Biden trying to nationalize the race. These are two candidates who want to look past Iowa and New Hampshire and make this mano-y-mano going past Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.

CABRERA: You have some reporting know about the fallout and the back and forth between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, especially after this moment on the CNN debate stage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What?

WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

SANDERS: Let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

WARREN: Anytime.

SANDERS: You called me a liar. You told me -- all right, let's not do it now.

TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't want to get in the middle, I just wanted to say hi, Bernie.

SANDERS: Yes, good. Okay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Astead, you report the candidates are trying to mend the rift, but their supporters aren't as willing. How damaging could this be?

HERNDON: It remains to be seen. Now what we know is that Sanders and Warren have both kind of been tight lipped since that debate moment.

She was asked repeatedly here in Iowa over the weekend about that moment, and she continues to say, I have nothing else to say about that. I've made my comment and me and Bernie Sanders are friends on the same side of the issues.

Progressive groups have called for them to come together and focus on defeating Biden then rather than sniping at each other. But what you see among some of their supporters, is that this rehashes some old wounds for Sanders.

They feel that the Warren campaign -- some of the Sanders supporters feel that the Warren campaign has come at them in a critical time, has put them on defense a particularly on the thorny issue that could affect the standing going forward, and they see it as a kind of a bad faith attack.

On the Warren side, just particularly for voters I talk to brought back winds from 2016. These were largely Hillary Clinton supporters in 16, who are now supporting Elizabeth Warren, who say that Bernie Sanders campaign inflicted wounds on Hillary Clinton four years ago, and they're doing the same to another leading woman candidate today.

And so you have what one boulder called PTSD from four years ago, and that's coming back up on the trail. Is that going to affect Iowa? We don't know. But we do know it is kind of mobilizing their respective bases.

CABRERA: All right, Astead Herndon, thank you very much for being here with us.

HERNDON: Thank you.

CABRERA: And that's going to do it for us this evening. I appreciate your company on this Sunday night. I'm Ana Cabrera, and up next, the CNN Special: The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump hosted by Jim Sciutto in Washington.

[19:59:50]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: A very good Sunday evening to you. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington and welcome to a CNN Special Report: The Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump.

In less than 48 hours, the U.S. Senate will gavel in to hear arguments for and against removing the 45th President from office.

[20:00:10]