Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Backs Down, Signs COVID Relief Bill And Averts Shutdown; House To Vote Today On Boosting Direct Payments To $2,000; House Expected To Vote On Overriding Trump Veto Of Defense Bill; Officials Identify Nashville Bomber, Focus Turns To Motive; TSA: 1.3 Million People Passed Through Airports Sunday. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired December 28, 2020 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

BRIANNA MARIE KEILAR, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: And he averted a government shutdown, but not before he held a hostage and threatened to dismantle the very deal that his own administration negotiated.

Over the Christmas holiday, while he golfed in Florida, President Trump delayed signing the bill for nearly a week. He called it a disgrace, he demanded changes and during that time he let unemployment benefits run out for millions. And he brought Washington within 30 hours of a shutdown and for what, nothing but chaos.

Trump backed down late last night; he signed that exact bill that he criticized. But now that the bill has been signed, what comes next? Let's get right to it now with CNN's John Harwood who is at the White House, and Lauren Fox who is on Capitol Hill for us. Lauren, starting with you the House has a vote today on boosting direct payment checks to Americans to $2,000. How is that expected to play out?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, we expect that tonight they'll hold that vote and all eyes are on whether or not Republicans stand up against Trump or stand with him on this issue that the president has really made a critical point in what his issue was with the stimulus package all along.

Now I am told from one Republican leadership aide that it is possible that enough Republicans would vote for this bill to get it over that two-thirds vote threshold that is needed tonight. That is the threshold, because this vote will be occurring under suspension of the rules.

So one of the key questions has been all along whether or not Republicans would put up some of those votes? We know that in a Democratic led House of Representatives, they are going to easily pass this if it was a simple majority vote but it's not. They're going to need some Republicans. How many they get is still a big question.

But I am told that it's possible it could pass out of the House if that happens, then this mess goes squarely to the U.S. senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have to make a decision about whether or not he will bring this to the floor as a stand-alone bill, Brianna.

And we just don't know the answer to that right now. We of course know that the president believes he was promised that this would go to the senate for a vote, but how exactly that's orchestrated over the next couple of days still remains to be seen.

Remember, McConnell is a tactician of the senate, he knows how this place works. Whether or not he'll get a straight up or down vote still remains to be seen.

KEILAR: And there's another important vote in the House today that lawmakers could be voting to override or they will be voting to possibly override President Trump's veto of the huge defense spending bill. I just spoke with Congressman Gerry Connelly, he seemed pretty confident that Republicans would provide the votes for a veto. Is that what your expectation is at this point?

FOX: Yeah, I think Democrats are very confident that they could have the votes to override the president's veto. One of the key questions has been whether or not enough defense hawk Republicans will vote alongside Democrats and that has been the big question all along, Brianna.

But even though people like Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House has said they're not going to vote to override the president's veto, even though they voted originally for the underlying bill. I know that's little confusing. It's not clear that many Republicans are going to follow in that direction.

There is going to be some members of the freedom caucus who vote that way, but Democrats feeling very confident as of this morning and early afternoon that they'll have the votes to override the president's veto, Brianna.

KEILAR: And John Harwood, I mean, you have been at the White House, watching what's going on with this pandemic relief bill. It's hard to understand what the president was trying to achieve here, delaying this for days to the point where unemployed Americans may not see that check. The expectation is they will not in the final week of the year. What was he doing here?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think what he was doing didn't have anything to do with policy, Brianna. First of all, he said in that letter accompanying his signing statement that he'd gotten the commitment to investigate very serious voter fraud in the election. There's no evidence of any significant voter fraud in the election. Everyone knows that that's not going anywhere.

Had he really wanted to eliminate the foreign aid that he's highlighted, the pork that he highlighted in the bill, he wouldn't have put it in his own budget but he did. If he really wanted to get those $2,000 stimulus checks rather than $600 per person for families under $75,000, he would have pushed aggressively vocally, publicly for that during the negotiations. He didn't. I think what he wanted had nothing to do with policy. What he wanted

was to make a statement that I still count, I'm still president. Yes, there may be only three weeks left, but you have to listen to what I say, watch what I say. He wanted to give a little smack to Mitch McConnell who had recently said Joe Biden is the President-Elect and give Republicans reason to pause and they're deciding not to back his voter fraud claims.

So I think what he wanted to do is create some drama, get some attention. In that, he succeeded at the cost of alarming many Americans about the threat of government shutdown. And in fact, costing millions of Americans a week's worth of unemployment benefits if that is not able to be remedied by the states.

[12:05:00]

KEILAR: And to that point, I mean, these are Americans, Democrats and Republicans, who will not have those unemployment checks that they need. So he took this move John, but it really could be self sabotaging for him which is why it's a wonder why he did it.

HARWOOD: Well, I think in the end, he signed the bill because the degree of suffering and maceration he would have caused by that decision to pocket veto the bill, government shutdown, and the loss of all those benefits that we've talked about, that would have scarred him badly in terms of public opinion.

I think the president was finally convinced by his aides to go along and sign this. And the fact that it caused millions of Americans to miss a week's check, that doesn't really matter to the president because he actually doesn't care about people beyond himself, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right. John Harwood and Lauren Fox thank you so much to both of you. President Trump's delay in signing that Coronavirus relief package over the Christmas weekend could prevent millions of unemployed Americans from receiving this key financial aid during this final week of the year.

Joining me now is, CNN Political Commentator and Former Republican Congressmen Charlie Dent. I think you just heard John Harwood saying something, what he said was, the president doesn't care about people beyond himself. What do you think about that, is that what you think is behind the president with this delay and now Americans who will not receive this unemployment benefit who need it?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, Brianna, I think to John Harwood's explanation or his analysis was spot on. I think this is really about the president wanting attention, wanting to be relevant. He is becoming less and less relevant every day as we move closer to January 20th. So I think that's what this was about.

And by the way, Brianna, we should also know to the president has done this before. I helped negotiate an omnibus spending bill back in 2018 with the administration which we had an agreement. Then the president turned around in the 11th hour, and said he was going to veto the bill, because he didn't like big omnibus bills after we gave him what he wanted in defense spending.

He has done this before and it's inexplicable. He almost needs a therapist to explain it. It's almost like he's like the little boy who holds his breath, and then he waits for everybody else to turn blue. And sometimes he is successful but this made no sense. There are consequences to chaos.

And one of the consequences is that he was defeated in the election, because I think people are tired and become so exhausted by it all, they just can't deal with it any more but we only have a month left of this. So we'll move on to something more normal hopefully.

KEILAR: That's the thing; you say he is like the little boy holding his breath. I mean, he is in control of America's lungs though, right? When you look at this situation, I mean, he can make other people turn blue, and he might with the way some people are going to feel after they don't get that check.

I wonder as we are watching the house today, they're going to be voting on whether to override the president's veto of the defense authorization bill, which is a huge bill that funds the Defense Department. I just spoke with Gerry Connelly, Democratic Congressman from Virginia.

He said that he actually thinks, he thinks - he seemed pretty optimistic that Republicans are going to join Democrats that they are going to vote pretty consistently like what they did to approve the defense bill. Do you think that's the case? Do you think that the House will vote to override?

DENT: I do. I agree with Gerry Connelly's assessment as well. I think he is onto something here. Republicans will vote to override. There will be some who will change their votes but most will vote to override simply because the president, he vetoed the bill not so much because of what's in it, but because of what is not in it, that is that section 230 liability protections for big tech companies.

That's a legitimate debate to have. But that's no reason to veto pay raise to our troops, and increase cyber security programs and initiatives. Why would he do such a thing? He might be housing this bill too, because this bill will also allow for the renaming of military bases that were named for confederate traitors. So I mean that might be an issue.

But I think that you'll see most Republicans at the end of the day they're going to stand up and reaffirm what they've already supported. They should. It's the right thing to do. But sadly, some will change their votes just to play -- the president. Why? I don't know. He's only got a month left, and there's no real reason to accommodate him and enable him right now.

KEILAR: Clearly they're concerned about his supporters. And I want to take a look at someone who has been supportive, someone an entity that's been supportive of the president, the cover of "The New York Post" this morning. It says Mr. President, stop the insanity, you lost the election. So there appears to be a calculation here where finally the post is saying stop it, this is insane.

[12:10:00]

DENT: Well, hooray. Glad that "The New York Post" saw the light. How many legal challenges did the president advance? And he was beaten like a rented mule on all those challenges and then the most absurd one of all of course came from Texas, to throw out the mail-in votes of millions of people like me who voted that way in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia.

So I am glad that "The New York Post" is really beating hard on the president to accept reality and get on with the business, and to have a legacy that maybe he can be remembered for what he considered his policy initiatives rather than this tantrum and this rampage that he has been on. And that's how he will be remembered if he doesn't start behaving like a normal human being.

KEILAR: I want to ask you about what the future will hold? You mention that Republicans, Congressman, you mention that they shouldn't be beholden to the president, he lost the election, he is not going to be around much longer, but he is going to be out there.

It's hard to imagine a Donald Trump who is not using his voice very loudly and clearly there are a lot of Republicans who are concerned that he has a lot of sway with many, many Americans. So how do you see Republicans adjusting once Trump leaves office?

DENT: Well, this is a great question. Does Trumpism survive Trump? Donald Trump is going to do his best to remain relevant, that's why he has been raising all those money, and he's going to want to have a say, is he going to set up his Trump Digital TV Platform, who knows what he is going to do. But really the bigger issue for Republicans is do we want a Trumpian party?

Do we want Trumpism to survive, Trumpism being defined in my view by populism, nativism, isolationism, protectionism, unilateralism, these are some of the things the Trumpism is, and is that really where the party wants to go. I think the party must become much more socially tolerant and inclusive. We need to get more people into the tent.

The party also needs to become much more constructively engaged on the international stage. Again, a wrecking ball against our allies over the years, these relationships need to be reconstructed. Third, free markets. I never thought I'd see a Republican Party in my lifetime that would be advancing protectionism, big subsidies to agriculture, that were way out of line, things like that, almost a crony capitalist model.

We have to get back to free markets with reasonable modern regulation, and the party is also got to come up with some real policy solutions on issues outside of its comfort zone like on climate change or immigration. And have center right alternatives and not just simply complain about AOC and "The Squad", that might excite the base, but they need real policy solutions.

KEILAR: All right. We'll see what the future holds here. Former Congressman Charlie Dent, it's wonderful to see you. Hope you have happy holidays and a happy New Year to you and your family.

DENT: Thanks, Brianna Happy New Year.

KEILAR: Still ahead, we are going to Nashville, where investigators are looking at all motives for the Christmas bombing there. What we know about the man behind it all, and why authorities are holding off on calling this terror related?

Plus, the month of December isn't even over, and it's been the deadliest month of the pandemic yet. Still ahead, what doctors worry is in store for January.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

KEILAR: We are learning that at least eight people were treated at Nashville hospitals following the violent explosion that rocked the city's downtown area on Christmas morning. We do have some new police video and it shows the very moment that the bomb went off. You can see the street lit up there by that powerful blast debris scattering everywhere.

Police say 63-year-old Anthony Quinn Warner was the bomber, he was the only person killed in the explosion. And investigators say he was not on law enforcement's radar before this attack. They're still not sure why he did this?

Joining me now is, CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst Andrew McCabe, he's also Former Deputy Director of the FBI. Andrew, how was Anthony Warner able to get these materials necessary to make this powerful explosive without raising suspicion, do you think?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Brianna, unfortunately it's not that hard in this country to assemble the chemicals and the equipment that you need to construct an improvised explosive device. It's very hard to obtain dynamite or TNT or weapons grade explosives, those things are controlled very carefully but chemicals are freely available.

Now the law enforcement and the FBI works very closely with the precursor industry to communicate to them things they should be looking for. And occasionally we would get tips from chemical supply companies when they would make an odd sale that kind of didn't make sense to them. But you're not going to catch every single instance of someone going out and buying fertilizer or peroxide or something like that.

KEILAR: Yeah, I mean, certainly that surveillance was stepped up right in the wake of Oklahoma City, but it sounds like things just fall through the cracks, is that what you think?

MCCABE: They do. You know, the FBI communicates very frequently with all those industries that are involved in producing and selling that sort of material, and we basically tell people what to look for. And when you stumble across purchases that you think are suspicious, to let us know but it's not an exact process.

There's no legislation in place that requires everybody who manufacturers something that might be a precursor to communicate those sales to the FBI.

KEILAR: I want to take a listen to something that the Mayor of Nashville told CNN this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR JOHN COOPER, (D) NASHVILLE: Everybody, the U.S. Attorney, the FBI has been careful not to use the 'T' word here because there's not consistent with "T" word actions, there's no manifesto or political statement that anybody has brought to light at this point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:20:00]

KEILAR: So explain this to us. At this point in time, the "T" word as you said isn't being used to describe this. That doesn't mean it isn't going to happen but what would be the threshold that would trigger that characterization?

MCCABE: Sure, so a couple of things to know about this. First is that the FBI brings all of it's and I'll say it, terrorism resources to an event like this right from the beginning. So the counterterrorism division and all of the terrorist experts at the bureau are investigating this from day one. That's important to know.

However, the FBI is very careful about labeling an individual or an attack as an act of terrorism. They will not do that until they find some evidence that ties that person to a terrorist group or to an ideology. So in the case of international terrorism, you want to see a communication or a following of that bomber of a group like Al-Qaida or the Islamic State or something like that.

And the realm of domestic terrorism, things are a little bit harder to define. Essentially a domestic terrorist act is defined and stated as a violent crime that's committed in pursuit of an ideology. That ideology can be religious, it can be racial, it can be social, political, and it can just be someone who is frustrated with technology and things like that.

But again, the bureau is not going to identify that until they have some piece of evidence that indicates what that person was thinking when he set that bomb off?

KEILAR: So that's what they're working on now is, trying to find that evidence, trying to look at that motive. And right now his social media from what CNN has been able to review has given no clues about his mind-set. So obviously investigators will be digging even deeper than that. What will they be looking for?

MCCABE: So they'll be looking at and trying to speak to everyone that this person knew. It sounds from the reporting we have so far, it sounds like he was a pretty solitary isolated individual. They're looking to everyone he talked to, everyone he exchanged emails with they will, if they can access his internet connected devices though, look at the browser history to see what sort of things he was looking at. They'll look at any writings or papers or documents that he left behind.

So all of those things can give you a picture of what someone was thinking. However, in this case we know that he was doing things to kind of wind down his life over the last few weeks. He gave his car away. He signed his house over to another person the day before Thanksgiving.

So it is possible that he spent a good deal of time not just constructing the bomb, but also cleansing all of that evidence out of his house, and off of his internet devices just for this purpose, to leave that question hanging over our heads.

KEILAR: Yeah, clearly he put a lot of work into this. Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, happy New Year. Thank you for being with us.

MCCABE: Thanks, Brianna, I appreciate it.

KEILAR: Up next, despite over 100,000 people hospitalized for the Coronavirus for almost a month, millions traveled for the holidays. Are there worries about the next surge? We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

KEILAR: The month of December isn't even over and it is already the deadliest month since the pandemic began. There are growing fears that the next few weeks will be worse following the holidays. The TSA says almost 1.3 million people were screened at U.S. airports on Sunday alone. This was the busiest travel day of the pandemic so far.

Meanwhile, COVID vaccines are being rolled out with a candidate by Novavax now entering phase three clinical trials. The CDC says almost two million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have already been administered. That is far below the estimated 20 million predicted by year's end. And Dr. Anthony Fauci says it's also a long way before the country reaches herd immunity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I think we all have to be honest and humble, nobody really knows for sure. But I think 70 to 85 percent for herd immunity for COVID-19 is a reasonable estimate, and in fact most of my epidemiology colleagues agree with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: I want to bring in Dr. Celine Gounder, she is an Epidemiologist, and she is a member of the Biden/Harris Transition COVID Advisory Board. I wonder what your thoughts are on Dr. Gounder in Dr. Fauci's assessment there, that the country will need 70 to 85 percent of the population vaccinated in order to get their herd immunity.

DR. CELINE GOUNDER, MEMBER, BIDEN-HARRIS TRANSITION COVID ADVISORY BOARD: Brianna, I think this is a really complicated question. If there's anything we've learned from Coronavirus, from prior epidemics and pandemics, for example, Ebola, it's that we really do need to be humble and show some humility here with the virus.

This is going to what level of herd immunity we need to get to for people to be protected. That really is still very much up in the air and will probably depend also on specific sub populations, whether people in that group are still wearing masks to some degree?