Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Plotted To Fire Acting A.G., Overturn Georgia Election Results; Interview With Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD); Biden To Reinstate COVID Travel Restrictions On Non-U.S. Citizens; Dr. Deborah Birx Speaks Out About Her Time With The Trump Admin. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 24, 2021 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): So it turns out actually to be a good thing. And not only a fun thing.

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Well, and apparently that's sold out. So you've got to start manufacturing more to give to charity like Meals on Wheels in Vermont and elsewhere.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: All right. A meme to money to meals. Lots of help. Like that. All right. Thank you so much for being with me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. The CNN NEWSROOM with Ana Cabrera starts right now.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thanks for being with me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York, and we have more shocking details about just how far the desperate former president of the United States was willing to go. What he was willing to do to stay in power.

"The Wall Street Journal" spoke to people present in the final throes of the Trump presidency who say Donald Trump was pressuring the Department of Justice to file a case with the Supreme Court to overturn Joe Biden's victory.

And that's not all. CNN also has reporting about a plot to fire the head of the Justice Department, replace him with a Trump loyalist in the department, and keep the lies going about election fraud.

It was a delusional strategy. And it didn't go anywhere obviously only because a group of top Justice Department officials threatened to quit all at the same time. Echoes of Richard Nixon's Saturday night massacre.

We're live in Washington in just a moment. Also today save the date. Two weeks and two days from now Donald Trump's second Senate impeachment trial is set to formally begin. Between then and now, Senate Democrats, they have a big job. Convince enough Republicans to join them to convict Trump of whipping up that mob to attack the U.S. Capitol. At least one Senate Republican says the trial is justified.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): I believe that what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. If not, what is? The preponderance of the legal opinion is that an impeachment trial after someone has left office is constitutional. I believe that's the case. I'll of course hear what the lawyers have to say for each side but I think it's pretty clear that the effort is constitutional.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Straight to Washington now and CNN's crime and justice correspondent Shimon Prokupecz.

Shimon, people close to the former Trump administration are revealing these details of this failed plan to keep Donald Trump in power. What else do we know and can any of these allegations be pursued legally now?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and what we know is that up until the end really, the bitter end the president was -- at the time Donald Trump was trying to put pressure on government lawyers, lawyers within the Department of Justice, to file a lawsuit with the Supreme Court to get them to overturn the election.

At the time the attorney general was Bill Barr so it was his Department of Justice who refused to do this. They said that the -- according to "The Wall Street Journal" that they had no legal basis to file the claim. The president's attorneys and the White House also said that this wasn't a good strategy to pursue. And so it went nowhere.

After the attorney general at the time, Bill Barr, leaves, Jeffery Rosen is the acting attorney general and the "New York Times" first reported and CNN confirmed that President Donald Trump tried to get the acting attorney general, tried to fire him so that he could put someone in his place who perhaps would go ahead and pursue some of these lies, some of these claims of fraud in the election.

But that prompted concern inside the Department of Justice so many of the top officials at the DOJ threatened to quit, as you said. And so that also went nowhere. Now, of course, there are calls for further investigation. Certainly Senator Chuck Schumer saying that the inspector general should take a look at this and perhaps, Ana, we could see this come up in the impeachment trial.

CABRERA: OK, Shimon Prokupecz. Thank you.

Let's talk more about the upcoming impeachment trial. At 6:55 tomorrow evening in Washington, the nine House impeachment managers will walk over to the Senate with an Article of Impeachment charging former president Trump with incitement of an insurrection. They will then have two weeks to prepare a case before the trial begins on February 9th. One of the senators who will serve as a juror is joining us now.

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland.

Senator, thank you for joining us.

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-MD): Ana, it's good to be with you.

CABRERA: A number of Republican senators are telling CNN that passions are starting to cool, making it increasingly unlikely former president Trump will be convicted. At the same time, we are continuing to learn new information about Trump's attempts to stay in office. So what impact do you think this new reporting will have on the upcoming impeachment trial?

[16:05:06]

CARDIN: I think it will have some impact. After all, what was the president's motives in inciting the crowd to come down to the Capitol? It was all about trying to promote his lies about the legitimacy of the campaign. So I think all of the things the president tried to do to overturn the election are relevant to the impeachment trial, although the article is specific about incitement of insurrection. So, obviously, we need to listen to all the evidence. But I expect the House managers will be bringing these issues up.

CABRERA: I just wonder if any evidence will change minds because I want you to hear from a couple of your Republican colleagues on the upcoming impeachment trial. Here's Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Rounds today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): I think the trial is stupid. I think it's counterproductive. We already have a flaming fire in this country and it's like taking a bunch of gasoline and pouring it on top of the fire.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Do you believe Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): To begin with, I think it's a moot point because I think right now Donald Trump is no longer the president. He is a former president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Senator, how do you respond to them?

CARDIN: I think it's absolutely essential that anyone responsible for the insurrection are held accountable whether it's the individuals who entered the Capitol and put our -- put us in harm's way or whether it was those who incited the group. So whether it's the president of the United States or whether it was the people who planned this January 6th riot or whether it's the individuals who went into the Capitol, they need to be held accountable and the president is not above the law. CABRERA: Rubio called the trial stupid, he says it's

counterproductive. It would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

CARDIN: This is our constitutional responsibility. We've heard over and over again the only way you can hold a president accountable for his actions while he is president is through the impeachment process. The House of Representatives has acted and sent to the Senate Articles of Impeachment. Our responsibility is to hold a fair trial and to make judgment. So we have that responsibility under the Constitution and we need to carry that out.

CABRERA: There are so many aspects about this upcoming trial and the situation where all are unprecedented and historic including the fact that you all in the Senate will not only be jurors but you were also victims in this alleged crime. And it was a congressman from your home state of Maryland, Andy Harris, who set off a metal detector this week while carrying a gun near the House floor.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says it's reasons like that that she still fears some of her colleagues. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We still don't yet feel safe around other members of Congress. And --

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIMETIME: How many are we?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think a very considerable amount. A lot of members do not feel --

CUOMO: Do you really think that colleagues of yours in Congress may do you dirty?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes, well, one just tried to bring a gun on the floor of the House. Why does a member of Congress need to sneak a gun on to the House floor? The moment you bring a gun on to the House floor in violation of rules, you put everyone around you in danger. It is irresponsible. It is reckless. But beyond that, it is in violation of rules. You are openly disobeying the rules that we have established as a community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Senator Cardin, do you fear some of your colleagues?

CARDIN: Well, Ana, let me tell you, there is no justification for any reason for a member of Congress to bring a gun on to the floor of the House or the Senate. That is outrageous. There is no justification for that whatsoever. It does put people at risk because if a gun is there, it could end up being part of violence on the floor.

Do I feel at risk on the floor of the Senate? No, I don't. But I do believe that it's outrageous that some House members think it's all right to be armed on the floor of the House of Representatives. CABRERA: When it comes to the coronavirus relief plan, Senator Bernie

Sanders is suggesting Democrats use a process called reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes instead of 60. Do you agree with that strategy?

CARDIN: Well, I agree with President Biden. I hope that we can work on a bipartisan package that could be acted on quickly. This pandemic requires a bold action and fast action. And hopefully we can get that done with the cooperation of the Republicans. I would think Republicans would want to provide more money for a vaccine distribution or more money to American families that are in desperate need or more money for our businesses that are in danger of being closed or families who literally can't afford their food.

I would hope that we would see Republicans join us in a bipartisan package. We did it with the CARES Act. We did it with the second round. Let's come together and do what's right for the American people and let's do it quickly.

[16:10:06]

CABRERA: Senator Sanders says that last piece you said, quickly, speed here is critical. And that's why he says let's not wait for a bipartisan deal. Let's just do this through reconciliation. Do you disagree with reconciliation being the path to pursue?

CARDIN: Well, we might have to use reconciliation. We don't certainly -- that's one of the avenues that we can pursue, but I can tell you just because you work in a bipartisan manner doesn't mean you can't move quickly. We know what the issues are. Why don't we get together this week? We have two weeks before the impeachment trial begins. Let's use those two weeks not only to confirm nominations for President Biden's Cabinet but let's act on the relief package that Americans need desperately in regard to COVID-19.

CABRERA: Americans are counting on you and your colleagues.

Thank you, Senator Ben Cardin, for joining us.

CARDIN: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: And we have breaking news right now. Dr. Anthony Fauci has given a new and very candid interview to the "New York Times" about his time advising former President Trump. At one point he talks about then President Trump's refusal to believe what experts were telling him.

Dr. Fauci telling the paper, quote, "We would say things like, this is an outbreak. Infectious diseases run their own course unless one does something to intervene. And then he would get up and start talking about, it's going to go away. It's magical. It's going to disappear."

Dr. Fauci also says this about a time he disagreed with President Trump saying, quote, "I heard through the grapevine that there were people in the White House who got really surprised if not offended that I would dare contradict what the president said in front of everybody. And I was like, well, he asked me my opinion. What do you want me to say?"

I want to bring in CNN's senior political analyst and former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, David Gergen, and staff writer for the "New Yorker" as well as CNN global affairs analyst, Susan Glasser.

Susan, first to you. Your reaction to this.

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, you know, one of the striking things, right, when you continue to hear these stories and we will for some time I'm sure hear more accounts of what it was really like on the inside with Donald Trump is on the one hand he, in private, was a lot like he was in public, right? You know, he fulminated in public that it was going to magically disappear, it was going to go away.

Is it more or less alarming to know that he said some of those absurd things in private as well? You know, at least the portrait that Dr. Fauci offers suggests that Donald Trump, you know, was not, you know, a totally different creature than the one that we knew but it's extremely worrisome when you look at where we are.

Of course, it helps to explain why so many Americans have died of this pandemic and why there is to this day even though Trump is gone enormous political polarization even around basic measures like President Biden's new mask wearing rule because Trump pursued this policy of denialism.

CABRERA: Right. David, at one point the "New York Times" asks Dr. Fauci if he thinks Mr. Trump cost the country tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives, and this was Dr. Fauci's answer. "I can't comment on that. People always ask that. And making the direct connection that way becomes very damning. I just want to stay away from that. Sorry."

David, he doesn't say no.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: He doesn't say no. And I think it's clear by implication what he really -- he is going up as close to the line as he can to being as candid as he can. But he's not trashing the president. He's not using this opportunity with the "New York Times" to go out of his way to kick the president or accuse him of how many lives he's lost. But between the lines we know from all the pattern of everything he said that he was very unhappy and does feel liberated, felt that everybody was tiptoeing around.

And inevitably, just inevitably, the process was slowed down and -- additional people died. I think the connection is clear. But what is also interesting, I'd be interested in what Susan had to say about this, the longer this -- we explore what happened in the Trump presidency the more it is going to come out that I think is going to cast the president in a very negative light.

You opened with this story about the Justice Department, trying to twist the arms of the Justice Department to do something which was completely inappropriate in order to save his own skin. Well, the assault on the Capitol had similar kind of qualities to it. Had similar motivations. And that was to save his own skin, to save his presidency for him. And I think the more that comes out, the more it's going to create tension for this impeachment trial.

A growing number of Americans are going to say, of course we ought to hold him accountable. Of course, he's done things which, you know, violate our sense of the law and responsibility. At the same time within his base we know from a lot of reporting now coming in there's a drumbeat that started up among his supporters saying the senators who are going to sit on this impeachment better damn well watch out because if they don't, if they vote against Donald Trump, we're going to primary them in the next couple of elections. So --

[16:15:08]

CABRERA: Right.

GERGEN: We're going through a really, really important period now.

CABRERA: So let's talk more about impeachment, Susan, because when you hear what we just played of Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Rounds when we were discussing it with Senator Cardin, what they're saying, you know, that the trial is stupid or that it's un-constitutional, it really seems like the majority of Republicans have their minds made up regardless of new information. Is that the sense you get?

GLASSER: Yes, well, very much so it is. You know, it might not be an elaborate legal rationale on the part of Marco Rubio to say that it was, quote-unquote, "stupid" but, you know, this is not dissimilar to what we saw with the first impeachment of Donald Trump and the trial in the Senate. A process objection wherever possible by time. Remember in the first impeachment the process argument was, well, we don't need to have any more evidence or any more witnesses in front of us.

Essentially, we know whatever it is we want to know. We don't want to hear from John Bolton even though he would offer first-hand confirmation of some of the allegations. And then sure enough, they say, well, we don't have any first-hand confirmation of the allegations.

So the current version of that is to say well, it's unconstitutional even though many if not most legal experts believe that it is constitutional to try the president after he's left office, and there is a precedent, a former war minister, minister of war in the 19th century who was tried after he tried to quickly resign as if that would get him off the charges.

I think it was interesting to hear Mitt Romney connect the dots between the two impeachments, right? That they are both very much about Trump's frantic efforts to interfere with the 2020 election and to attack Biden. That's the through line. But Republicans who say they don't want impeachment, what is interesting is that they never ever have given answer to what would be an appropriate sanction, an appropriate punishment for Donald Trump having incited the mob as many of them actually now do reluctantly concede that he did.

CABRERA: I want to play something else Senator Marco Rubio said when arguing against an impeachment trial today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUBIO: I look back at the time, for example, Richard Nixon who had clearly committed crimes and wrongdoing, and in hindsight I think we would all agree that President Ford's pardon was important for the country to be able to move forward, and history held Richard Nixon quite accountable for what he did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: David, you were an adviser to Nixon. What do you make of that argument?

GERGEN: Big -- I think it's full of holes. Listen, Richard Nixon was contrite. We've seen no evidence of contrition on the part of Donald Trump at all. Richard Nixon knew he'd totally screwed up. He tried to hide it. It eventually came out and he left. He left and he spared the country a trial.

And as for Jerry Ford at the time, you know, it was a shock to the country and I think he lost the potential of being elected in 1976 after that was over, but, you know, later on the Kennedy Library, which gives out an annual courage award in the name of Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, gave an award to Gerald Ford for pardoning Richard Nixon. They said it was an act of courage that they saluted.

CABRERA: Susan, "The Washington Post" is also reporting in recent weeks former president Trump has entertained the idea of starting a third political party called the Patriot Party. Do you think he'll do it?

GLASSER: I think it sounds like he's still wanting to exert whatever pressure he can over the Republican senators who still -- they don't control the fate of his presidency. That's now over. But they do control whether Donald Trump goes down in history as the first president or former president ever to be convicted in an impeachment trial so I think Trump is looking for any kind of power that he can still exert over Republicans and he still has a fanatic core of supporters, and I think that he's trying to use what political leverage he still has.

Color me skeptical that this party will ever actually materialize but I do think it's not a surprise that Trump was trying to reinsert himself into the political conversation.

CABRERA: If there is this third party that President Trump were to start, David, what kind of impact would that have on Republicans and their party?

GERGEN: It would splinter the party. I think there'd be a real intermural fight that would go on, it would quite poisonous, and over time I must tell you I think there'd be a lot of fighting. But over time it may purge the party from a lot of this craziness it's been going through. The Republican Party of today is nothing like it was when, say, Mitt Romney first got involved some years ago, 20, 30 years ago. It was a much more responsible, accountable party.

I mean, the very idea, the Republicans I thought were right to ask for a fair trial for Trump, to push and get some extra time. I thought that was right. They want to have due process.

[16:20:03]

But yet at the same time if people like Marco Rubio come in with their minds made up they are not approaching it with a fair and open mind, which is what we should be able to expect from them if they're going to have what they can call a due process. This is -- if the fix is in only on one side, I think we're all going to walk away from this and saying there goes the Republican Party again. These people have gone off the -- you know, gone haywire.

I mean, there are a lot of people in the Republican Party who would like to see a split and in order to start a new party that's more moderate, that's more responsible, that is closer to the mainstream of American politics.

CABRERA: David Gergen and Susan Glasser, always a pleasure. Thank you both.

GERGEN: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: Coming up Dr. Deborah Birx also speaking out publicly today about what really went on inside the Trump White House as it dealt with a surging, deadly pandemic. Here is a hint.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. DEBORAH BIRX, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE COORDINATOR: To this day, I mean, to the day I left, I am convinced there were parallel data streams because I --

MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS, "FACE THE NATION": Disinformation.

BIRX: I saw the president presenting graphs that I never made.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:25:09]

CABRERA: More breaking news. A White House official is telling CNN President Obama -- President Biden, excuse me, will reinstate travel restrictions on Monday for non-U.S. citizens who have been in Brazil, Ireland, and the United Kingdom as well as much of Europe. President Biden will also add travel restrictions for those who have recently been to South Africa.

Let's go straight to CNN's Arlette Saenz who's at the White House.

Arlette, what more can you tell us? ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, what President

Biden will do tomorrow is reimpose these travel restrictions that were lifted by President Trump in his waning days in office. And a White House official tells me that the president will be reimposing restrictions on most non-U.S. citizens from -- who have recently traveled to Brazil, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and most European countries.

In addition to this, President Biden will extend those restrictions to travelers who have recently been to South Africa. And he will be doing this just one week after President Trump said that he would be lifting those travel restrictions from the COVID era effective January 26th. The Biden transition very soon after had said that they were not going to allow that to happen. So this announcement from the president expected tomorrow is not really a surprise but it's just another step that the Biden administration is taking to try to curb the spread of this virus.

You saw the president last week signing an executive order that would require travelers coming to the U.S. to receive a negative COVID-19 test before they arrived in the United States. You also saw the president sign an executive order that requires masks across interstate travel that includes airplanes, trains, buses traveling from state to state. So this is just another one of the steps that the Biden administration is taking as they're trying to show their aggressive posture and trying to contain this virus -- Ana.

CABRERA: OK. Arlette Saenz, thanks for that update.

With us now is former CDC disease detective, Dr. Seema Yasmin. She is also the author of a book called "Viral BS: Medical Myths and Why We Fall for Them."

Dr. Yasmin, I just want to get your reaction to these new travel restrictions. Is this needed?

DR. SEEMA YASMIN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: I think we definitely need some kind of way of preventing people from bringing newer variants into the U.S. but, Ana, I just worry it's too little too late because these variants have been around for a long time. And I think they're likely already here anyway and that the U.S. just is not doing enough testing of the virus, not doing enough sequencing.

So, for example, we're saying that with that variant first found in the U.K., we first discovered it in Colorado in December. Now it's in about a dozen states. But it's probably a lot more widespread than that. So I think it does signal to people that lots of travel is not a good idea but we still need to make sure we're encouraging masking, encouraging people to physically distance and not gather and, of course, rolling out the vaccination program in a much broader way.

CABRERA: Former White House coronavirus response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx gave an interview to CBS News this weekend and she revealed something jaw-dropping about what was happening during the Trump team's COVID response. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIRX: I saw the president presenting graphs that I never made. So I know that someone or someone out there or someone inside was creating a parallel set of data and graphics that were shown to the president. I know what I sent up and I know that what was in his hands was different from that. You can't do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: If what she is saying is true, was it harmful that she didn't speak up when this was going on?

YASMIN: Yes. Absolutely. 417,000 Americans are dead now. And I think we're going to learn more and more over the years how many of those deaths were from people who just didn't believe that COVID was real. People who weren't protected adequately. People who fell for the many health hoaxes about this pandemic.

And researchers at Cornell University have analyzed tens of millions of English language articles about coronavirus and told us from those analyses that the president, President Trump, was the single biggest driver of false information about the pandemic.

So imagine if Dr. Birx was telling us then what she is sharing now, what impact that could potentially have had in cutting through that misinformation and showing the public, even those people that believed Donald Trump, that, look, here's a top scientist saying there are parallel data streams that she hasn't signed off on some of these graphs but instead she stayed silent.

And we saw that Dr. Fauci of course did contradict the president as I think a scientist with integrity should do.

[16:30:03]

And he paid a price for that for sure. But it would have been really impactful, I think, for her to have done the same earlier on.

CABRERA: As we continue to follow the development of this virus and this pandemic, we learn more information. And now this has become a key question in the battle against COVID-19. Is this new coronavirus variant first identified in the U.K. more deadly?

We know the CDC is reviewing data to try to answer this question. But epidemiologist Michael Osterholm is saying he has reviewed a U.K. report and he says he's also seen other data that's not publicly available and he is convinced that this variant is deadlier.

Dr. Yasmin, have you seen any of this data?

DR. YASMIN: I don't know specifically what he's talking about but I will break it down this way. When you look at the new variant that was first identified in the U.K. and you kind of analyze it, you do see that it spreads more easily between people. But on the face of it, it doesn't look like that variant does anything different to the body. It doesn't seem to make us sicker, doesn't seem to increase the likelihood of dying from infection.

But then if you have a virus that's more transmissible than say on average one person infects one other person but with the new variant they're infecting say two more people, then those two go on to infect two more, they infect two more, they -- right? The spread just becomes so much bigger.

So even if you're saying that the virus itself isn't more deadly, if you are spreading it a lot easier, if it is spreading to more people, of course some of those people are going to get severely sick. Of course some of them are going to end up in hospital and some of them will die.

So it's not as simple as saying it spreads more easily but it's not more deadly. If you are infecting many more people, sparking more outbreaks you will of course see more deaths. And we're not just talking about the variant first found in the U.K. either, Ana, because now there's variants found in South Africa, Brazil, and of course here in California where I'm talking to you from as well. So this is a really, really pressing concern and all the more reason for getting on top of transmission, masking, physical distancing and vaccinating.

CABRERA: I have just a few seconds but are two masks better than one?

DR. YASMIN: Possibly yes. And I do think it's a travesty that everyone hasn't been given masks by the government. We've seen other nations do that. But there's evidence now that three ply masks may be better than two. Just make sure that you have good protection and that it's fitting well against your face as much as possible to keep your germs in and to keep other people's germs out.

CABRERA: Dr. Seema Yasmin, thank you very much. Thanks for all you do. We really appreciate it.

DR. YASMIN: Thank you.

CABRERA: And be sure to join Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Anderson Cooper for an all new CNN Global Town Hall, Coronavirus Facts and Fears. It's live this Wednesday night at 8:00 Eastern here on CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Today the U.S. surpassed another grim milestone. More than 25 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 since the pandemic began. Just days ago the country marked one year since the first reported COVID case in the U.S. That was on January 21, 2020.

All this comes as plans to vaccinate the masses are ramping up. New York City, for example, is preparing to open a vaccination mega site at the home Field of the New York Mets.

So let's bring in CNN's Evan McMorris-Santoro at Citi Field. Evan, when are vaccinations set to begin there?

EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, I'm here at Citi Field where -- that's usually the home of the Mets and I was hoping to tell you that starting tomorrow it would be the home of the largest vaccine site in New York City.

The plan the mayor announced a couple weeks ago was to give out between 5,000 and 7,000 doses of vaccine a day here at this stadium, but now that's not happening starting tomorrow because they don't have enough vaccine to do it.

We're expecting to hear more about what will happen here at Citi Field next week but for now there just isn't enough vaccine doses.

This is actually a problem across the entire state of New York. Governor Cuomo earlier today announced that the state has now given out around 1.1 million doses of the vaccine; 88 percent of it's initial allocation. He expected that first allocation to run out today and he's hoping for more to start to arrive mid-week next week.

Speaking at a church group this morning, the governor laid out the challenge of getting those more vaccine doses here in the state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO, (D-NY): While the vaccine is still scarce across the country, I am working as hard as I can to get it here for you. I will fight to deliver it. And we will make it available through churches, community groups, public housing, and many different ways to make sure it is accessible to the hard hit communities of color.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Getting more vaccine is now the central challenge of the pandemic here in New York. And it's not just true of here. It's all across the entire country. Getting this vaccine out and getting it out fast is now the main challenge for the Biden administration as it takes over this pandemic mitigation across this country.

Ana?

CABRERA: And we know it's not just an issue in New York; it's a widespread issue right now across all the states. Evan McMorris- Santoro, thank you.

Another day another revelation about then President Trump's attempts to stay in power. This time The Wall Street Journal is reporting President Trump pressured the Justice Department to file a case with the Supreme Court to invalidate Joe Biden's win.

Could this come up at his impeachment trial? Cross-exam with Elie Honig is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Updating you on our developing story, we are learning more about former President Trump's back channel actions to get the election overturned including a report today from The Wall Street Journal that he was pressuring his Justice Department to file a case with the Supreme Court to get Biden's victory thrown out.

Let's get right to CNN legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig for our weekly Cross-exam segment. And Elie we have so much to discuss this week and we brought you back for a second straight day. Lucky us.

So here's our first viewer question today. Legally how could Trump's back channel efforts to overturn the election impact his current impeachment?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Ana, this effort by the former president to weaponize DOJ and overturn the election was equal parts corrupt and futile. It was corrupt because DOJ simply does not exist to serve the president, any president, or to file frivolous evidence free lawsuits for a political agenda. And it was futile because it just would never have worked. The Supreme Court does not have to take any case and they almost certainly would have rejected this one, just like they rejected two other Trump election challenges.

Now, this effort by the former president absolutely could be relevant to his upcoming Senate impeachment hearing. Senator Cardin just told you this a few minutes ago. The article of impeachment that the House will deliver to the Senate tomorrow, it covers not only the events of January 6th but the effort to steal the election before that. There is a specific paragraph about that.

So this attempt to pressure DOJ absolutely could be relevant information.

Finally, (inaudible), I just have to salute DOJ for standing its ground in this instance. I've been critical of DOJ often throughout the last two years but in this instance DOJ's leaders refused to go along, they held their independence, they did the right thing.

CABRERA: Former President Donald Trump has hinted he will attempt to return to the White House in four years. He wouldn't be the first president to do so. Grover Cleveland was elected to two nonconsecutive terms back in the 1800s; 1893 to be exact. But President Cleveland was never impeached and President Trump has now been impeached twice.

One viewer asks, can an impeached president be prevented from holding office in the future and how does that work legally?

HONIG: So absolutely yes. Think of it as a three-step process.

First, you have to have impeachment by a majority vote in the House. Of course, we had that a couple weeks ago. Step two, you have to have your trial in the Senate which requires two-thirds of the Senate, 67 senators, in order to convict. And then the Senate can hold a separate vote to disqualify an official from ever holding public office again.

Importantly, that vote only takes a majority of the Senate, not two- thirds. There is historical precedent here.

Three times in our history officials have been impeached, convicted and then disqualified, including the last official who was impeached before Donald Trump, a federal judge back in 2010.

So Ana, the stakes are high here. President Trump could make history as the first U.S. President ever convicted and if so that could mean the definitive end of his political career.

CABRERA: This is another great question from a viewer asking if the Senate does not convict can they still vote to ban Trump from ever holding public office in the future?

HONIG: It is a great question. I'm hearing this one a lot.

So there's actually some disagreement. Some legal scholars are now arguing that even if the Senate does not convict Trump they can still go ahead and vote to disqualify him. I don't buy that one for two reasons.

First of all, look at the historical precedent. Many officials have been impeached and then acquitted, found not guilty, including Donald Trump last year, Bill Clinton, Andrew Johnson, and many others. And in that situation the Senate has never acquitted and then went on and held a vote to disqualify.

And second, we have basic principles of fairness and due process in our legal system. We don't go to sentencing or punishment until you first have a conviction or, in a civil case, a judgment. I think it's important that the same principle needs to apply here in impeachment.

CABRERA: All right. Thank you so much, Elie. And a reminder to our viewers, send in your legal questions by visiting Elie's weekly column at CNN.com/opinion.

Now to the massive demonstrations across Russia as thousands risk their lives to protest the arrest of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny. Stay with us here live in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: More than 3,000 people have been arrested across Russia. Some braving very frigid temperatures to protest the arrest of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny. And now Russian officials are accusing the U.S. of meddling.

A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin claims the U.S. encouraged tens of thousands of protesters to take to the streets on Saturday. And CNN's Fred Pleitgen is reporting from inside one of those protests in Moscow.

Fred?

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Russian riot cops cracking down with a heavy hand, detaining protesters in Moscow who are calling for the release of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.

It's (ph) the folks that you're hearing around me, they're screaming, shame, shame as the riot police are making their advance.

Despite massive efforts by authorities to stop people from coming and the risk of detention, thousands showed up. Some saying they simply can't stay silent anymore

UNKNOWN: I am not proud of my country. I don't want my government to poison people and put them in prison. I want more freedom. I want proper elections and normal government.

PLEITGEN: Alexei Navalny was detained when he arrived in Moscow last Sunday from Germany, where he got treatment after being poisoned by the chemical nerve agent, Novichok.

The Kremlin has denied involvement in the poisoning. Even in jail Navalny managed to publish an investigation into Putin's alleged ownership of a gigantic palace worth around $1.4 billion. A Putin spokesperson said the president does not own a palace.

Navalny called on Russians to take to the streets.

ALEXEY NAVALNY (TRANSLATED), RUSSIAN OPPOSITION LEADER: I urge you not to be silent. To resist. To take to the streets.

PLEITGEN: Russian authorities arrested many of Navalny's supporters, even his wife, Yulia, as she was trying to head to the protests in Moscow. She was released after several hours in detention.

But across Russia it's estimated tens of thousands turned out, with rallies in places like St. Petersburg, in the Far East, and even in the Siberian town Yakutsk at almost minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

Russian officials accused the U.S. Embassy in Moscow of, quote, encouraging the protests after it disclosed the locations of the demonstrations on its website, urging U.S. citizens to avoid them but people at the rally in Moscow said their message is to their own leadership.

UNKNOWN: With the political situation right now I just don't see a future in this country.

PLEITGEN: After a day with scenes like these and over 2,000 arrests across the country according to a monitoring group, Russian authorities launched an investigation but into violence against the police.

Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Moscow.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

CABRERA: Coming up, with a U.S. death toll surpassing 400,000, cases still climbing, two of former President Trump's medical advisers are speaking out this weekend about what was really going on in the White House as the pandemic emerged. The jaw-dropping details coming up at the top of the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm John Harwood at the White House, and this is CNN.

CABRERA: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I appreciate you joining me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

CNN today learning more alarming information about the lengths Donald Trump was willing to go, the squeeze he put on his people, and the lies he told over and over to try and stay in office after losing the election to Joe Biden.