Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Meets With Bipartisan Senate Group On COVID-19 Relief; Biden To Reimpose COVID Travel Restrictions On Non-U.S. Citizens; Dr. Deborah Birx Changes Her Assessment Of Trump's Analytical Skills On COVID; Trump's Second Impeachment Set To Start In Two Weeks; Interview With Sen. Angus King (I-ME); Interview With Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA); President Biden Makes Bold Promises To Tackle Climate Crisis. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired January 24, 2021 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:03]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Well, tonight the White House is putting new international travel restrictions in place in an effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus. We'll explain how they could make it harder for some people to enter the United States.

Plus the White House's former coronavirus response coordinator says there were people on the inside who believed it was all a hoax. Critics are asking why Dr. Deborah Birx is only coming forward now.

And we have new reporting on the lengths Donald Trump was willing to go to overturn his election loss, possibly asking the Department of Justice to take the case to the Supreme Court. We'll ask House impeachment manager, Congressman Eric Swalwell, how that could affect Trump's Senate trial. He joins us live.

And I'm Pamela Brown in Washington. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM on this Sunday evening.

As unease grows about the spread of COVID variants, this number it should shock you. More than 25 million Americans have now been infected with coronavirus. Given that there are roughly 330 million total Americans, that's roughly 7.5 percent of the total population. And so far more than 41 million vaccine doses have been delivered, but fewer than half of those have been administered.

Dr. Anthony Fauci thinks things will get better under the Biden administration and says the goal of 100 million shots in arms in the first 100 days is not just doable, saying that goal is important.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, BIDEN'S CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER ON CORONAVIRUS: We're obviously going to try to get much better. We're going to try and get as much as we possibly can. If we do more than that, that's great. But at least set a goal and say this is where we want to be. And if we overshoot it, if we get more than that, that's terrific. So the idea at least you have a goal. You're pushing for something. It's not just vague and open ended.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Well, President Biden needs bipartisan support for his $1.9 trillion relief plan, but Republicans are giving it the cold shoulder. So today he dispatched a top economic official who made a call to a group of bipartisan senators.

For more on this let's bring in CNN White House correspondent Arlette Saenz.

So, Arlette, what are we learning about this call?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, this call is just the latest effort from the Biden administration to try to get some bipartisan sign-on onto that $1.9 trillion COVID relief package. It was roughly a 75-minute call between Biden's top economic adviser Brian Deese and a group of 16 bipartisan senators, eight Republicans and eight Democrats. And what we are learning from sources with knowledge of that call is that money for vaccine distribution was a top priority that was discussed.

Also these senators wanted more details about the plan and also wanted to find ways to ensure that this relief package would be getting to Americans who need it most. The one thing they were concerned about is ensuring that any stimulus checks were reaching those Americans that needed them most.

And so this was a 75-minute call. In addition to Brian Deese, Biden's White House COVID coordinator Jeffrey Zients was on that call as well as his top congressional liaison Louisa Terrell. But one thing that the Biden administration has really been pushing is that they want this deal to be a bipartisan agreement. They want to ensure that senators from both sides of the aisle are signing onto this plan.

But there have been some Republicans expressing some unease with the early contours of the plan especially as lawmakers passed that $900 billion package at the end of last year. But right now White House officials are really pushing trying to do this in a bipartisan manner. On that call they also indicated that they wanted this to remain as one whole package, not breaking it up into different pieces.

Now one thing that's being advocated for by some Democrats is pursuing something called budget reconciliation which would allow for only a simple majority to be needed to pass this bill. The White House has said that they want to keep every tool available to them in this process, but President Biden has made it clear that he does want it to be a bipartisan effort -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Arlette, thanks so much for the latest there.

And President Biden is also making moves to slow the rapid spread of coronavirus. Tomorrow he will reinstate COVID travel restrictions on non-U.S. citizens, specifically those who have been to Brazil, Ireland, the United Kingdom and much of Europe according to a White House official. I want to bring in Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University School of

Health.

Dr. Jha, welcome. What is your reaction to this move? In some ways, it was expected, right?

DR. ASHISH JHA, DEAN, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Yes. So first of all, Pamela, thanks for having me on. It was expected. This is a very strange move by the Trump administration in the last days, to lift travel restrictions right in the middle of these variants that are circulating in many of these countries.

[19:05:07]

So I expected the Biden administration to do this and I'm pleased to see them doing it.

BROWN: I want to get your reaction to something Dr. Deborah Birx said today versus something that she said last March.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. DEBORAH BIRX, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE COORDINATOR: 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. You have to use the entire database.

MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS, "FACE THE NATION": Who was doing that?

BIRX: To this day I don't know.

He's been so attentive to the scientific literature and the details of the data. And I think his ability to analyze and integrate data that comes out of his long history in business has really been a long benefit during these discussions about medical issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: How do you react to that?

JHA: Yes. Well, look, it's really clear having spent a lot of time speaking to people on the Coronavirus Task Force last spring and summer that there was a lot of confusion, multiple sources of information. This was not, let's say, a well-run White House. And so my reaction as I listen to Dr. Birx's interview today is that's consistent with everything I know, that the president was getting sort of information from many sources.

But actually more concerning that he was really seeking out information that confirmed his biases that this was not a problem, that this was a hoax or it somehow would magically disappear. Obviously that ended up being the tactic that the White House ended up using, which is why we find ourselves where we are today. BROWN: Right, and also, you know, you saw Dr. Birx there sort of

change her stories. I'm just wondering as a doctor from your perspective, if you're in a situation like that, and I imagine it's a very difficult because on one hand you wouldn't be able to stay if feel like you can offer help, you know, you don't want to risk anything with that. But would you feel like there's an ethical obligation to speak out publicly?

JHA: Yes, look, I think it's hard for me to say, I was not in Dr. Birx's position. Both Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci I think found themselves in an impossible position last year because they know what the right scientific information is, and they yet clearly could not say it openly and vocally. And I guess, you know, it's easy for me to sit here and criticize both of them and say they should have done X or Y. I just -- I think that they found themselves in a very difficult situation and they tried their best.

BROWN: Yes. And here's --

JHA: I'm sympathetic to both of them.

BROWN: Here's what Anthony Fauci said for his part about what he was going through behind the scenes. He said, "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, well, he asked me my opinion, what do you want me to say?"

This is what he told "The New York Times." So clearly he took a bit of a different approach there and the president threatened his job, he got death threats. Do you think we're moving past the politicization of the pandemic, and how damaging has the politicization been up to this point? Politicization, I guess I should say.

JHA: Yes. Right, so, Pamela, it's clearly been awful. I mean, the idea that we would take scientific information about a virus, how it spreads, how to prevent it, and turn that somehow into a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative thing is bizarre. And that's much of what happened last year. I think with President Biden we are absolutely moving forward beyond that. Dr. Fauci has been steadfast and science driven in his communication throughout his entire career.

It's nice to see him be able to speak openly and know that if he says something scientifically, he does not have to worry about a president contradicting him or chastising him for it.

BROWN: And I want to get your reaction to this news that 38 Capitol Hill police officers have now tested positive for COVID after that January 6th riot. What do you think about that?

JHA: I mean, that riot obviously was just a disaster on so many levels. I mean, obviously on the democratic level but even beyond that just from a pure COVID point of view. You could see large crowds of people who don't believe in masks being indoors, gathering in tight quarters. It's an extremely high risk situation, and, you know, these Capitol Hill police officers obviously risk their lives defending themselves from violent intruders like them.

But the idea that then they end up being subjected to a deadly disease on top of that I think is really unacceptable and just one more reason why that was such an atrocious day for our country.

BROWN: All right. Dr. Ashish Jha, thank you so much for sharing your expertise. We appreciate it.

JHA: Thank you for having me on.

BROWN: Now let's get you to the Capitol. At this time tomorrow the Senate will be receiving a lone Article of Impeachment from the House, kicking off a two-week prep period before the second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump begins.

[19:10:08]

CNN's senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns is with us from Capitol Hill.

So, Joe, we know the rough timeline for the trial, but how do we expect things to play out in the coming days?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's a really good question, quite frankly, because when you think about it, the events leading up to the impeachment of Donald Trump just occurred this month, so everybody is sort of trying to build the plane while they're flying if you think about it. However, what we do know is that this is history once again Donald Trump impeached and on trial for the second time.

It's a little bit different from last time. He is out of office, he's out of town and he's off of Twitter which is very different from the last time he had a trial in the United States Senate. But there are some similarities that are going to play out starting tomorrow evening with the impeachment managers walking across the Capitol to the United States Senate, delivering and presenting that one Article of Impeachment, only about four pages long to the United States Senate.

And normally, under normal conditions any impeachment trial is supposed to start at 1:00 p.m. the next day after the articles are delivered. But this time the Senate has bought itself some time, two weeks as you mentioned, in fact, and that's preparation for the president's counsel that was just hired out of South Carolina. But it certainly will help the Democrats, the House managers as well, put their cases together.

A lot of people are saying this is going to go very quickly. However, we really don't know for sure simply because the Republicans are kind of all over the place right now on their positions on this impeachment trial. Listen.

(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.

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. The Constitution and I think -- and I know that there are other people out there that may disagree with me, but Article One, Sections I think it's 6 and 7 specifically point out that you can impeach the president. And it does not indicate that you can impeach someone who is not in office.

SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): The preponderance of the legal opinion is that a 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)

JOHNS: So a 50-50 Senate if all Democrats vote in favor of conviction, 17 Republicans would still have to vote to convict also -- Pamela.

BROWN: And in this gap of time before the Senate trial, new information is coming out just this weekend from "The Wall Street Journal" and "The New York Times" appearing to show how Trump tried to use the Justice Department to overturn the election results.

Do we know if those reports would factor into the impeachment? What are we hearing about that?

JOHNS: You know, I have asked that question to people who should know up here on Capitol Hill. So far no response, but we do know a couple of things. We know that the impeachment article did mention issues that were sort of outside of what specifically happened on January 6th including Brad Raffensperger, the secretary State of Georgia, who kind of got shook down in a telephone call by the president.

The big question, of course, is whether any information about some of these other things that happened and were reported will at least end up in the pre-trial brief. Still waiting for word on that -- Pamela.

BROWN: We shall see. All right. Joe Johns, thanks so much for that.

And President Biden spoke to senators from all parties today trying to build support for his $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan. Senator Angus King was on that call, and he joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:18:23]

BROWN: Well, this afternoon the president's top economic official Brian Deese held a phone call with a group of senators, Democrat, Republican and independent, hoping to build support for his COVID relief plan. One of the 16 lawmakers invited on the call was Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Senator King joins me now. He's also a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Senator, thank you for coming on.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Sure. Glad to be with you particularly on premier weekend, Pamela. Congratulations.

BROWN: Yes, thank you so much. I appreciate that. Glad to have you on the premier weekend.

I want to start with this phone call, of course. You had tweeted after the call, you said today's call between the White House and members of Congress was a bipartisan discussion focused on policy solutions, which is notable in itself. Let's keep working together to speed vaccine distribution and support Americans during this pandemic.

So tell us what you thought went well today, and did anything concrete come out of this call today?

KING: Well, I think the first thing I want to emphasize is what I mentioned in the tweet and that is it was remarkable that this meeting happened. There hasn't been a meeting like this that I know of in the past four years, so we had an honest, cordial, straightforward discussion with the very high officials at the White House, 10 or 15 senators, two members of the House.

In terms of what came out concrete, I think that there was general consensus that the vaccine is the number one priority. We have to figure out where the bottlenecks are and then we have to address them. And I think everybody agreed on that.

[19:20:03]

There was then discussion of all the other elements of the president's proposal. There was some agreement, there were some disagreement. I think the next step is for the White House to supply us -- we asked for more data. There were a lot of nerds on this call, and we want the backup. We wanted to know if the White House is saying we need to do $130 billion of school aid, what's the backup for that, where did that number come from? So that's on the White House. We're expecting to hear from them in the next 24, 48 hours.

We also were planning to get together probably at the latest on Tuesday to see whether a bipartisan package can be put together. It's not going to be easy. And remember we just passed a package less -- about three weeks ago, so there's a lot of work to do on this one.

BROWN: Let's talk about that because that was one of the concerns that we heard from Mitt Romney today, a concern of Republicans, that, look, we just passed a COVID relief bill not so long ago and we need to have a better understanding of how this bill is going to move the ball forward and how the money from the past bill is going to work with this bill.

So did you think -- do you think that the White House addressed those concerns enough on the call? And can you see any of these reluctant Republicans coming in support of the bill? KING: Well, I think a lot depends on the discussions that take place

over the next few days. The White House did address many of the concerns but not all. And I think we're going to have those discussions. But you've got to remember the bill that we passed at the end of December by its very terms was really an emergency and was designed to get us through the next two or three months.

For example, the extended unemployment benefits expire on March 14th. That's seven or eight weeks from now. So it was a short-term fix. And everybody knew that there would be additional work. So this bill is looking more toward the summer and fall as is really focused on two issues. One is the epidemic, of course, the pandemic. And secondly the economic fallout from the pandemic. So that's what we're trying to address.

Will we be able to do the whole package? I don't know. I mean, that's going to take a lot of, you know, pushing back and forth. And I think you're right Republicans are somewhat reluctant at this point, but I think as I say there's consensus on several of the points. And I think we will come out with a bipartisan package. I don't think it'll be everything the president wants, and it may not be everything all of us want. But that's a -- you know, Mick Jagger said you don't always get what you want.

BROWN: So what would you be willing to negotiate on? That's right. So on that point, what would you be willing to negotiate on, compromise on?

KING: Well, I have a life principle, Pamela, and that is I don't negotiate on television.

BROWN: That's too bad because we would love for you to make some news here but I tried.

KING: I'm sure you would, and it's a nice try. It's your job to answer that question -- ask that question and my job not to answer it.

BROWN: OK. Well, then I'll ask you this question instead. Senator Bernie Sanders said the Democrats would use reconciliation if enough Republicans don't get on board. Now you made it clear in talking to me that you think that a bipartisan agreement will be reached, but if that doesn't happen, are you in favor of that route?

KING: Well, I can say I don't think the possibility of reconciliation, which means you can do things by a simple majority, is always there. The Republicans used it several times during Donald Trump's administration, so it's not like it's some kind of out-of-bounds process. The question still is, what's going to be in it? And remember the Senate's 50-50. So whatever's in that package has to get at least 50 votes plus Kamala Harris, so there's still going to be some negotiation in there.

I would much prefer -- I think laws are better and more durable if they're passed on a bipartisan basis. Does that mean you're going to get everything you want if you're on one side or the other? No. But you get a package that has more buy-in not only within the Congress but from the public. And I think that makes for a stronger solution if we can get there on reasonable terms.

BROWN: Before I let you go, I need to ask you about the Senate trial coming up in a couple of weeks. Wondering where you stand on that. New information is coming out, the reporting from "The Times" and the "Wall Street Journal" of how the president tried to use DOJ to overturn the election results. Where do you stand right now?

KING: Well, I have to tell you that it's clear, and you played some clips before from Marco Rubio and various others. It's clear that there's division on this issue and there's division in the country as we know. And a Senate trial isn't going to help on that front. On the other hand, I'm convinced that you can't just say no harm, no foul when you have a serious and egregious attack on our democratic system as we saw over the last two or three months.

[19:25:00]

There are two things, Pamela, I think you need to watch. What -- and these are places where we don't have enough evidence. One is, what did the president know that morning when he went to talk to that crowd? Did he have intelligence that told him this was a dangerous crowd with proclivities and plans for violence? If that's the case, that makes it a more serious charge. The second question I want some answers to is, what did he do that afternoon while this riot in the Capitol was unfolding?

There are reports that he was walking around the White House and couldn't figure out why people weren't as excited as he was. And it took him a long time to try to calm things down. So I think those two sets of facts in addition to what happened before, what we all know about, are going to contribute to the resolution of this -- of this matter. And I want to know -- you know, I want to know what the president knew and when he knew it. I think that's a very important part of determining the outcome of this case.

BROWN: But as it stands now, can you tell us where you are in terms of conviction or acquittal?

KING: No. I mean, as you can tell I think it was -- I think what the president did was way, way, way out of bounds to mislead the American people. I mean, if he wanted to contest the election and go to court and have recounts, that's fine. But around December 1st it was clear what the outcome was. And the problem was he told his followers every day for over two months something was stolen from you, you can't trust the courts, it was rigged, it was fraud.

And those people believed that. And that is an arrow in the heart of democracy. To undermine the legitimacy of an election knowing that's what you're doing. And then of course he invited this crowd to Washington. He sent a tweet in late December, see you in D.C. on January 6th. It will be wild. Well, you know, what does that mean? And then he goes out and fires up the crowd that morning, and his lawyer says we need this trial by combat.

I mean, it was a very serious attack on our system. This wasn't a policy dispute about immigration or budgets or whatever. This was our democratic system itself, and that's why I think this is so serious. So you can tell how I'm leaning,

BROWN: Yes.

KING: But I'm going to listen to the arguments and listen to the lawyers, and I want some additional facts. And you know, this is very odd trial, Pamela, because --

BROWN: Yes.

KING: The hundred jurors are witnesses. We were there.

BROWN: It is very odd, right.

KING: And that makes it -- you know, that makes it a kind of unusual situation to say the least.

BROWN: It's unprecedented in several ways also a trial for a former president. There's a lot of new aspects to this.

But, Senator Angus King, thank you so much for spending a part of your Sunday with us. We hope you'll come back on the show.

KING: Absolutely. Nice to be with you, Pamela.

BROWN: Thank you.

Well, President Biden has called for unity in the country, but how are those calls playing with some of former President Trump's most lawyer supporters? We'll show you up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:32:31]

BROWN: President Biden's call for unity has already found some uneven political ground. CNN's Gary Tuchman went to find out how his message is playing in places where support for the former President is still as strong as ever.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): This is Roberts County in the Texas Panhandle.

TUCHMAN (on camera): Do you think he could be a good President, Joe Biden?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody has capability being good. We'll see.

TUCHMAN (voice over): It's a very small county, roughly 850 people live here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just tell him good luck and do what's right.

TUCHMAN (voice over): Except for the frequent freight trains, Roberts County is quiet. But it's getting a high profile. Because in the last two presidential elections, Roberts County give Donald Trump a higher percentage of the vote than any other county in America.

TUCHMAN (on camera): In this election, Donald Trump got over 96 percent of the vote in this county. Joe Biden received a grand total of 17 votes.

TUCHMAN (voice over): So we asked these most loyal of Trump voters.

TUCHMAN (on camera): What do you think Joe Biden needs to do to be a good President?

GARY MCFALL, TRUMP VOTER: Well, he's going to have to get everyone together first, get the whole United States together again. And I don't know if he can do that because he's got too many people behind him that's against getting the Trump supporters together with Democrats.

TUCHMAN: You voted for Donald Trump twice. Do you think there's a possibility that you could ultimately believe that Joe Biden is a good President?

BRETT HALL, TRUMP VOTER: Yes, sir.

TUCHMAN: What would he have to do to earn that from you?

HALL: He's going to have to keep the people together and quit being so divisive.

TUCHMAN (voice over): Several of the Trump voters here told us the same thing. They believe President Biden needs to unite the country, be less divisive, despite the obvious irony.

TUCHMAN (on camera): Do you think Donald Trump has been divisive?

HALL: In certain ways, sure.

TUCHMAN (voice over): Debbie Howard has owned the family haircare salon in the county seat of Miami for almost a quarter century.

TUCHMAN (on camera): If Joe Biden walked into your salon, and said, Debbie, I'd like an opinion from a Trump voter. Someone who voted for Trump twice, what can I do to make you like me to make you think I'm a good President? What would you say to him? First thing?

DEBBIE HOWARD, TRUMP VOTER: That's really hard because I'm just go blank right now. Just try to unify this country, try to, you know, listen to both sides and meet in the middle, compromise with the Republicans.

TUCHMAN (voice over): Certainly not every Trump voter we met here was willing to give President Biden a chance.

Randy Massey works in the heating and air conditioning business.

TUCHMAN (on camera): So is there any chance you could see him being a good President?

RANDY MASSEY, TRUMP VOTER: No.

TUCHMAN: So you've given up on him already?

[19:35:10]

MASSEY: I never had faith in him for 47 years, and I'm only 44 years old.

TUCHMAN (voice over): But others are hoping they end up being pleasantly surprised.

TUCHMAN (on camera): You think you could be happy with him potentially?

HOWARD: There's potential there. Yes.

TUCHMAN (voice over): Gary Tuchman, CNN, Roberts County, Texas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Well, new revelations this weekend about the pressure former President Trump but on the Justice Department to overturn the results of the election. So what role will this play in the upcoming impeachment trial? I will ask Impeachment Manager, Congressman Eric Swalwell, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Well, tomorrow, for the second time, Democratic House Impeachment Managers will head to the Senate to deliver an Article of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump and in two weeks, for the second time, the Senate trial will hold a trial, and for the second time, it appears unlikely that enough Republicans will break ranks with Trump to result in a conviction.

[19:40:10]

BROWN: I'm joined now by one of the House Impeachment Managers, Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. Congressman, good to see you. Thanks so much for coming on.

This weekend, a pair of stunning reports from "The New York Times" and "The Wall Street Journal" appeared to shed light on Trump's attempts to use the Justice Department to do his bidding to overturn the election. Will those reports be considered for the impeachment case investigated further by the House?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Well, we're ready for trial now. I won't reveal all of our, you know, tactics. But I think you could surmise that this is powerful motive and evidence. It's evidence that shows that Donald Trump whether it was pressuring Georgia election officials or the Governor of Arizona or his own Department of Justice was willing to do anything by any means necessary.

But we also have powerful evidence of his intent, that for months, he was riling up his supporters what we call the big betrayal, the betrayal of truth, the betrayal of the Constitution by convincing them that the election was stolen and that they could do something about it if they came to this rally on the sixth and then joined him and stormed the Capitol.

BROWN: There are still a lot of questions about the looming impeachment process. How long will the trial go? Will any witnesses be called? What more can you tell us about that?

SWALWELL: Well, I'll tell you this, we're ready. As you pointed out, the Senate decides what the rules will be. You know, witnesses were not allowed in the last trial. If they are allowed here, of course, there's a number of witnesses who may be called that can talk about the President's intent, or even about, you know, what the people that the President called to Washington did when they stormed the Capitol.

You know, I think a lot is a brother of two police officers about what those officers went through and what the words of the President meant to them when they were beaten, spit on, stampeded, and even had a Blue Lives Matter flag used against them as a weapon and one of them lost their lives.

So we're waiting for the Senate, but we'll be ready regardless.

BROWN: So again, as you point out, we don't know if witnesses are going to be allowed, but who were some of the witnesses you would call forward if you are allowed to have witnesses?

SWALWELL: Well, we have a sense of that. But again, you know, just like any good trial team, we're not going to reveal that and we wouldn't expect the President's team to do that on their side.

BROWN: Well, because the interesting dynamic here, though, is that the Members of Congress essentially are witnesses, right? I mean, you all were in the Capitol Building during the riot, and now, you're in a role of being an impeachment manager. How odd is that for you?

SWALWELL: It's odd. I tried about 40 jury trials to verdict before coming to Congress and I think that in the history of jury trials, ever, there's never been a case where the jurors, these senators were witnesses, where the jurors, the senators were victims, where their chamber is the scene of the crime, but it's also the courtroom for this upcoming trial.

And I think that goes to the bigger responsibility they have to do the right thing. They can't say they are, you know, detached from what happened. They ran for their lives. They sent the same text messages that I sent to my wife, probably to their loved ones. Their desks were ransacked, and that hallowed chamber was desecrated.

BROWN: But there are still a lot of Republicans who are strongly opposed to this impeachment trial, some are even calling it unconstitutional. What is your response to that? Marco Rubio, you heard him say earlier today that this would just pour more fuel on the fire that the country is already in a delicate place and this is not what the country needs right now? SWALWELL: A couple of things. It's been done in the Senate before.

There's been a trial for someone who has left office and the penalty of being disqualified --

BROWN: The Secretary of War, right?

SWALWELL: I'm sorry, Yes, that's correct. I will probably hear that name a lot. Secretary Belknap, but the founders, I believe, put the penalty of disqualification from office in the Constitution because you want to hold the President accountable all the way to their last second in office, because if you think about it, the only time you would try and pull off a coup would be in your final hours in office.

And so if you're not willing to hold someone accountable, all the way to the last hour, then Presidents would have this kind of, you know, free skip school day or, you know, a free get -- out of jail free card because their conduct occurred in the last few weeks of their presidency. So we want to deter future Presidents from thinking they can do that.

And yes, because of Donald Trump's actions, because he disdains democracy and public safety, we do believe he should never hold public office again.

BROWN: There are 17 Republican freshmen in the House that signed a letter vowing to work with President Biden. I talked with one of them last night, Madison Cawthorn. When you talk to G.O.P. lawmakers, how many are genuine about unity and bipartisanship?

SWALWELL: I think a lot of them are. I think Adam Kinzinger has -- he is someone I've worked with in the past on a lot of issues is putting himself out there. And I think he's setting a good example of what the country expects of us. It may not be on every issue, but on COVID relief, on racial justice, on making sure that we connect and disconnect through infrastructure and broadband. I think there's a lot that we can do.

[19:45:15]

SWALWELL: And so we also know, for the sake of this trial, I think healing and reconciliation has to happen, we can't just sweep this under the rug. But I want to go back as the son of two Republicans who married a Hoosier, from Mike Pence's hometown. I want to go back to working with Republicans. That's how I'm wired and the country is expecting.

BROWN: Is it hard, though, after what just transpired? With so many Republicans voting against certifying the election results and trying to go along with President Trump's goal of overturning the election results? Does that make it harder for you?

SWALWELL: I've given a lot of thought to that because there's about 139 of them that did that. But as Joe Biden said, it's really on in his Inaugural Address, it's on enough of us to take actions that will help all of us. And so while 139 did that, there are still dozens who did not and I

think those are the ones who we can work with immediately to try and make progress.

BROWN: So you're focused on the dozens who do not. Let me ask you this before we let you go. Senator Dianne Feinstein, recently indicated to a Bloomberg reporter that she doesn't think senators Hawley and Cruz should be punished for spreading the lies that led to the riot saying that, "I think the Senate is a place of freedom and people come here to speak their piece."

Do you agree or should people like Hawley and Cruz and Congressman Boebert be punished for their roles here?

SWALWELL: I think people should be held accountable for their action, and now, she is speaking about her chamber, I'll speak about mine. There were people in our chamber who were tweeting out the Speaker of the House's location while people were trying to assassinate her. There were people who said it's time to kick ass and take names at that rally.

I do think those individuals should be held accountable and probably are being criminally investigated. But, yes actions have --

BROWN: But, I am just curious, I mean, you would know this. The speech and debate clause -- how would that factor into that?

SWALWELL: Well, yes, certainly anything that relates in the chamber, but we are -- we can patrol our own chamber, and I do think after an investigation, if people aided gave comfort to the terrorists, we have the right to expel them.

BROWN: All right, Congressman Eric Swalwell. Thank you so much.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thank you.

BROWN: Republicans have criticized President Biden's Executive Order to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords, but what exactly do the Paris Accords do? We'll discuss that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:51:58]

BROWN: On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed Executive Orders that among other things, promised to return to the Paris Climate Agreement and revoke the permit for the controversial Keystone oil pipeline. The U.S. reentry to the Paris Accord, well, this was one of the main campaign promises of then candidate Joe Biden. The Executive Orders were largely a reversal of policy moves done by the Trump administration.

And every weekend, we plan on covering the impact of climate change and look at what is being done to save the planet.

Joining me now is CNN's chief climate correspondent, Bill Weir, the best voice we could have on this topic -- this very important topic. If you would bring us up-to-date, just remind us what exactly is the Paris Climate Agreement?

BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is a groundbreaking agreement between 195 nations, 185 have ratified this to decarbonize, to stop burning our fuels that power our lives and to do it by a certain date because this is a time test.

Scientists point to 2020, the fires in Australia that killed three billion animals, five of the six largest fires in California history. We had so many hurricanes, we ran out of names for them. NASA and NOAA scientists, everybody is saying this is just the opening credits. And how bad this movie gets depends on how much more heat trapping and pollution equipment we see in the sky.

And so you have the United States rejoining this, signaling to the world that we get it. We believe in science again, and there's a moral responsibility for the biggest countries to do their part.

BROWN: So how will rejoining the Paris Accord affect Americans day to day lives? Or will it?

WEIR: Yes, well, that's a great question. The Paris Accords, the other countries around the world are really watching to see if Joe Biden can make good on his promise and convince this country to do these things, to take these dramatic steps.

Democrats in the past have tried big sweeping bills that would maybe put a price on carbon, which you would see, you know, maybe at the gas pump or in your heating bills, but then that money would be distributed as dividends. There's lots of arguments on how to put a price on what's happening right now.

And instead of maybe a big Green New Deal that you've heard about, which they know that probably can't pass, he is putting it in every sector, every Cabinet Minister will have to answer to the idea of what does agriculture, transportation energy, foreign policy, the economy, what is the climate cost of that?

And so I think it is conversation that really get into every sector of politics because it touches every part of our lives.

BROWN: And I want to just go high level for this last minute we have, why should people watching our program right now care about climate change? We want to do something on it every week. Why should they care?

WEIR: Because it's happening right now, and maybe you haven't seen sea level rise affect your community. You don't live in South Florida. Maybe you haven't seen your neighborhood burning California, but it is changing property values. It's changing tax bases. It's creating climate migrants as people move to northern latitudes to try to escape an unlivable, you know, band around the center of the earth as things heat up.

[19:55:14] WEIR: It's the quality of all of our lives, our health, our children's

futures, it is literally life as the planet will survive. It's whether or not we can survive on it as Homo sapiens. And so it is the biggest challenge we've ever faced.

And the irony is that all of the fuels that built the modern world are now destroying it, but there's enough technology now to shift and adjust that beautiful way, it just needs political will to pick that up.

BROWN: All right, Bill Weir, thank you so much for that.

And we have some breaking news tonight out of the White House. A source tells CNN the President Biden will lift the transgender ban in the U.S. military. Plus, we're also learning that Mexico's President has just tested positive for the coronavirus. We have details on his condition and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:00:00]