Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump's Impeachment Defense Team Quits Days Before Senate Trial; WHO Visits Wuhan, China Believed To Be The Ground Zero For COVID-19; New York City Data Shows Racial Disparity In COVID-19 Vaccine Access; New Study Reveals Children In School May Put Them And The Communities At Lower Risk; Developing COVID Booster; COVID Relief Package; Russian Security Cracks Down. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 31, 2021 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:15]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thanks for joining me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

We begin with the battle for the future of the Republican Party, a party that has so many problems right now. It's impossible to say which one is most critical. They're all four-alarm fires. In no particular order, the Marjorie Taylor Greene problem. She is a Georgia congresswoman who has spouted hateful rhetoric, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Greene can't be ignored because she apparently has the blessing of a certain ex-president who now lives in Florida basking in leftover GOP loyalty.

The Trump problem very messy. Donald Trump is about to face another Senate impeachment trial. And news today that his entire legal team has quit, all of them. A Trump adviser saying a final decision on legal strategy has not yet been made. And that leads to the Trump problem part two. Will the former president show up at his trial and personally take part in his own defense? What would that look like?

The Trump legacy that so many Republicans have hitched their futures to is on a bumpy road to an uncertain destination. So to Washington we go now and correspondent Sunlen Serfaty is joining us.

Sunlen, we are just days away from Trump's second impeachment trial. We've got a mass exit by the lawyers and the clock is ticking.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The clock is ticking, Ana. This is such a dramatic development, the fact that you have the entire Trump legal team walking away. But the fact that it's also happening so close to the start of the trial.

Now, if you look at the calendar here, just days away from some of these key deadlines that the Trump legal team should be needing to set up to meet including legal briefs due in just two days. The trial then set to begin the week after. And according to our reporting Trump wanted his legal team to really center the defense on this notion that there was some mass election fraud, that the election was being stolen, instead of focusing on the legality of potentially convicting a former president. And that certainly is an argument that we have heard from many Senate

Republicans on Capitol Hill, Republicans that will be jurors in this trial. Here's just one, Senator Rob Portman from this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R-OH): I'm a juror. I'm going to keep an open mind as we go through this. But I do think that this constitutionality issue has to be addressed. We would be convicting a private citizen, as you know, someone who is out of office. That sets a precedent.

We have to acknowledge that this election was lost. And we have to move on. And Joe Biden is now the duly elected president of the United States. So if the argument is not going to be made on issues like constitutionality which are real issues and need to be addressed, I think it will not benefit the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: And we certainly have heard that argument a lot. And, Ana, it's worth remembering that to convict the former president they need two-thirds majority of the senators to vote for his conviction. That's 17 Republicans that would be needed assuming all Democrats vote that way to break ranks and vote with the Democrats -- Ana.

CABRERA: Sunlen Serfaty, thank you.

With us now is former deputy assistant attorney general and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, he's also a CNN legal analyst, and presidential adviser to four former presidents both Democrats and Republicans, David Gergen, who is also a CNN senior political analyst.

Good to have both of you here for this discussion.

Elliot, let me start with you. If these lawyers left because Trump was insisting that they argue there was mass election fraud, and we know that is a lie, and that the election was stolen from him, which he continues to say, is that any kind of defense strategy?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's not just a question of defense strategy. You know, this has almost become a bit of a punch line to many people, ha-ha, Donald Trump can't find lawyers. But he was asking them to make filings on Congress that are widely proven to be untrue.

Any lawyer admitted to a bar in the United States -- this is the case where I am admitted in New York, in the state of New York, and is pretty much the same everywhere, there are serious legal consequences to making filings or pleadings, signing your name to documents, that you know to be false.

And these lawyers had to have known that, that if they were to go down the road of presenting this debunked legal theory, that's been disproven by dozens of courts around the country, they'd be jeopardizing their own law licenses. And so it's going to be very hard for President Trump to find legal

representation because of the fact that he's ultimately asking people to lie or disregard the rulings of dozens of courts around the country. So he's put himself and any potential lawyers who could serve him in an incredibly difficult legal position.

[16:05:00]

CABRERA: David, what does it say about how Trump views his actions on January 6th, that he was insisting on having his lawyers argue that the election was stolen, the very lie that led to the insurrection?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It underscores that he's still living in fantasy land. You know, he's in effect, Ana, he's being charged with count A and he's trying to say, no, count A is irrelevant. Let's talk about count R. That's what I want to talk about. As if he is above the law, still. And it's quite incredible.

I think this has been, starting with the search for this counsel. It's been a disaster right from the beginning. Who would have imagined that as good as Mr. Bowers may be in South Carolina and there are some talented people obviously in that state, and he is one of them, but, nonetheless, he hasn't really walked on a national stage?

If you're going to defend yourself in an impeachment trial and you're a president or former president of the United States, you have the capacity usually to go to Wall Street or go somewhere else, and get the titans of the law to come and defend you and to have this group of South Carolina folks, nice folks I'm sure they're talented, but, nonetheless, it's crazy to be leading with that and then to run into this problem with him and have a parting of the ways which sounds like, you know, the word had been put out, Maggie Haberman has it in her piece now in the "New York Times" that they had no chemistry.

Mr. Bowers and Mr. Trump had no chemistry. And that also contributed to it. But right now, I don't know, this sounds like we're going to have a farcical trial, that the president's team won't be prepared. They won't have their -- Elliot knows this much better than I do. They need to get their documents together and make their defense. They've got to file by next week.

CABRERA: I mean, Elliot, could the Senate bar Trump from presenting the defense that he wants which is that the election was stolen from him?

WILLIAMS: They can't bar him from doing so, but like David was discussing it becomes a farce at that point. President Trump is certainly entitled to defend himself before the United States Senate. The problem is that, number one, he is not a lawyer. And number two, he is Donald Trump. We know how or we can anticipate how that representation would go.

To piggyback on David's point, just looking back at David's point about the seriousness of the representation here. Looking back at even the Clinton impeachment 20 or 30 years ago, Bill Clinton was represented by lawyers from Williams & Connelly which is arguably the most prestigious law firm in the United States if not one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.

The notion that this is -- representing a president in an impeachment trial would be a career defining move for any Wall Street lawyer or a corporation. And moreover, no firms want to touch this because they have to market themselves after this for future business. And if you are Amazon or Google or Walmart seeking legal representation, you're not going to associate your name with the law firm that represented Donald Trump in lying to the United States Senate.

So this is fraught with peril for everyone who touches it, including any of the senators now sitting as jurors in the trial.

CABRERA: I mean, couldn't he ask Rudy Giuliani, who has seemed to have no problem, you know, touting this lie or somebody like him? I guess a Lin Wood or a Sidney Powell?

WILLIAMS: Here's the problem with Rudy Giuliani. He's a potential witness. And so, yes. You know, again, something Rudy Giuliani punch line, he's a serious lawyer or at least had a career as a serious lawyer, as a U.S. attorney. He could do it but he could potentially be called as a witness for giving a speech at the rally that ultimately led to the acts of insurrection on January 6th. So that may not be his best choice for lawyers.

But this is the problem, Ana. We're having to dig to scrape to find anyone from the island of misfit lawyers with a law license who could choose to represent the president. It's just not working.

CABRERA: And, David, it just seems like Trump would have an easy out to make sure that 17 GOP senators don't vote to convict him. You know, he can make the argument about whether it's constitutional to try former presidents but Trump doesn't appear to even want an out. It appears he wants to use the cameras and a national argument to continue to just push this false stolen election claim.

GERGEN: Yes, you're absolutely right, Ana. But I do think there is something more at stake. Most people are assuming, well, because they came nowhere close, the Republican votes, they needed, they need 17, they only got five on this last week so they're way behind. It's almost guaranteed they're going to lose the case. But here's what's important. They're going to lose the case, the Democrats are going to lose the case in the court of law.

But there is still the court of public opinion which matters a lot. And this is an opportunity now for the Democrats to make a very penetrating, persuasive case that in fact Donald Trump was linked and influenced that assault on the Capitol by those thugs on January 6th.

[16:10:04]

And they can now drive home the point in the trial that it's a -- this constitutional argument is not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is whether you, in fact, Mr. Trump, launched this thing. And if Donald Trump comes and defends himself as apparently, he may want to do, he may want to appear in public now to make his defense. It's going to be high wire but it's going to have enormous impact on public opinion. CABRERA: What about that idea of Trump making his own defense, Elliot,

good idea?

WILLIAMS: Again, same thing, you sort of made a similar point before. He can, but, you know, we shouldn't downplay the fact that this is a legal and constitutional proceeding. The president, for his virtues, whatever they may be, just are not in constitutional law. And he's playing with fire by attempting to make these arguments before the United States Senate.

CABRERA: Can I ask --

WILLIAMS: You know, this whole -- yes.

CABRERA: Can I ask you a follow real quick, though, Elliot?

WILLIAMS: Sure.

CABRERA: So if -- if, you know, the impeachment trial were to go the way that the president would like it to go, he is not convicted, even though he is still trying to muddy the waters, you know, there's this other idea that Senator Tim Kaine has thrown out there that maybe a censure resolution is the better way to go against Trump. It would hold him accountable even if the conviction fails, but I wonder if the censure resolution were to include elements of the 14th Amendment. Could that be another way to still prevent Trump from ever holding future office?

WILLIAMS: The problem with a censure resolution is it's not a legal remedy or a legal penalty. It's simply slapping the president on the -- I mean, look, it's a statement. A hundred years ago it would be a big deal for the United States Senate to make a statement to a sitting or a former president that we believe that your conduct was unlawful or unbecoming of a president.

This is merely a statement today in a highly polarized partisan world that the president did something wrong. What's the effect of that? It wouldn't bar him from future office, it wouldn't remove him from office. It would -- you know, he's already been impeached twice. It's actually the least penalty he would have suffered given the two prior impeachments that he would have faced.

And so yes, you know, to some extent David was touching on this a little bit, the better route is to let the Senate vote on him and fail to convict him and have every Republican senator who voted not to convict Donald Trump carry this with them for the rest of their careers. And maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but 10 or 15 years from now when we look back on what people chose to do when they were in office, this will be a stain on all of their careers and all of their legacies.

CABRERA: Quickly, if you will, David, I wonder if, you know, the developments in the last 24 hours with the exit of the legal team, the reporting about why, will change the calculus of any of these Republican senators who initially were probably going to vote not to convict? GERGEN: It may influence a handful, but I think, look, I think we're

solidly into a big Republican vote on this that goes against the Democrats.

CABRERA: All right. Thank you so much, David Gergen and Elliot Williams.

GERGEN: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: It has claimed more than 2.2 million lives and infected more than 102 million people worldwide, and now for the first time since the pandemic began, the World Health Organization investigators have been allowed into the infamous seafood market in Wuhan, China where the coronavirus may have begun its deadly spread.

What they're finding and where they're headed next. That report is live in the CNN NEWSROOM, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:17:51]

CABRERA: More than 102 million confirmed coronavirus cases worldwide and 2.2 million deaths later one, critical question in the fight to prevent the next pandemic remains. Where did this virus come from? China has been incredibly secretive. More than a year after the virus was first identified the World Health Organization finally has been allowed access to key sites in Wuhan to look for answers.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is joining us now.

Nick, you and your team have had a chance to talk to some people from the World Health Organization on the ground in China right now. Where have they been and what are they learning?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Well, today was key because so much of the focus about where did this virus come from has stemmed anecdotally to some degree on one place in the city of Wuhan in China, and that's the wet market there known as the Huanan Seafood Market. People have probably heard of that.

And if you ask them where it began they might point towards that, although many studies have since suggested it was most likely that was not kind of ground zero so to speak, and there may have been other places where in fact this may have begun.

But still, vital for these experts finally now they're inside China after months of delay to see this place. It's been shuttered and disinfected for months. They only saw empty shops. One described how frankly it was eerie to see the place empty now imagining how busy it would normally be. But another said, look, this was still useful because they'd heard so much about it. It's possibly a place where the virus had its first major super spreader in a minor sense event and it was good to sort of see what it quite looked like.

In the days ahead it gets more interesting for them as well. They are going to the Centers for Disease Control, the CDCs that are based in Hubei and Wuhan, and also they told me they hope to go to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That's a place that had a lot of focus on it particularly under the former Trump administration where many senior officials there pointed towards it, without evidence, without facts, to suggest it might have been the source of a lab leak that began the pandemic.

As I say, no proof of that at all but it will be interesting to see these experts get near those particular institutions.

Ana, one important thing we learned from these officials today, they say they've received a trove of data now from Chinese officials about influenza outbreaks around the time, December 2019, when this virus initially emerged.

[16:20:07]

Now we've reported on that ourselves in a CNN investigation about how there was a huge spike in influenza, unreported, not discussed publicly, in the very, very beginnings of December in 2019, outside of Wuhan in two different towns. Now the fact that the WHO panel now have all this data and they can put that outbreak, other outbreaks, other things that may have happened, that were unexplained before we knew about coronavirus, into context with proper numbers, proper data, if indeed that's what they've got from Chinese officials, could be enormously helpful as they begin to piece together what really happened.

Was it really the beginning of a seafood market in Wuhan in China? Was it somewhere else? So much of the conversation now is how do we stop this from happening again? Did a human being get too close to a bat as sometimes this thing? How did this happen? And how can we stop it happening again? China's transparency and what these people are doing on the ground now inside China so vital for that -- Ana.

CABRERA: No doubt about it. Obviously so much more to learn and it still makes me wonder whether you can trust what officials in China are giving the WHO as far as the data that they are providing. I guess we'll find out.

Nick Paton Walsh, I appreciate your reporting.

Now let's head to New York City, the first U.S. epicenter. Mayor Bill de Blasio saying he is seeing a profound disparity in how the vaccines are being distributed to Latino and black residents in the city. Almost two million vaccine doses have been administered in New York state.

But some communities are falling through the cracks. For instance, even though there is a vaccination site in their own neighborhood, Latinos in New York City's hard-hit community of Washington Heights have seen vaccine appointments go to white people who actually live outside the neighborhood.

CNN's Evan McMorris-Santoro is joining us now.

Evan, this is very concerning. Tell us more about the data that's been referenced by the mayor.

EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, these numbers today suggest that the thing a lot of people were worried about, that those communities that were hardest hit by the pandemic would not get equally served by the vaccine.

Let's look at these numbers that came out from the city today. You can see they show on a racial breakdown where the vaccine is going. And you can see that white people have gotten the vaccine at a much higher rate than they are in the population of New York City. Asians about equal. And Latino and black populations just dramatically under served.

Now these are early numbers and in a press conference today the mayor of the city, Bill de Blasio, did suggest that there is more of this data to gather but he said that these numbers are very concerning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK CITY: But the information we do have shows clear disparity. Clearly what we see is a particularly pronounced reality of many more people from white communities getting vaccination than folks from black and Latino communities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Now, you mentioned Washington Heights. Our own colleague Nicquel Terry Ellis wrote a great piece for our Website about what was going on in Washington Heights. I went there this morning and talked to the council person from that area about what's happening with this racial disparity on the ground and what it means for these locations that were put in these neighborhoods specifically to serve these populations and now aren't.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LEVINE, NEW YORK CITY COUNCILMEMBER: Tragically I can't say I am surprised. But it is nonetheless shocking because throughout this pandemic inequality has been revealed and exacerbated, and as painful as it is, it's not a surprise to see it happen again now. But this should shock the conscience of New York City and should force us to act in concrete ways that ensure no one is left behind in this vaccination program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCMORRIS-SANTORO: Now, Ana, it's important to note the people who booked those appointments at locations like Washington Heights, they didn't do anything wrong. They're following the rules. The problem is with the rules, according to city officials, they're saying they need to change.

To focus those locations not just on being in the geography of where people who need to be served by this vaccine are but actually serving them by going out and actively finding them, setting aside time for them to get the vaccine. This kind of thing is what's needed they say to make this a fair

process. And they also say it can't ever be a good process unless it's a fair process -- Ana.

CABRERA: OK. Evan, important reporting. Thank you.

Families all over the country are suffering in this pandemic. A lot of children remain out of school but there is growing hope in that department. A new study shows transmission of COVID-19 in schools can be limited if kids wear masks and other precautions are taken like enforcing social distancing and contact tracing.

The study of two U.S. schools found that just 9 percent of students who brought new COVID infections to school ended up transmitting the virus to others. In all, 234 coronavirus infections were documented among 3500 students during the fall semester.

[16:25:03]

I want to bring in Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit, what is your reaction to this study's findings?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR, VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: You know, I think it's really encouraging. I mean, that at least, remember in the Wisconsin study, that actually the transmission in schools was actually less than the surrounding community.

We need to get back to school for so many reasons. I mean, on-site learning is much better than distant learning. I think that they -- you know, for many children in the Philadelphia area the school lunch is the only decent meal they get during the day. Often child abuse is identified in school situations. Depression amongst school children is much greater than it was before.

We need to get back to school. So I think if we can just exercise the precautions that can lessen transmission in school we can do that.

CABRERA: And speaking of transmission, this study showed there was no transmission of the virus from students to teachers. Does this mean kids spread the virus less than adults?

OFFIT: Well, I think kids do spread the virus less than adults but they do spread the virus. I mean, you know, children, certainly children less than 5 years of age don't have the binding receptor for the virus to express in the same manner as those who were older than that. So that's one reason. But yes, children are less likely to get infected. When they get infected, they're less likely to be severely infected.

So it's really the teachers who are at the greatest risk, and so we need to exercise precautions to put them at the lowest risk possible. But there is -- the minute you walk outside at some level there is some risk and I think that just has to be understood. CABRERA: Let's stick with a little bit more good news for a moment.

U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations are falling. Finally below 100,000 this weekend. The first time in nearly two months. Obviously, that is great news. So what are we getting right? What has changed recently for this dip?

OFFIT: I think things are moving in the right direction for this reason. First of all, you have two vaccines out there that are phenomenally effective and safe. 95 percent effective. That's one. We're starting to get it out there. Right? I think there have been about 30 million first doses administered. I think about six million people have already had two doses. That's a couple percent of the population.

Another thing, by the way, is that we say that 25 million people in the United States have been infected but that's just people who've been tested and found to be infected. In fact, if you do antibody surveillance data which are much more sensitive to figure out how many people have really been infected, that 25 million number is probably off by a factor of three and possibly four.

It's more like 75 to a hundred million people who've already been infected which is 20 percent to 30 -- they are unlikely to be hospitalized if ever exposed to the virus again, or to go to the ICU, or die. So that's good. And, you know, we're getting the vaccine out there. We have two more vaccines which are around the corner. The weather is going to get warmer. You have an administration that really cares about trying to get this right.

We're averaging about 1.3 million doses a day. If we can get to three million I really do think we can get on top of this virus by the summer.

CABRERA: OK. Now I have to be Debbie Downer for a moment because we have the emergence of variants which are more transmissible. That is a growing concern which is another reason for increased speed of vaccinations and why that is so crucial.

Here is vaccine expert Dr. Michael Osterholm.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR, CENTER TO INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: So we still want to get two doses in everyone but I think right now in advance of the surge we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce the serious illness and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Dr. Offit, what's your take on perhaps delaying second doses of vaccines so that more people can get the first dose?

OFFIT: I think it's a bad idea. It is a two-dose vaccine. You get much better and much longer lasting immunity with that second dose. If you get one dose where you have a lesser immunity and more time goes by, two months, three months, four months, say, actually all you do is promote the creation of variants.

I think that the Biden administration has made it very clear this is a two-dose vaccine, they want to stick to the science, and although one could get the second dose, say, six weeks after the first which is sort of three weeks longer than you would typically for the Pfizer vaccine or two weeks for the Moderna vaccine, this is a two-dose vaccine and we need to know that and we can do that. I'm optimistic we can do that.

And also there was some good news with the Johnson & Johnson trial regarding the South African strain which everybody is really worried about.

CABRERA: Yes.

OFFIT: In terms of resisting vaccine immunity. I mean, they did find that there were I think about 40 to 60 hospitalizations and deaths in that trial all in the placebo group including in South Africa where that South African strain, not surprisingly, is prominent. So I think that was another good sign. I do think we can get there but this is a two-dose vaccine. It is a mistake to delay that second dose for a longer period of time.

CABRERA: Given that South African variant or the variant first identified at least in South Africa, does seem to escape a little bit of the current vaccines when we're talking about Moderna and Pfizer. We know that those companies are working on an update to their vaccines. How long does that take? And will people need booster shots?

OFFIT: We'll see -- so in the U.S., that Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 72 percent effective against moderate to severe disease which is to say the kind of diseases that causes you to seek medical attention or be hospitalized or go to the ICU or die.

[16:30:00]

Now, this is just a press release, so we haven't really seen the data yet. I mean, I am on the FDA advisory committee. We haven't seen those data yet nor has the FDA, because I don't think the company has submitted for approval yet.

CABRERA: Right.

OFFIT: So, we're all talking about press releases, at this point. But that's not bad. I mean, it's not -- it doesn't seem to be as good --

CABRERA: But when you talk about Pfizer and Moderna -- Pfizer and Moderna, the current ones that are authorized. If they're working on updates to their vaccines, because we don't know if they, you know, will be effective against this other variant, does that happen quickly?

OFFIT: You know, we can (?) do that. No, we certainly -- well, certainly, you can construct it quickly. Whether you can mass produce it, distribute it and administer it quickly is, obviously, not going to be nearly as easy as we're seeing. But I think we, certainly, will get ready for not just the south African variant, but no doubt there will be others variants. There's already the Brazilian variant, the California variant. So, we'll get ready for that.

But here's when you worry, Ana. You worry when you start to see people who have either been naturally infected with the virus, this sort of typical wild-type virus, or have been immunized with two doses Moderna or Pfizer vaccine and still end up being hospitalized or sent to the ICU. That's when you start to worry.

That hasn't happened yet. It looks like these vaccines, even against the variants so far, can protect against severe disease. That's really (?) the goal.

CABRERA: Yes. And I'm going to just cross my fingers, pray that all continues. That's what we need, keeping it going in the right direction. Give your little pooch that was behind you a little extra belly rub for me. He was so cute. He was standing there peering, being so quiet. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for your expertise and sharing it with us, Dr. Offit.

OFFIT: Thank you.

CABRERA: Still ahead, 10 Republican senators have sent their idea of a COVID relief package, quote, "compromise," to the White House, and President Biden is willing to talk. We'll look at if those direct stimulus payments will be the first thing on the table. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[16:33:12]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Ten Republican senators are stressing unity and bipartisanship in a letter just sent to President Biden. They are urging him to throw his support behind their counterproposal to the administration's $1.9 trillion COVID relief package. Two of these Republican senators laid out their position and where they want to see changes this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R), OHIO: But with regard to the direct payments, we think they should be much more targeted, $50,000 cap for individuals, as an example; $100,000 for a family.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R), LOUISIANA: One area that would decrease, he has $170 billion for schools. Now, we've already given schools 110 percent of what they -- what they usually receive from the federal government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Let's go now to CNN's White House Correspondent Arlette Saenz. Arlette, there is no time to waste, clearly. And, today, the Biden administration is responding to this GOP counterproposal. What are you learning?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Senate Republicans, the proposal they put forth is a much smaller price tag than what the White House was pursuing with their COVID relief package. What President Biden has proposed is about $1.9 trillion of a package. But this proposal from Senate Republicans is $600 billion.

Now, the Biden administration is saying that there is room for negotiation in one area, and that is those stimulus checks that they are trying to give out to suffering Americans. It's about $1,400 is what the Biden administration is pursuing.

And you've heard Senate Republicans say they want to see those checks targeted a bit more to the people who need them most. Take a listen to the director of the National Economic Council, Brian Deese, with our colleague, Dana Bash, earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Will you target those $1,400?

BRIAN DEESE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: And the $1,400 checks. We're open to looking at how to make the entire package effective at achieving its objective, including providing support to families with children; providing direct child tax credits to families that have children and who have been hit the hardest in this crisis. That's certainly a place that we're willing to sit down and think about other ways to make the entire package more effective.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now, the White House has not indicated yet whether they are willing to budge on that $1.9 trillion price tag. But they have indicated that that was one area where they could discuss possible changes.

Now, the president has made clear, he prefers for a bipartisan approach to be taken to passing this measure. But he has also said that the measure will pass with or without Republicans. And many Democrats were on the verge of getting ready to use budgets' reconciliation to try to pass this measure with just a simple majority.

And Senator Bernie Sanders, earlier today, said that Democrats do have the votes to make that happen. The question now is whether Biden will pursue that route or whether he will try to get to the negotiating table with those Senate Republicans to hammer out a deal -- Ana.

CABRERA: Arlette Saenz in Washington, thank you.

This week, House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, is scheduled to meet with controversial freshman Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is making headlines after CNN uncovered her repeated support for the execution of Democratic lawmakers. Will she face consequences? My next guest says, if you're watching Fox News, you already know the answer. He'll explain, next, live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[16:39:48]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: All weekend long, we have been talking about the fight for the soul of the Republican Party, as calls are growing for the GOP to expel controversial Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. My next guest says there actually is no fight.

CNN's Senior Media Reporter Oliver Darcy is joining us now. Oliver, what do you mean there is no fight inside the GOP?

OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER: Right. Ana, if you look at the Republican Party, if you want to understand the Republican Party, you should really listen to Fox. Listen to some talk radio. Browse a few of these right-wing Web sites, like Breitbart or the Gateway Pundit.

And if you do that, you really quickly see there is no actual fight. There is no introspection inside the Republican Party for the future. It's pretty clear where it is. It's still the Make America Great Again party. That hasn't changed, even though that Trump is out of office.

What you really see is, instead, people bludgeoning people who are dissenters. Liz Cheney, for example. She's getting a lot of negative press inside these right-wing circles. But there's no -- there's no doubt about it the Republican Party hasn't changed much in the past few weeks. Trump is no longer in office, but it's still very much the MAGA Party.

[16:40:00]

CABRERA: If you're watching me right now, you're probably not watching a lot of Fox. So, let me give viewers an example of what Fox News viewers are seeing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLOIP)

TUCKER CARLSON, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS: I like Liz Cheney. I think she's smart. So, it's not personal. It's philosophical. And I guess the question is, how is someone who is so closely aligned with, say, Bill Kristol, a very sinister person, and many other neocons who have so much -- so hurt this country. How is that person so close to the top of the leadership of the Republican Party tonight?

SEAN HANNITY, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS: Apparently, you got in a little battle with Liz Cheney, I noticed. Of course, she is a ranking member in the House leadership. I don't know why.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Oliver, who is leading who or influencing who? Is it right- wing media influencing Republican lawmakers or vice versa? Who is in control? DARCY: I have long argued, Ana, that the right-wing media, they hold

the keys to the Republican Party's base. And so, what they say has tremendous impact on where the Republican Party goes. And, right now, what you're seeing, you're not seeing them talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene and some of the crazy things that she is saying. And you haven't seen, really, a lot of introspection since that January 6th terror attack on Capitol Hill.

What you're seeing is people, like Liz Cheney, in the cross hairs. And that tells you that the Republican Party is still, again, very much under the influence of Trump. It's still in the -- been hypnotized by Trump and it hasn't really come out of it very much.

And it's very evident in right-wing media. And so, when we talk about a civil war, what you really need to understand is it's a -- it's a few people. It's a few dissenters, like Liz Cheney. Most of the Republican Party is still very much under Donald Trump's control.

CABRERA: Arizona's Republican governor, who has been a target of Trump in the past, Doug Ducey, was on with Dana Bash this morning. Listen to what he says when he was asked about ridding the Republican Party of extremist beliefs and conspiracy theories.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. DOUG DUCEY (R), ARIZONA: I'm not for this cancel culture. I'm somebody who embraces both our first and second amendment. And I don't think we should limit speech. I think we should have more speech around this. And we have to persuade with better ideas, and better policy, and gratitude for what we've inherited, in terms of a great nation and how do we make it better.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: So, he's arguing for even more speech. But is that going to help, when someone is, you know, stuck in an echo chamber, which seems to be the rule of thumb these days?

DARCY: Yes, I think everyone is for the debate idea, the open-debate policy. I think what we're really talking about is really limiting a lot of disinformation that's out there. A lot of these conspiracy theories, you know, obviously QAnon, which Marjorie Taylor Greene has promoted. These aren't really legitimate topics of debate. And so, I think it's about limiting those voices, so we can actually have that exchange of ideas that the governor is hoping to see.

CABRERA: Oliver Darcy, good to have you here. I appreciate it. Thank you.

DARCY: Thank you.

CABRERA: Join Fareed Zakaria for an in-depth look at American political hatred. How did it get so bad? The Fareed Zakaria special, "The Divided States Of America: What is tearing us apart?" airs tonight at 9:00, right here on CNN. Still ahead in the NEWSROOM. Earlier today, Russian security forces showed no mercy cracking down on protesters there who demanded the release of opposition leader, Alexei Navalny. And one of those detained was one of our own, CNN's Fred Pleitgen, a journalist. We'll hear from him, next. Stay with us. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[16:48:26]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Welcome back. Thousands of protesters filled streets across Russia for the second weekend in a row, demanding the release of jailed opposition leader, Alexei Navalny. Now, riot police detained others, protesters and even journalists, including, briefly, CNN's own Fred Pleitgen. He has more now from Moscow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Russian security forces showing no mercy, cracking down on protesters demanding the release of opposition leader, Alexei Navalny. But some telling us they want more fundamental changes in Russia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): I came here to the nod only because of Navalny, this man says. I think it's more because of the lack of freedom and because of this demonstrated lawlessness that's going on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want a free election. I want a change in our government.

PLEITGEN: Independent monitoring group, OVD Info, says thousands were detained across Russia, many protesters but also some journalists including, briefly, me.

(on camera): Sorry, sorry. All right. It's OK. It's OK.

(voice-over): While I was released after a few minutes, many others were not so lucky. The U.S. Secretary of State condemned what he called harsh tactics against protesters and journalists. Riot cops often wielding clubs and, in some cases, even tasers, like in this troubling video from Moscow.

But as the protesters marched through the Russian capital, many motorists honked their horns in apparent support as they drove past. Alexei Navalny, whose appeal for release from detention was denied this past week, called for the nationwide protests. Vladimir Putin's government reacted swiftly in an unprecedented move, shutting down large parts of Central Moscow, including 10 subway stops, in an effort to stop the protests, which authorities say are unsanctioned.

But people came out in masses across this vast country, often braving freezing temperatures, like in Cantornburg (ph), and often faced with a harsh police response, like in St. Petersburg, where OVD Info says hundreds were detained.

[16:55:01] CROWD: (INAUDIBLE.)

PLEITGEN: Release, release, they chanted, referring to Alexei Navalny. Navalny remains in detention and faces another court hearing this week. Locked away, but not silenced, as many of his supporters have vowed to continue their action.

CABRERA: That was our Fred Pleitgen reporting.

We are just days away now from former President Trump's second impeachment trial and his entire defense team has suddenly walked away this weekend. Could the president possibly defend himself? What we are learning about that possibility, next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:00]

CABRERA: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thanks for staying with me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.