Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) Speaks on Floor Ahead of Vote to Punish Her; Democrats Ask Trump to Testify Next Week at Impeachment Trial. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired February 04, 2021 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:01]

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: She talked about gun free zones and essentially saying that, that is why the shootings happen. So, she's advocating for guns being in school zones. She said 9/11 happened but she didn't say a plane flew into the Pentagon because that was initially what she was saying.

So, I still think her elevation into Congress and getting on these committees should, of course, be off these committees, if Democrats have anything to do with it, is very, very dangerous. And I think she is going to be much more famous and have much bigger platform going forward.

She talks the language of a conspiracy theorist. She is a fellow traveler with them. And I think this is a movement that is only going to get bigger. And as the president said -- the former president said that she is the future star of this party. And I think Kevin McCarthy is ignoring that poses a real danger for the Republican Party in the country.

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: And that is a connection, Manu, that cannot be left unsaid, in that Kevin McCarthy went to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring of the former president, who then Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted out within a day or so of that meeting that she had a conversation with Mr. Trump, and that he was in her side. And even in those remarks there, wearing a mask that said, free speech, she said she wants to work with everybody about keeping America first, using the language of Donald Trump, essentially sending a message she expects to survive this.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And, look, the party is divided still badly about her and about the embrace of conspiracy theorists or at least not expunging the party of conspiracy theorists. I mean, the number of Senate Republicans in particular don't like the way the House Republicans handled this last night, in which they took action on their own to make it clear that there is just no room in the party for someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The number two Republican, Senator John Thune, told me this morning that he says the party needs to be a party about ideas, not about conspiracy theories. And I said, well -- he had here to raised concerns earlier this week that the party should focused on limited government, not QAnon, and that's a decision that was confronting the House Republicans. He said to me, well, it looks like the majority of them picked QAnon. So, there is a concern here among the Republican, about the way forward.

And we heard Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, call her ideas, her views as cancerous to the Republican Party. I asked him this morning, John, what do you think about their efforts to keep her on the committee by the Republicans in the House side, he didn't respond.

KING: Yes. And walking by and he'll wait. We'll see if he responds after the vote today. Again, a very important vote, votes, plural, in the House of Representatives this afternoon. We will see if that speech by Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene helps her pick up support from Republicans and/or Democrats. And we will see, and this is the point Manu was just making, Republicans fear this elevates her even more, and she becomes a celebrity and star in the party, despite things in the past which she now says she regrets that are frankly reckless and reprehensible.

I appreciate your time today in Inside Politics. We'll see you back here this time tomorrow. Brianna Keilar, picks up our coverage right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: John, thank you. And let's pick up this conversation where they left off. The Republican conspiracy theory congresswoman, who has peddled lies and conspiracy theorists blatantly both on camera and in writing, tries to pull a mea culpa before a House vote to remove her from her committee assignment.

But she lied in the process. She tried to blame cancel culture for her troubles. She tried comparing the media to QAnon, saying they're just as responsible. The conspiracy quackery that she once subscribe to, and let me just say that when a member of Congress has to get up on the floor of the House, to say that school shootings and the attacks on 9/11 happened, that they were real, that is not the media's fault.

Joining me now is our CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger, Also Sophia Nelson with us, former House GOP Investigative Committee Counsel and Adjunct Professor at Christopher Newport University.

Gloria, I wonder what you think about this. One of the things she said that struck me was when she said these are words of the past and we should note that some of these are pretty recent, even though they weren't when she was in Congress. And she clearly wants to put this behind her by saying that, but did she really?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: No, I don't think she did. I think there are going to be some Republicans, obviously, who are going to be very, very willing to listen to her if they vote to support her, not to take her off the committees, because they can say, look, she got up there and she apologized.

But as you pointed out, she didn't really apologize. What she did was say, oh, those were a bunch of tweets. If it weren't for those tweets, there would be nothing. Well, of course, we've all seen the videos, we've seen the videos of her with David Hogg, the student from Parkland, we've seen the video of her saying, did we ever see the plane go into the building in 9/11, et cetera, et cetera.

And what she did instead today, Brianna, is try to make herself a victim here.

[13:05:01]

She is trying to make herself a victim of the cancel culture and a symbol for the Republican Party of somebody who has been canceled unfairly. And at 10:30 this morning, she sent out a tweet with doesn't sound very apologetic, which said, it's not just me they want to cancel, they want to cancel every Republican. Don't let the mob win. So, suddenly, she is a symbol for Republicans, and I think Republicans who want the party to be about policy and not lunacy will look at this and say, no, no, no, you are not my symbol for anything.

KEILAR: Sophia, what did you think?

SOPHIA NELSON, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, CHRISTOPHER NEWPORT UNIVERSITY: Well, a couple of things, number one, look, I'm a Christian, we all want people to be forgiven, and we all want people to have redemption, but this is not that. Marjorie Taylor Greene represents one of Maya Angelou's most famous quotes where she said, believe people when they show you who they are. She has shown us time and time again that this is who she is.

And I find it interesting that at the 11th hour when she is about to face consequences for her actions, now she's contrite.

I can't judge her heart. But what I fear, Brianna and Gloria, is that we've created a superstar here. We've given this woman a lot of airtime, a lot of oxygen over the last weeks or so, and now someone who was kind of a whacky Georgia congresswoman is now known throughout the country.

And I think that speech that she gave on the floor is more of Donald Trump's the big lie. It's pedaling the misinformation. It's lying to the people, it's false equivalency, it's whataboutism.

And that's my big fear for the future of this democratic republic. I don't know that we can withstand where half of the country or a good portion of it believes outright craziness and untruths and false equivalencies, and the rest of us who are trying to say, no, no, no, that's not right. And I'm not sure who is winning that fight and I'm worried about it, honestly.

KEILAR: I mean, I would ask you this, Sophia, though. This is a candidate who was voted in a Congress by a lot of voters who was elevated by the Republican Party, who was elevated by the president of the United States. And so, I mean, I would just pause it that this is the reality we're dealing with, that this is someone with a huge platform. And, I mean, what do you say to that?

NELSON: Well, I would say, I agree with you (ph). Look, the people of Georgia, a sovereign state, have the right to send whoever they want to Congress whether we like that person or not. I agree with that. But her platform just grew bigger, and this victimization, I could say so much about this that we don't have time for, and how gender and race play into this, and how she's victimized herself and made herself a victim.

And it's kind of one of those Karen moments that we could talk about another time where she's taken herself as someone who is a victim when she's been very aggressive and very damaging to the Parkland kids and Sandy Hook, 9/11. That's who you are, Marjorie Taylor Greene.

And I think that she probably helped herself with the remarks, Brianna, when she said, I think the Republicans will use this and go, see, see, see, see, she's really not that bad, and it's going to be interesting to see what the Democrats do, because they're going to end up looking like the bad guys out of this because they disciplined her, as they should, for what she's said and done.

KEILAR: What do you say about that, Gloria? I mean, she got a standing ovation from Republicans.

BORGER: That was remarkable to me, I mean, that they spent more time last night dealing with Liz Cheney, who took a vote of conscience, than they did with Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think here, and I'm going to say, I don't think the Democrats are going to look terrible in this because what she is doing is standing up, essentially taking a page out of Donald Trump's book and saying, I am not who I am. I am not the person who said all those things on the video even though now you can watch the video, so don't believe what I said.

The fact that she did not run as QAnon was because she wanted to get elected. And I think that it is -- you have to take a great leap now to suddenly believe that a person who has been doing something for years has had some kind of a transplant because she is under threat and is no longer who she is.

I'm going to repeat, she tweeted this morning about the mob. The mob she is talking to is not the mob that invaded the Capitol on January 6th. The mob that she was talking about is the Democratic Party. And that is who she is.

And so, I think that if she's going to stand up there and give a speech, let her answer direct questions from members of Congress about when did you stop believing that there were not Jewish lasers?

[13:10:07]

When did you -- space laser?

KEILAR: Starting fires.

BORGER: Right, starting fires. When did you stop believing the junk about 9/11, the junk about school shootings? Let's talk about when you had your transformation. These are questions that she has to answer. And one speech just, you know, not enough.

KEILAR: Yes, doesn't do it. I mean, and let's be clear, Gloria. She talked about how she is a sinner and she has sought forgiveness.

BORGER: Right.

KEILAR: And for be it from us to get in the middle of that, right?

BORGER: Exactly.

KEILAR: I mean, she sought forgiveness from the Lord, and that is -- look, that is for her to sort out. But the judgment day that she is facing today is not before the Lord, it is before the House of the Representatives.

NELSON: Amen.

BORGER: Right. And she has to stand up and say, QAnon is destructive. QAnon is lunacy. Let's hear that.

NELSON: Yes, she's not going to say that. Brianna and Gloria, we agree. I'm not saying that the Democrats are bad. I'm saying that the spin here Kevin McCarthy started last night when he ran away like a little girl from his duties, and I probably shouldn't have just said that, I'm going to get in trouble. But the reality is --

KEILAR: Don't disparage little girls. Do not disparage little girls.

NELSON: I know, you're right, and I take that back. I love little girls. So, anyway, at the end of the day, what I'm saying is, is that the Democrats will be made out to be like somehow, they didn't forgive and they didn't Godliness in their heart. And you're both right, and I'm right, that's not what this is about. This is about being accountable for your conduct. Accountability before unity, that needs to be the tag line that we all use going forward until the people that ran up on our Capitol and participate in QAnon and do what they do, until they're held accountable.

GLORIA: What I'm just saying is I didn't hear a lot of contrition. You know, she tried to be contrite, but what she did was try and turn it on its head and say, the Democrats are victimizing me, and I am now a victim which is, of course, something we've heard from Donald Trump for the last four years, that whenever something was wrong that he did, somehow he became the victim of the cancel culture or the Democrats or whatever else.

And this is just a pattern that is now repeating yourself where nobody ever gets to take responsibility for what they've done or what they have said and have to live with the consequences of it. This is where we are.

KEILAR: Yes. I mean, look, we're going to see how this plays out. We'll see politically how it plays out, who is up, who is down.

BORGER: Exactly.

KEILAR: But I will say one thing for House Republicans, it doesn't get easier from here. This does not get easier from here for them.

Okay, you guys stand by for me. We have a whole lot to talk about ahead here. We do have some more breaking news. We're just talking about the big lie there, while there is a massive lawsuit that has just been filed against Fox News and Trump allies over their campaign pushing conspiracy theories about the election. Stand by for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:00]

KEILAR: We have some big breaking news here. Just days before Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, House impeachment managers are asking him, they are asking Donald Trump to testify next week. So I want to go now to Manu Raju and Kaitlan Collins.

Manu, this is huge. What do you know?

RAJU: Yes, they are making a formal request that Donald Trump testify on Monday, February 8th, ahead of his impeachment trial that was expected to begin on February 9th, but they're saying you can come in as early as February 8th and provide your testimony. They're saying they want it done between February 8th and February 11th, and that they say they want an answer by the end of the day tomorrow.

Their argument here is that other past presidents have testified before. They say, Bill Clinton has provided testimony while in office. They were saying, Gerald Ford provided testimony while in office. Donald Trump is no longer in office, and their argument is that there is no reason for him not to testify.

So this letter was written by Jamie Raskin, who is the lead House impeachment manager, sent to Donald Trump, and it says, if you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish a trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions and inaction on January 6th.

Now, what they don't say here, Brianna, is whether they will subpoena Donald Trump if he declines to testify. That's going to be a question going forward. A simple majority of senators could vote to subpoena Donald Trump at the impeachment trial, and Democrats have the majority.

So how far do they press this issue? That's going to be a key question in the days ahead. They argue that the reason why they're seeking this testimony is that the president's legal teams have provided a brief this week in the view of Jamie Raskin. He says in this letter that there were critical facts that were inaccurate and they needed the right to provide testimony, they're saying, under oath before or during the impeachment trial to discuss these facts or the facts as they were presented by Trump's legal team in their brief earlier this week.

So, the question now is will Donald Trump do this? Will he appear? We had heard some rumblings that he might want to appear. We don't have any sense of that, actually, that the reality at this moment. But the ball is in now in his court, and if he did come, would that be a game changer and how far would Democrats press it? All key questions ahead of next week's trial to charge, to convict Donald Trump on the charge that he incited the insurrection that happened here on the Capitol on January 6th, Brianna.

[13:20:06]

KEILAR: And, Manu, let's bring Kaitlan Collins our Chief White House Correspondent, to this conversation as well. I mean, Kaitlan, former President Trump did not show a propensity for wanting to testify. When he was president, of course, part of his defense here is that this is not constitutional to be having this trial, while he is no longer a president.

And I know this news just broke that House impeachment managers want to call him to testify, but any sense of where he or his legal team might come down on this?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: So, it's not clear. We've asked his legal team and those who are representing him right now if he has a response to this, so we're waiting to see what it is he's going to say. But we should note that this comes amid a pretty turbulent time with his legal team, because it was just a little over a week ago when his entire legal team that was supposed to be defending him in this trial resigned and walked away from the team en masse.

Of course, there were several disagreements about that. One thing you noted was their effort to try to defend him on this on the constitutionality of trying to remove a president from office once he's no longer in office. But I was told by sources that the president wanted them to argue that he had actually won the election, therefore, his statements that he had made leading up to that January 6th riot were not, you know, completely unfounded, which, of course, they are.

But the question of whether or not he would actually show up and give testimony under oath to these Democrats, to these impeachment managers, it's interesting. And this is something normally the president would probably tweet about. Of course, right now, he doesn't have access to Twitter so we're waiting to hear through representatives for him.

But last year during his impeachment trial, he had flirted with the idea, his first impeachment trial, I should note, he had flirted with the idea of going to Capitol Hill to defend himself. And his legal team talked him out of it. That was the White House Counsel, Jay Sekulow, other attorneys that were part of that big team. None of them are around this time.

So it's unclear what advice these two new attorneys that were just brought on the team just days before the briefs were due will give advice to the president, what they will say, whether or not this is an idea that he will entertain.

I should note that sources who have spoken with the president have said he's been pretty checked out of this whole process. He's not been as involved as you would think he would be as to what the defense is going to look like, because he doesn't think Republicans will vote to convict him. But now that he's gotten this request from Jamie Raskin, we'll be waiting to see what it is that they say in response.

KEILAR: Laura Coates, what are your thoughts as you hear this news that the Democratic impeachment managers want former President Trump to testify under oath at his trial?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, of course, it's important to think about what they're trying to prove here. And part of what they're going to need to show is intent. They need to show this was not protected speech, Brianna, that it was intended to incite violence, that he had the intent to imperil a co-equal branch of government as they articulated in the article of impeachment.

And so, the best way to prove intent is to hear it from the horse's mouth. What did you intend to do? What was your actions? But, of course, the problem is, that would assume somebody who had the intent to be forthcoming and to be transparent and not to assert a privilege of some sort.

Remember, he is now a private citizen, but if he were to respond and try to testify or be amenable to it, I suspect he would try to rely on the privilege that may have been available to him when he was the president of the United States in terms of being able to have deliberations with people who were his advisers, the executive privilege he may try to assert as well.

So it's all going to be part and very interesting strategy here. But it shows you the intent that the impeachment managers are not just looking for evidence of what you and I saw on January 6th, watching the cameras, watching the insurrection unfold, it's also about why this person who was in a unique position to stop the insurrection either before it began or to bring the enforcement during or to try to quell it afterwards, what this person's testimony can reveal.

And, frankly, outside of maybe the tweets he did previously or those scripted pre-recorded videos, we don't have a lot of insight outside of what Senator Ben Sasse said. All we know from him is he was delighted. This would be a clear indication of what they're actually trying to ascertain, and it's a strong way to do it.

KEILAR: Elie Honig, so Democratic impeachment managers are asking Trump to testify under oath. Does that mean, in your opinion, that we might actually see that happen?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it could be, Brianna. There's an interesting chess game that's about to break out here. So, first of all, this is a no holds barred aggressive move by the House impeachment managers. Essentially, what they're doing is they're challenging the president. They're throwing down the globe. They're saying, you think what you did was okay, you think you can justify your actions? Come on in here to the Senate, tell us about it. Stand up in front of the camera and tell us about it.

Now, in a criminal case, the prosecution cannot force, cannot compel the defendant, the person who is accused, to take the stand. That person has the right to choose to do so, but the prosecution cannot compel it because the person takes the fifth, meaning invokes the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

[13:25:07]

Now, we're not in a criminal court, we're in Congress, the rules are a little different. That said, any person, Donald Trump or anyone else, still can take the fifth in front of Congress. We've seen it before famously in our history, people getting in front of the Congress and saying, I take the fifth.

So, if Donald Trump is forced into the well of the Senate against his will, he has that right to take the fifth, but, boy, that would look terrible. I mean, Donald Trump himself has said in the past, the Fifth Amendment is only for guilty people, it's only for mob bosses or something to that effect. So, they're putting Donald Trump in a really tough position here.

KEILAR: And he likes to be heard, certainly. Gloria, what is your reaction to this news?

BORGER: Okay, I'm having a Deja vu to Mueller and the whole Russia investigation where Donald Trump publicly said, oh, I'd really like to testify but my lawyers won't let me do it. And, in fact, I'm thinking his lawyers, like his lawyers previously, really won't let him do it or won't want him to do it for one reason, which is that he is known to lie. And that once you lie, you can get in an awful lot of trouble here.

And if the questions are asked, as Laura is talking about, were you really delighted? What was your reaction when you saw the riots? Why wasn't the National Guard called sooner? And all kinds of detailed questions like that, we all know what they are. If Donald Trump were to say something and then someone else who was a witness were to say something else, that could obviously be a huge problem for him.

However, to Elie's point, he doesn't want to take the fifth. I mean, he really doesn't. So, they have put him in a bit of a corner here, but I doubt his attorneys are going to say, sure, go ahead, Mr. Trump, go ahead and do that. I don't see it.

KEILAR: So, I mean, and, Laura, here, he has been asked. What if he says, no, thank you? Then where do we go from here? As Manu pointed out, the question is, how far will Democrats go to pursue having him testify.

COATES: Right. And remember the language that the House impeachment managers have used, if you fail to do so, we will draw an adverse inference.

KEILAR: Right.

COATES: Not the strongest of threats to somebody who could probably care less of the inferences drawn by the Democratic Party. And so the idea here normally in accord of a civil context, for example, or other areas of the criminal law system, you might be able to say, this adverse inference could persuade a jury who has an open mind and would look at this as an inference of guilt. But here it's a political process.

So, having an adverse inference of guilt, well, if you think about it, there already is an adverse inference of guilt about his behavior, about his commentary afterward. So, it might be that the calculated risk is to say, well, then draw your adverse inference. I will stay home at Mar-a-Lago.

It might however be that because of what we've seen that he wants to promote this big lie, he wants to say that he was entitled to say what he had to say that it was protected speech, and he may not even trust his attorneys to be that conduit information the way that he like to use Twitter to do.

And so, this may be a bit of his last stand to have the one platform that keeps him relevant in this context.

KEILAR: I mean, so, Kaitlan, let's talk about kind of, and having covered Donald Trump for years, I think you're very familiar with his impulses on wanting to be heard, but then also at times deferring to the advice of his lawyers.

COLLINS: And we've often seen him actually deferred to that advice. As Gloria noted, he often uses it as a front for, well, I couldn't do this because this is how my attorneys advised it. And he's used it for multiple things, ranging from his taxes to that request for a sit down with Mueller.

But I think the concern here for Republican will be if the president actually did come testify on his own behalf, because the way that they've been able to frame this as, it's not constitutional, he's out of office, it's not a pressing concern because he's not actually president of the United States anymore, this would get in the way.

And I don't think the concern would be that he would lie, it would be that he would tell the truth. Because we know from our reporting, from people who spoke to the president that day, what his mindset was. And he was borderline enthusiastic as he was watching those rioters take over the Capitol, chanting those things, bursting in there and breaching that federal building. That is what our sources who were speaking with the president that day were telling us. That's a pretty good indication of what his mindset was there.

So, I think, that would be the concern for the president's attorney but also for Republicans who would like to not convict this president in this impeachment trial. Of course, all indications have been that they wouldn't. But if he came in and he maintained these things that he has continued to maintain and expressed no remorse over, I think that would put Republicans in a difficult position. So, that's what they have to balance here.

The alternative is if he doesn't come testify, then Democrats can use that against him and say, well, we gave you an opportunity to come and give your version of the story, and you declined that offer.