Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Historic Second Impeachment Trial against Trump Begins Tomorrow; WHO Meeting Today after Study Finds AstraZeneca Vaccine Offers Minimal Protection against South African Variant; Democrats Unveil $3,000 Child Benefit as Part of Biden Relief Plan. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired February 08, 2021 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Very good Monday morning, quite a week ahead, I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: It certainly is. We're glad you're with us. I'm Poppy Harlow.

We are watching, because at moment, former President Trump's legal team will lay out in more detail than we've seen yet how they plan to defend him in his second impeachment trial beginning tomorrow. The unprecedented trial of a former president and a second impeachment begins tomorrow afternoon.

But what much of the trial will look like is still very much up in the air. Negotiations in the Senate are still ongoing, including whether or not witnesses will be called.

SCIUTTO: What we do know, all 100 senators will be, by constitutional duty, witnesses in this trial. They were witnesses to the deadly insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. Now, they will be jurors deciding the former president's fate.

But it is not all about impeachment in Washington this week. Democrats are pushing forward with President Biden's ambitious $1.9 trillion relief package, as warnings are growing more dire that variants of the virus are spreading rapidly in this country.

Let's begin though on what we know about how this trial will play out. CNN's Manu Raju and Jessica Dean on Capitol Hill.

Manu, details on negotiations between Schumer and McConnell, I'm particularly curious whether they've settled the question of whether witnesses will be called.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is still an open question. We're getting the first sense, guys, about what exactly this trial will look like. There had been a number of questions for days about what exactly the timeframe would be and how much each side could get to argue.

We are now learning some key details as the two leaders in the Senate. Mitch McConnell on the Republican side, Chuck Schumer on the Democratic side, are closing in on an agreement about how the trial will look like according to a person familiar with the talks who just told me a few minutes ago about what exactly they are closing in on.

Now, this is a breakdown of how we expect this week to go. Tomorrow, Tuesday, the first day of the trial, now that is not actually -- we're not going to hear the arguments tomorrow. In fact, tomorrow, we are going to hear a debate about the constitutionality of whether or not it is appropriate, constitutional, to try a former president.

This, of course, has been a debate for several weeks now. Republicans have been settling in on the idea that it is not constitutional, there have been five Republicans who have broken ranks so far. Tomorrow, we'll get another test vote to determine whether or not this is a constitutional proceeding.

After four hours of debate, they will vote on a simple majority threshold to determine whether this is constitutional. So if 51 senators say it is constitutional, it will move forward. The question will be whether there will be more than five Republicans who also agree with the 50 Democrats who believe it is constitutional.

So after Tuesday, that is when the arguments will take place with the impeachment managers. On Wednesday, starting at Wednesday in noon, there will be 16 hours per side of arguments. So we'll see how that is split up. It could be eight hours apiece for the managers, and then for each day, the managers, maybe they'll go longer than eight hours per day, and then on it will be on the Trump defense side, they'll have up to 16 hours.

The question though you may ask at the top, will there be witnesses. That will be up to the managers themselves if they want witnesses and then the Senate, by a simple majority vote, would have to affirm the need for witnesses going forward. So that is still an outstanding question.

And also, guys, there will be a brief break later this week when one of the lawyers who wants to observe the Jewish Sabbath, they're going to ask for a break from Friday to Saturday even. That will reconvene on Sunday. So this could spill into next week as well, guys.

HARLOW: Yes. Well, we know they wanted one witness. They wanted the president, who said he is not going to. Will they subpoena him? I guess we don't know. At this point, they haven't yet. Manu, thank you.

Jess, to you, we're going to hear more any minute from the president's defense team, former president's team, in terms of what they're going to argue. We already got this pretrial brief last week. Will this one be much different?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Poppy, we're waiting to see exactly what it is going to say. As you mentioned, it is due at 10:00 A.M., so any moment now, we should get more details on what former President Trump's defense team plans to argue in his defense.

To your point, we did get a sense of this earlier last week when they filed the earlier brief that they do intend on arguing that he did not incite the insurrection, deadly insurrection here at the Capitol, that he is not responsible for that, and that this trial is unconstitutional. You heard Manu reporting there that the Senate is going to review the constitutionality yet again of this trial.

So we know that it will be along those lines. We are expecting more details in this particular brief that, again, we should be getting any moment now. So we are certainly keeping our eye out for that. What comes after that? After that, at noon today, the House impeachment managers will have their opportunity to file their pretrial brief in response to what comes from the former president's defense team, guys.

[10:05:05]

So those are the last pieces that have to put together before they can get to the arguments again on Wednesday. Guys?

SCIUTTO: Jessica, we know you'll bring us updates as soon as you have them. Thanks very much.

HARLOW: To the health crisis that we continue to battle, the World Health Organization is meeting today. They're going to focus on AstraZeneca's vaccine after a small trial found the vaccine is not very effective against mild cases of the South African variant of COVID.

SCIUTTO: Yes. CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is here. So, Elizabeth, this is key because the U.K. heavily depending on this vaccine, which has shown effectiveness against the U.K. variant, though, has it not, because that is, of course, key here, because that's spreading rapidly in this country.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: That is right, that is key. And so the question in front of the World Health Organization today is what do we know about how well the AstraZeneca vaccine works against the variant that was first spotted in South Africa. As you mentioned, a small study, 2,000 people, not published, not peer reviewed, that study showed minimal protection against mild to moderate forms of COVID-19 when people had the variant, but it may protect against severe forms of the disease when people have the variant and that would be important. We don't know the answer to that because that hasn't been studied yet.

So, again, what this panel is going to be thinking about it how valuable is the AstraZeneca vaccine in places where the South African variant has really taken off. And I should say, that is really only in South Africa. So at this moment, this is most pertinent to that one country. Jim, Poppy?

HARLOW: That is interesting that it might work against more severe cases but not more mild cases. At least three variants of the virus are now circulating in this country, in the United States.

I guess, my question to you is which is the most severe right now?

COHEN: So when we talk about severity, you have to break it down into a couple of different categories. One, is any given variant, is it more transmissible, that's one question. Another question is, does it cause more severe disease. When people get sick with that variant, are they more sick than when they got the variants that existed before? And, thirdly, does the variant pose a risk to the vaccine? In other words, can you still get the variant even if you've been vaccinated with the vaccines that are currently on the market?

So let's think about the U.K. variant for a bit because there is some new information out about that, and we do know that there are at least hundreds of cases of that variant in the United States.

So what this new data, this is a study that just came out, shows is that between 35 percent and 45 percent more transmissible, the U.K. variant is 35 percent to 45 percent more transmissible than earlier strains. That means the cases are doubling every seven to ten days, and that is concerning. There have been 610-plus cases documented in the U.S. There are clearly more than that. That is just what we're catching.

But I want to say last thing, and I can't emphasize this enough, it appears the vaccine does work well against the U.K. variant. And even if it didn't, most of what is out in the U.S. right now is not a variant. We know that the vaccines work exceptionally well. If you can get vaccinated, do it. Don't let the variants steer you away. Get vaccinated.

SCIUTTO: Such an important point, Elizabeth, thank you for highlighting it. We will stay on top of that. That is not a question, the effectiveness of the vaccines.

We're joined now by Dr. Peter Hotez. He is Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicines at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Hotez, always good to have you.

And I watch very closely the figures on side of our screen, not just deaths and total cases but number of vaccinations, and we're now up above 41 million in the country in terms of vaccinations, that is at least one dose, not everybody has gotten a second dose. Are we seeing a pick-up in the vaccination rate in this country after a slow start and should people take some confidence from that?

DR. PETER HOTEZ, DEAN OF TROPICAL MEDICINE, BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: Yes, absolutely. I mean, that is good news that we are now getting geared up to vaccinate the American people. The concern is whether or not we're going to have adequate supply over the next few months. We know there is a big tranche of vaccine coming over the summer from Johnson & Johnson, from Novavax and from the two mRNA vaccines. The issue is going to be adequate supply to get us through the next few months, and that is issue number one.

Problem number two is the fact that now the variants are accelerating, the U.K. variant, especially, it has a doubling time, according to a recent study coming out of the Scripps Institute in San Diego, that they'll double every ten days. So that is going to be the real challenge is racing ahead of the variant.

The good news is the vaccines do protect against the U.K. variant, probably as well as the original strains. The worrisome, as you've just pointed, is the next one down the pike, the South African one, which is not here in a big way in the United States as far as we know.

[10:10:05]

It is been recorded from two states but not here in a substantial way.

It is a huge problem globally now because all of us who are developing vaccines are trying to figure out what are our options because we're running out of them for low and middle income countries. We don't have a lot of vaccines available. We're not going to have the mRNA vaccines likely in a big way for low and middle income countries, now we have this problem with the AstraZeneca against the South African variant, we have the J&J and we have our vaccine, so this is something that we're in detailed discussions about.

HARLOW: Doctor, you said that the United States right now is, in your determination in the, quote, eye of the hurricane, and then you said the big wall is about to hit us again, and that is these new variants. Does that mean for basically everyone across the country that is not yet fully vaccinated?

HOTEZ: That's right. So what we need to do, as quickly as possible, is obviously vaccinate the American people. We know the U.K. variants are here in larger amounts in Florida, especially South Florida -- I'm sorry, Florida and Southern California, but we've been underachieving in terms of looking for the variant. So we don't really know how extensive they are.

So this is the issue that the Biden administration is grappling with right now, how to accelerate the vaccination process ahead of the variants, which the CDC says will be here by the spring in a big way (ph).

SCIUTTO: So what the Biden administration is doing, it's a few things, one, you see them invoke the Defense Production Act to get more vaccine produce. The military literally has been called in to begin giving vaccinations. You have sports stadiums, right, big public centers where people could go in various cities. Based on the what you're seeing, are they doing what is necessary?

HOTEZ: They are from the delivery point of view. They're really gearing up. And they're doing it in terms of the long-term supply issue of having available the other vaccines by June and July. The only uncertainty from my point of view is what is going to be available now for the next three or four months while the variants are starting to rev up.

And one of the things that I have asked is whether we should move forward with releasing the AstraZeneca vaccine. I understand we have some of that stockpiled and it does work against both the U.K. variants and the other variants, is that a possibility to release sooner rather than later in order to add to the mRNA vaccines. And so that is -- this is going to be the toughest piece right now in fighting the epidemic.

HARLOW: Doctor, thank you for your expertise on all of it this morning.

HOTEZ: Thanks so much.

HARLOW: Well, we're standing by for more information from President Trump's defense team on what they're going to argue starting tomorrow on his second impeachment trial.

Also, at least $3,000 for child, Democrats set to unveil a new proposal to fight poverty. Find out if you're family would qualify, ahead.

SCIUTTO: Then later, the story of two oxygen tanks, just two, for an entire ward of coronavirus patients. CNN goes inside a hospital in Malawi where shifts are measured in days, not hours.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Well, any minute now, in fact, it should have happened already, former President Trump's attorneys are expected to lay out more details of this impeachment defense strategy.

HARLOW: Let's discuss as we wait for it. Who knows, maybe it will come in this segment. David Gergen is here, former presidential adviser to four presidents, and Kim Wehle, University of Baltimore Law Professor and former Assistant U.S. Attorney. It's really good to have you both here. Thank you very, very much.

I thought this was interesting, David, just have a political standpoint because this is a political decision, right, that those jurors are going to be making, The New York Times this morning says that those Democrats, the impeachment managers are, quote, weary of saying anything that might implicate other Republican lawmakers who echoed or entertained the president's baseless claims of election fraud to have any chance of making an effective case the managers believe they must make clear that it is Mr. Trump who is on trial and not his party. What do you make of that strategy?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it is smart. Why try to bring in other people and get them all excited and create headlines about senator X or senator Y when you want to keep your focus on Trump. That is the person who is on trial and other things like this are diversions, such as the whole argument will have up front about the constitutionality of this whole proceeding. That is a made up, fake argument that's not accepted by the courts but it is a diversion.

I think, basically, let's come down to the bottom line on this. Basically, I think the chances of getting a conviction of Donald Trump in these proceedings is somewhere between slim and none. However, the chances of tarnishing Trump's reputation and changing the story so that it becomes a national story. [10:20:06]

Not at his grievances but of the country's grievances and the grievances of people in Congress, I think they can potentially do that, and that would make a difference into history.

SCIUTTO: Kim, it seems that the president's defense argument will hinge on freedom of speech. Yes, he said all of this stuff and he was just speaking his mind, and if you open up this Pandora's Box, everybody is guilty, right, of saying things that sometimes can be interpreted badly.

I wonder, though, can his defense team disconnect those statements from all the actions that President Trump took to attempt to overturn the election, which is also part of this article of impeachment against the president?

KIM WEHLE, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE: Well, Jim, if incitement and insurrection was unconstitutional, that is you could not ever speak in a way that could lead to some sort of a legal liability, there would not be a federal and across the country state statutes banning that as a matter of the criminal laws.

In addition, the 14th Amendment passed after the civil war expressly bans people from holding office if they've engaged in insurrection. And, of course, that was around keeping former confederates out of government during reconstruction.

But here, we have -- there is a high bar under the First Amendment. Arguably, it doesn't even apply to Donald Trump, he was the president. We're not worrying so much about presidents being hammered by government in further speech.

But setting that aside, the Brandenburg test, the First Amendment test, requires, on the one hand, there'd be a showing of some kind of intent. I'm frankly surprised that the defense team isn't pushing that more, that he didn't really mean it, and then the second, that there is a link between the speech and the violence.

And as you indicate, this was the big lie for months and months and months. These people took trains and planes and automobiles during a pandemic to answer Donald Trump's call. There are witnesses that are willing to say that.

And, of course, it wasn't just what he said before, but once the crowd started to shout, hang Mike Pence, he tweeted, he tweeted something along the lines that Mike Pence was a coward, so that shows knowledge that this is a potentially violent crowd and fueling the flames of that potential violence.

So the facts really do lay out pretty well for the Democrats that this was a problem in terms of the connection between his speech, the big lie and what happened on the 6th.

HARLOW: David, can you take a step back and just talk about where we may be as a country in two weeks from now? Let's assume the impeachment is over in two weeks. So, something that will be decided, I believe, largely along political lines, you may have a few Republicans cross over, but not 17, and you may have a nearly $2 trillion stimulus package pushed through reconciliation or well on its way by February 22nd, so two things not really happening on a bipartisan basis.

I just wonder where you think that puts this country under a president who has been calling for unity as his central message.

GERGEN: Well, I think as long as the president can get through a big package and do it quickly and have aid going out to states, and as long as there is some hope that the economy may start turning, the stock market is already pretty darn high considering what we're going through. If people feel that we're moving in a good direction, then I think the bipartisanship angle will become less important and the two sides will find other things on which to agree, such as infrastructure investments, and both sides generally agree on that.

On the other hand, if this impeachment trial becomes a knock down drag out, shouting kind of match and leaves a lot of anger in the air, then I think the chances of moving forward in a bipartisan way are diminished sharply and it would take a long time to get there.

SCIUTTO: We'll see. Kim, quickly, before we go, would it be a mistake for the House managers not to call witnesses in this trial?

WEHLE: Yes, I think it would be a mistake, because I think their objective isn't just to restate what happened January 6th but to potentially change some minds. And in order to do that, we would need to have some witnesses.

HARLOW: Thank you both, David, Kim, we'll have you back soon.

Still ahead, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney says it's time for the party to strop embracing former President Trump. Are her colleagues not willing to listen?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

SCIUTTO: happening today, House Democrats are unveiling their plan to give Americans who qualify at least $3,000 per year per child.

HARLOW: It is a key provision and it's actually part of President Biden's COVID stimulus bill and it directly confronts child poverty in this country.

Lauren Fox is on Capitol with a breakdown of what's in the bill.

I'm also sort of confused, Lauren. It sounds like they're taking this separately aside, making it a standalone legislation. Is that what is happening here?

LAUREN FOX, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we expect that this would be included in that broader COVID relief bill. Certainly, they are having sort of a separate rollout because this is a new proposal, but I think that it is important for our viewers at home to realize that this is all part of the same push that Democrats are making to try and ensure that that COVID relief bill can pass very quickly.

[10:30:08]

And I'll walk you through.