Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House COVID Response Team Holds Briefing; Trump Legal Team Files New Brief Ahead of Senate Trial; Democrats to Unveil $3,000 Child Benefit as Part of Biden Relief Plan. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired February 08, 2021 - 11:30   ET

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

ANDY SLAVITT, SENIOR ADVISER TO WHITE HOUSE COVID-19 RESPONSE TEAM: To combating the virus.

[11:30:02]

And I hope to continue to work, to persuade and partner with states and localities to continue to follow sensible public health measures until such time, as we're in a situation where the case rates are down lower. We think that is wise. We think that the voice of the CDC is pre-eminent here. They look at all of the data. They're clear in communicating with the public and we'll continue to have those conversations with the states.

But I won't go into any of the specific one-on-one conversations that we have with states because I think that might be counterproductive.

I want to thank you all for attending our briefing. I think we hit the half hour mark pretty precisely. We look forward to a productive week collectively and to talking with you all again on Wednesday.

(END OF WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS BRIEFING)

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we've been listening to the White House coronavirus response team, their latest briefing, next briefing coming Wednesday.

Let me bring back in -- let me bring in right now CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Jorge Rodriguez, a viral specialist. Dr. Rodriguez, thanks for sticking around and listening to that with me.

I wanted to just ask you, what was the important takeaway from this briefing for you?

DR. JORGE RODRIGUEZ, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: The important takeaway, to put it in the vernacular, is that things are better, but, baby, it ain't over yet, not by a long shot. So we should not relax our defenses and what we're doing just because we're seeing a downtick in both the new infections and also in the hospitalizations because these variants are looming right in the near distance and they could really make things worse. That was the take home message for me.

BOLDUAN: I did want to ask you about the variants, because there is not only a lot of discussions in the briefing but just broadly about these new variants and to what degree of how serious a threat they pose now and in the near future. They're talking about the genomic sequencing is increasing like tenfold, that they're being able to identify these cases of new variants better and maybe more quickly.

But I'm just wondering, is this something that you think that the Biden COVID team broadly should be addressing more aggressively and more fully because there is a lot of different takes about this out there and there is not a lot of answers about how widespread variants are yet?

RODRIGUEZ: Right. Well, first of all, we have to assume that what happened in the United Kingdom is going to happen here with this variant, which means that the number of cases over there almost doubled in the span of a few weeks or a month.

I agree with you 100 percent, information is valuable and we need that. And we are so behind in sequencing and knowing that information from other countries. I think we're like 61st or something like that. But I think we have to assume that even though right now they'll only measured or identified a few, maybe 600 of the 117 variants and U.K. variants, even though they didn't say so, I think we have to assume that there are maybe tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of those variants and it is doubling every ten days from all estimates.

So, yes, that should be a priority of finding out what is going on.

BOLDUAN: And with -- understanding that maybe that knowledge is coming, but right now say there is a few hundred and you say that is obviously wildly likely underestimated or underidentified at this moment. What does that mean in terms of the vaccination program?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, just like Dr. Fauci said, getting people vaccinated is one of the most important pillars but not the only pillar in controlling this. So we're right now are in a race against the variants, if you will. The more people that are vaccinated, the less likely that people are going to get sick.

Remember, if you're infected, whether you're young or not, whether you get sick or not, you are spreading variants and you're causing variants. So that is one thing that we need to vaccinate people as soon as possible, ramp up the production of vaccine so that everybody gets a second dose. It was very adamant, and I agree, that the science is important, 95 percent protection if you get two doses.

But the second important pillar is the fact that we cannot let our guard down. Dr. Walensky tried to hammer this point home. We cannot let our guard down as far as wearing masks,

social distancing. So she didn't say it outright, like this, I think, but states that are letting their guards down now are making a huge mistake for all of us.

BOLDUAN: Especially one that focus continues to be on so many -- in so many places the need to get children back in school and in person. They have to bring the community spread rates down.

Doctor, thank you, it's good to see you. I appreciate your perspective.

We have some breaking news coming in right now, some very sad breaking news, actually.

[11:35:00]

Congressman Ron Wright, his office has just announced that he has passed away. He has died after a battle with the coronavirus. The Texas Republican's congressional office just announced that he passed away yesterday at the age of 67, his wife, Susan, by his side, according to the statement.

He was admitted to Baylor Hospital in Texas after testing positive for COVID. And just a couple of weeks ago, he had long battled cancer and we now know that he has passed away from coronavirus.

We're so sorry for his family's loss. We're going to bring you more details as we get them. But that is just another tragic example of what this country is facing.

Coming up for us, we have much more on the final preparations for Donald Trump's historic second impeachment trial. What these new briefs from the Trump legal team that were just filed, what these new briefs reveal about the former president's defense strategy and what it is going to look like as it starts tomorrow?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:00]

BOLDUAN: Tomorrow begins an unprecedented moment in American history. The secondary impeachment trial of Donald Trump gets underway. We're learning more right now about the legal strategy that Donald Trump's lawyers will be using when things begin. His defense team just filed new legal documents.

Let me bring in CNN's Lauren Fox. She's been standing by. She's going to go through what we know at least as of now.

Lauren, what are Trump's attorneys laying out in this new brief?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in this 75-page trial brief, Kate, they're really laying out an argument that goes around two key points that we have been expecting them to use. The first, of course, this question of whether or not it is even constitutional to hold an impeachment trial against someone who is no longer a sitting president.

Of course, they're arguing this is not a constitutional impeachment trial. Democrats, as we know, have argued the other side of that saying, of course, the founders intended that you would be able to remove someone from office and they also argued that you could convict someone who was no longer in office.

They are also talking specifically about this question of whether or not Trump incited violence by using the word, fight, which they lay out in this brief, which they argue is not anything more than him arguing that people need to go out and fight what they believed in, that he was not inciting violence.

I want to read from part of the brief. It says, of the 10,000 words spoken, Mr. Trump use the word, fight, a little more than a handful of times, and each time in the figurative sense that has long been accepted in public discourse when urging people to stand and use their voices to be heard on matters important to them. It was not and could not be construed to encourage acts of violence notably absent from his speech was any reference to or encouragement of an insurrection or a riot, criminal action or any acts of physical violence, whatsoever.

Now, I do want to play part of the clip of Trump's speech from that January 6th rally. Here is what the president said then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And you can expect Democratic House managers are planning to use video from that day. You can expect that one of the arguments they are making is this wasn't just about that speech moments before the insurrection. This was a broader issue of the president sowing doubt about the election results both before November and after November, Kate.

So those are some of the key arguments that the president's defense team is making in this brief. But we should note, key argument is going to be this question of whether or not it is even constitutional to be holding this impeachment trial, and everything getting underway tomorrow, Kate.

BOLDUAN: That is exactly right. Lauren, thank you for laying that out for us.

Let me bring in right now Elie Honig, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Elie, you've had a chance to speed through these pages as well. What is your reaction to this pretrial brief?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Kate, so the first thing that jumped out at me is the tone of this brief. It is very defensive and accusatory. They're trying to put the people who impeached Donald Trump essentially on trial. In that respect, the brief itself is very Trumpian.

I mean, one example, right out front on the very first page, Trump's lawyers accuse the people who have impeached Donald Trump of having Trump Derangement Syndrome. They actually used that phrase in what's supposed to be a serious legal filing. I think that undercuts sort of the credibility throughout. I'll give you another example quickly of the hypocrisy here. They argue in one breath that, well, Trump was impeached too quickly. The House managers rushed this thing. They didn't give him a fair chance. And then in the next breath, they say, but it is also too late because he's gone now. I mean, you can't internally contradict yourself and remain credible when you're making a legal argument.

BOLDUAN: Well, they're going to try -- they might possibly try.

One of what kind of what Lauren was laying out really well, one of the kind of core arguments that they're making in the brief about generally the word, fight, or generally just a First Amendment protection to what the president was saying on January 6th.

HONIG: yes. So Lauren laid it out perfectly. So, the argument here, what Trump's lawyers are trying to do is dissect his words. First of all, they want to keep it only to January 6th. They're ignoring all of the lead up, all of the things Donald Trump did and said to call his followers to the Ellipse on January 6th. And they try to take specific words. They say, well, he only use the word, fight.

I mean, okay, but how about all the other words he used? How about when he said, we'll be wild, referring to the riot? How about when he said, we never concede? How about when he tweeted, overturn? How about after the riot when Donald Trump tweeted, great patriots and remember this day forever. What he's lawyers are trying to do is take each individual sentence in isolation, in a vacuum and say what is wrong with that.

[11:45:00]

What I think we'll see from the House impeachment managers is but you have to look at the whole picture here.

BOLDUAN: And at same time, part of picture that is going to be presented and being debated and is already being argued is the argument that you cannot convict, you can't impeach someone who is a former official, cannot convict, it is not constitutional to take on a former president.

We know that there is one voice added to this debate now, Elie, is a veteran lawyer in Washington with close ties to prominent Republicans, like prominent Republicans in the Senate, Republican leaders, including Ted Cruz, Chuck Cooper, and he laid out in an opinion piece why the Republican argument there doesn't hold water. I want to read part of it.

He writes, given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former office holders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former office holders. This could speak -- this is almost like Chuck Cooper speaking directly to what you are reading in this pretrial brief.

HONIG: Yes, Kate. So it's interesting to see more and more conservative attorneys come forward and take this position. But, of course, you can impeach and try former official. This really should not be an issue of conservative, liberal ideology. This is really an issue of straight up. common sense. And by the way, you are allowed to use common sense in the law.

I mean, imagine if you could not impeach a former official. It would mean that anything goes in those final days before a president leaves office. What if you found out after the fact, that couple of weeks, after the fact, that a president was doing something horrible, selling military secrets to other countries? There is nothing you could do? That can't be the case.

And the other problem with this argument is why do we have this disqualification punishment in the Constitution. Because it is there to punish somebody who maybe slipped out of office before people could fully undertake the entire impeachment proceeding but it's there to prevent even a former official from ever trying to get back into office. But that is going to be a key battleground, I think, starting tomorrow with this trial.

BOLDUAN: Yes. And what impact does all of this and any of this have on the senators who are the jurors and will be deciding? We'll just stand by to see as it gets underway tomorrow. Thank you, Elie, I appreciate it.

HONIG: Thanks, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Still ahead for us, House Democrats, they are unveiling a key part of their $1.9 trillion COVID relief package. It is being announced today. It is a new enhanced child tax credit. The details on this plan for monthly payments to be sent to millions of American families, that is coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:50:00]

BOLDUAN: The key provision in President Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID package is being announced today, aimed at providing more relief to more families. It would give millions of families a few thousand dollars for each child in their home through an expanded child tax credit.

Here is what it looks like. The House Democrats' plan would give up to $3,600 per child under the age of six and $3,000 for each child ages 6 to 17. The payments phase out for single parents -- begin to phase out for single parents earning more than $75,000 a year, and couples earning up to $150,000 a year.

It's not clear if and where Republican support for this will be, but what is clear right now is Republicans have been balking at the overall price tag of the package very clearly.

Here is Senator Pat Toomey just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA): 42 days ago, we passed the fifth huge bill, another trillion dollars, bringing the total to over $4 trillion. Much of that money, a huge amount of that money, is not even out the door yet. Much of it was way too broad and not sufficiently targeted as it was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Let's work through some of this. Joining me right now is Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It's good to see you, Maya.

Just on where Pat Toomey was talking about, we've heard this more and more, because your group has been tracking how all of this federal money is being spent. Of the 4 trillion that Congress has approved since the pandemic began, how much of this has -- how much of this has been sent out, how much of it hasn't and where is it supposed to go?

MAYA MACGUINEAS, PRESIDENT, COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET: Yes, that's right. So, so far, that 4 trillion, which I should say, is an unprecedented amount of money in the amount of time, and it's done a really good job on helping the economy thus far, about $3 trillion of that has already worked its way through the economy with another trillion, most of which will be spent in the next few months.

And there's been discussion about, oh, we need to -- we need to hit pause because there is so much money that's going to go in the economy. But to be clear, there are a number of programs, like unemployment benefits or loans for small businesses, where you would expect that money to pay out a little bit more slowly. And so in the rest of this first quarter, you're going to see a lot of that remainder go into the economy.

BOLDUAN: And that's where some of the urgency is, is that the money is going to be into the economy, the federal unemployment benefits are going to be running out in March, so there is that hanging out there.

But with this next package then, if we know the money that's going to be spent on the next few months, the new treasury secretary has said, the bigger risk to the economy is not going big enough.

[11:55:08]

Let me play for you how she put it to CNN just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET YELLEN, TREASURY SECRETARY: The most important risk is that we leave workers and communities scarred by the pandemic and the economic toll that it's taken.

We face a huge economic challenge here and tremendous suffering in the country. We've got to address that. That's the biggest risk.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BOLDUAN: Maya, what do you think of that?

MACGUINEAS: Well, I think Secretary Yellen is right, that there is a bigger risk of not doing enough than of doing too much. I think the biggest risk is that we don't get a handle on this pandemic. The best thing that we can do for the economy is get control of the virus as quickly as possible, and that's where our biggest focus should be. And i think it is, rightly so.

And so I do think there is a risk of not putting enough money into the economy, but I also think there is a risk of putting too much money into the economy. And what we have right now is an economy that is supposed to, if everything goes according to the projections, be in a pretty good spot in the next couple years where it's returning to pre- pandemic levels. And there is still a gap we need to fill both this year and the next few years.

But the amount of the package that's being talked about, 1.9 trillion far, far, far exceeds that gap. And so if you put a lot more money than you need into the economy, the risk on that side is that you've borrowed and added to national debt unnecessarily, you have undermined your ability to borrow for some of the big priorities the Biden administration has in the coming years and you could heat up the economy so that we might get hit with another recession as we are coming out of that overspending.

So not to say that we should pull back now, there's still more borrowing that we need to put into the economy, but it's really important that we directly relate it to the virus and target it as best it can be. I think there is more targeting that could be done in this bill and really effectively spent so that the returns on those with that money is the thing that helps the economy and get a hold of the virus the most.

BOLDUAN: Maya, real quick because we're up against the clock on this. Do you think it's important that this move quickly and efficiently? Do you think it matters that this is bipartisan in the end?

MACGUINEAS: I think it matters greatly because our country is in such a polarized moment, and anything we can do to start to get the norm back, to be working together is absolutely critical. So, yes, I think that makes a huge difference and I think there is a willingness to get a bipartisan package done. And in the end, if they can't, there is also reconciliation, they'll be able to pass something. But I certainly think bipartisan will be better for the overall norms of how we govern.

BOLDUAN: Thanks for your voice in this, Maya, I appreciate it.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]