Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Impeachment Pretrial Briefs Released; Rep Ron Wright (R- TX) Dead After COVID Diagnosis; COVID Relief to Include Extra Funding for Children. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired February 08, 2021 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: On this day, before just the fourth impeachment trial of a U.S. president in history, the two sides are laying out their cases in pretrial briefs that were just released.

House impeachment managers accuse former President Trump of inciting an insurrection on January 6th at the U.S. Capitol, making him the only American president to be impeached twice. And in their latest filing, they push back on the former president's defense, saying, quote, "The evidence of President Trump's conduct is overwhelming. He has no valid excuse or defense for his actions."

But Trump's lawyers say in their brief that impeachment is, quote, "a brazen political act and should be rejected." They say there has been no investigation, pointing out Democrats cited just a handful of law enforcement sources amid more than 100 media reports in their case.

And Trump's defense points out there is evidence to show rioters were plotting violence in the days before the insurrection. Here's the quote.

"Either the president incited the riots, like the Article claims, or the riots were pre-planned by a small group of criminals who deserve punishment to the fullest extent of the law."

CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju is on the Hill ahead of the busy, busy rest of the week here. Let's begin, Manu, with former President Trump's side in all of this. His attorneys say, flat- out, he did not incite the insurrection. They say he was using figurative language when he spoke to people at the rally right before the Capitol riots.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they call it "protected political speech," and it's something that some -- any politician, in their view, would give to a rally of supporters firing up a crowd, not saying -- saying that the former president, then- president, was not intentionally directing them to come to the Capitol, storm the Capitol and lead to that scene of deadly violence that we all saw on January 6th.

This foreshadows the argument that is going to happen later this week. Tomorrow will be the debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings. Trump team will say it's not constitutional, the Democrats say it absolutely is. Then there'll be a vote to determine whether it should go forward. We do expect there will be 51 votes to allow it to proceed; we'll see how many Republicans break ranks. If there are more than five at the moment.

Then the arguments will happen about the substance, the facts, what happened, Donald Trump's actions. And that's what, in large part, these briefs that were issued today detail.

The Trump side of the equation says this in their brief that was filed with the House -- with the Senate: "Of the over 10,000 words spoken, Mr. Trump used 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" any "encouragement of an insurrection, a riot, criminal action, any acts of physical violence whatsoever."

Now, the Democrats, when they make their arguments, are going to point to things that Donald Trump said in the run-up to the January 6th riot, what he did in the months leading up to the election to suggest that this was a fraudulent election, and everything he did to promote this so-called Stop the Steal rally that occurred on January 6th. And they're going to push back on that argument that this is just protected speech. They say this in their own brief that was filed today.

"To be clear, this is not a case about 'protected speech.' The House did not impeach President Trump because he expressed an unpopular political opinion. It impeached him because he willfully incited violent insurrection against the government. We live in a nation governed by the rule of law, not mob violence incited by presidents who cannot accept their own electoral defeat."

And in this filing too, Brianna, what they note here is that they're going to use Donald Trump's decision not to testify as evidence against him. So don't expect a subpoena fight. Democrats are indicating they're not going to subpoena Donald Trump to force him to come. And we'll see if they decide to have any other witnesses. Because if they don't, we could potentially see this trial all wrapped up by the middle of next week sometime -- Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Manu, thank you so much for that.

With me now is J.W. Verret, associate professor of law at George Mason University. He was also an adviser to former President Trump's pre- transition team in 2016. And we're also joined by CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger.

You know, J.W., I was very curious, as you looked at what his attorneys, what Donald Trump's attorneys are saying, are there strong points to their argument that you see?

J.W. VERRET, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: I don't think so. I think, for example, I would completely reject this false dichotomy that either Trump incited a riot, or the riot was beginning before it got there. I think what it in fact means is it informs the context of Trump's decisions here.

He knew this was a group, based on briefings I'm sure he got from national security advisers, that this was a group that was prone to be -- to just inflame with a very small spark. And so that tells us something about the language he was using.

[14:05:08]

The use of the word "fight" toward the end of his speech, the fact that he's been good at inserting little dog whistles that sort of wink and smile to Proud Boys and QAnon in extensive commentary in the past, all of that informs the context of what he did and what he said. And the fact that it was predictable, that they would march over to the Capitol and cause trouble. I just don't think this is a very good argument here.

KEILAR: And you know, Gloria, speaking of the intention, which is going to be key for former President Trump, I think one of the issues, just to remind our viewers, is you know, if someone didn't mean to do something, they might be surprised, they might be dismayed by what they were seeing and they might try to stop it. That is not what then- President Trump did when he was, in real time, what was happening at the Capitol.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: No. And his attorneys argue that he did make an effort to, you know, get out the National Guard, et cetera, et cetera. And that of course can be disproven, including by the fact that he tweeted at Mike Pence while this insurrection was going on.

But there was an amazing point that the -- that the House impeachment lawyers made, and let me read this to you, Brianna. And it goes to the point about the president talking about fighting like hell.

It says, "When President Trump demanded that the armed, angry crowd at his Save America Rally 'fight like hell' or 'you're not going to have a country anymore,' he wasn't urging them to form political action committees about 'election security in general.'"

So they're saying he knew exactly what he had been doing, and he had been doing it for the month before the rally, and then at the rally.

KEILAR: And, J.W., when you're looking at the House impeachment managers' case, you know, what is your assessment of their argument?

VERRET: I think they're able to use evidence that's out there in the public, so they didn't need an extensive investigation. I mean, we all saw it in real time, I watched it on CNN, exactly what happened here. And on Twitter, Trump's Twitter feed. And we have real-time reporting that shows that the president was watching this at it happened, and initially supported it as it happened.

Look, I think the strongest case the defense has is the constitutional argument. But there, I think, they lose again ultimately. Their argument comes down to this. If the president commits an impeachable act in the last month or so of his presidency, and the Senate takes a few weeks to get a trial moving, the president could commit impeachable acts with impunity toward the end of his term. I don't think the Constitution intended that.

And there's precedent of impeaching people and trying people after they leave office as well, so I think even they lose even on that point.

KEILAR: You know, Gloria, I -- before I let you guys go, I want to ask you about something from Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who overcame a threat to oust her from her position in leadership among House Republicans. She says that Trump may be facing some criminal liability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): There will be a massive criminal investigation of everything that happened on January 6th and in the days before. People will want to know exactly what the president was doing. They will want to know, for example, whether the tweet that he sent out calling Vice President Pence a coward, while the attack was under way, whether that tweet, for example, was a premeditated effort to provoke violence. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: You know, this is, Gloria, part of what J.W. was saying. In the middle of this, sends out a tweet about Pence even as we heard rioters -- you know, we heard this later, rioters were on tape in the middle of this, looking for Pence, calling for wherever Pence might be.

BORGER: Well, and if you are Officer Sicknick's family or you are someone who was injured in the riots, the question is what's your legal recourse here? And I don't -- you know, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to play one on television.

But I think that there are legitimate questions that can be raised about what the president's legal liability -- the former president's legal liability would be if people said, look, who's responsible for this? We've lost somebody in our family as a result of this mob.

KEILAR: And, you know, J.W., to that point, look, I think it's a little bit of a foregone conclusion, we know how Republicans here have lined up and do not want to vote in this impeachment trial to convict.

But there are going to be, perhaps, families who are looking for, you know, some accountability here. There could be civil cases. All of these things that we're talking about that actually seem pretty clear- cut, not in favor of former President Trump: Are these going to be revisited in future proceedings?

[14:10:04 VERRET: I think that there's enough here to begin civil cases in some instances. I can't tell you for certain how they will come out, but I do think that when Judge Garland becomes attorney general, he should give fair consideration to a special prosecutor for looking into issues with Trump.

And before January 6th, it was a closer case. You don't want to investigate former presidents even with wrongdoing because of the precedent, and maybe it spirals out of control in future instances. That all changed on January 6th.

January 6th was above and beyond, far worse than defraud -- the Mueller report, you know, injustices and sort of tampering of jury witnesses and stuff like that, than the implicit bribery in the Ukraine affair. This was so far above and beyond, that without question I think a special prosecutor at DOJ is necessary.

KEILAR: So --

BORGER: I don't know if Joe Biden's going to want to do that --

KEILAR: -- yes, I was going to --

BORGER: -- that's the question.

KEILAR: -- say, we've seen resistance to that, haven't we, Gloria?

BORGER: Exactly.

KEILAR: So we'll see. J.W., thank you so much. Gloria, thank you as well.

BORGER: Sure.

KEILAR: As House impeachment managers get ready to lay out their case against the former president, there remains a lot of unanswered questions about what happened on the day of the riot and what role Donald Trump and others played in the insurrection. CNN's senior political analyst John Avlon is with me now.

John, what are some of the big question marks that you have as this trial is set to get under way? A lot of people might say, wait, we saw this all on tape.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's exactly right, Brianna. I mean, on the surface, we saw this unfold in real time and we've got damning videotape that's come out, but there's still a lot of unanswered questions.

One for me is what do we know -- as more information comes in -- about the deployment of the National Guard? We know that the Pentagon restricted the National Guard in advance of the riot. We've seen subsequently, a memo from acting secretary of Defense Miller about this.

What we don't know, though, is what's the full context around it. There may be a very innocent explanation, an attempt to overcorrect for the military's use over the summer. But given the politicization of some of the people Trump put in, firing a lot of longtime defense secretary staff in the runup -- in the last months of his administration, is there something more nefarious at play?

And also, did Trump actively resist deploying the National Guard? We've seen reporting from CNN that Mike Pence was ultimately the one who brought the National Guard in. Did Trump resist? If so, why? Witnesses could be helpful there.

Second point -- sorry, go on.

KEILAR: No, no, no, you go on. Second point. Trump's tweet.

AVLON: Trump tweet. So this is very significant, you mentioned it to Gloria, which is Liz Cheney invoking this question of why watching the attack on the Capitol on television, presumably knowing that Mike Pence was in the Capitol, why would Donald Trump send out a tweet calling Mike Pence a coward? It speaks to his state of mind.

Again, witnesses may be necessary for this, but that's a significant open question, as Congresswoman Cheney indicated.

KEILAR: And then I wonder what you make, John, of the Trump lawyers, saying -- you know, they talk about his language. They say that he only used the word "fight" a handful of times when they put forward this brief we saw today. You're kind of laughing?

AVLON: I laughed about that because slightly more than a handful of times. Actually, the real number is 16, sixteen times, he used the word "fight" in that one speech.

And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you're telegraphing an attitude, a posture to a crowd that's already been revved up and riled up, not just on that day, not just by the president and the other speakers, but by weeks of incitement, weeks of the president raising the stakes and pushing this big lie and saying the country was being stolen from them.

That's the predicate for this incitement to commit insurrection, that's what we'll be looking at. It needs to be understood in full context. It's not just about one day, it's not just about one word.

KEILAR: And there's also, you know, John, I think it's so interesting, is the president knows when he says something, that then those around him amplify it, right? We saw that in his fundraising e- mails, in the days leading up to the insurrection. We saw that form his kids, we saw that from people who are supporters of him who spoke.

So he may have said it 16 times, but you heard it so much more than that, of people who are walking in step with him, right?

AVLON: That's exactly right. That's the amplification ecosystem on social media, and people in his orbit who are trying to not only just amplify, but really start threatening people. The chatter around the riot that law enforcement was warning about, that was not pushed through the system. The fact that, you know, they were calling "an army for Trump" in the runup to the election.

The language of conflict, of violence was pervasive throughout the last weeks of the campaign, and during the big lie that up to it. And that's why there are so many open questions. You know, one of the heads of -- the Senate -- the Stop the Steal, says he was coordinating with three members of Congress who were among those amplifying the big lie. With this violent rhetoric.

All that -- words have consequences, that's what we saw. And that's one of the many questions that we need to get to the bottom to.

[14:15:04]

KEILAR: Yes, certainly. John, thank you so much for being with us, it's great to see you.

AVLON: Thank you. You too, Bri.

KEILAR: Juggling an impeachment trial and major legislation, Congress is also now mourning the loss of one of its own. Tributes are pouring in for Congressman Ron Wright, who passed away just weeks after a coronavirus diagnosis.

Also ahead, South Africa pausing its Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine rollout after a study showed it only gives limited protection for that particular variant.

Also, plane ticket, legal ID, and a negative COVID test: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg says passengers may have to start packing that form for domestic travel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:07]

KEILAR: We have some sad news to report from Capitol Hill today, Republican Congressman Ron Wright of Texas has died. The congressman was admitted to the hospital two weeks ago, after contracting COVID- 19, and his office announced his passing in a statement, which also noted that Wright had battled cancer.

CNN congressional correspondent Ryan Nobles is on the Hill with us. Ryan, this is terrible news to receive for the House of Representatives. How are lawmakers reacting to this?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is very tragic, Brianna, especially when you take into account that Congressman Wright is the first sitting member of Congress to be diagnosed with coronavirus and then subsequently pass away.

And in just the past few minutes, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, took to the House floor and asked for a moment of silence in honor of the congressman. And she also put out a statement, earlier today, talking about Wright

in the context of just how deadly this virus has been for so many Americans across the country.

She wrote, "As we grieve Congressman Wright's passing, members of Congress are united in sorrow and pray for the families and loved ones of the over 460,000 Americans who have been killed by the vicious coronavirus. Each death is a tragedy that breaks our hearts and demands strong, urgent action."

And it is pretty telling, you know, that there have been a number of members of Congress that have been diagnosed with coronavirus, but Wright is the first to pass away.

As you mentioned, Brianna, he was suffering -- and being treated for cancer. His wife was also admitted to the hospital around the same time he was, but you know, his death comes pretty rapidly after we learned of his initial diagnosis, only about two weeks after his office announced that he had tested positive for coronavirus, he later dies.

Initially, they had said that he was only suffering from minor symptoms before he was eventually admitted to the hospital. And you know, this, you know, is a stark reminder of just how serious this illness is, and how there is so much that's still being debated here on Capitol Hill about aid and you know, the funding that is necessary for the distribution and the resources as it relates to the vaccine, and also just the relief needed for so many Americans that are dealing with the economic side of this.

But you know, this is the only member of Congress to pass away as a sitting member; there was another congressman-elect, Luke Letlow of Louisiana, who had contracted the virus shortly after being elected. He was never actually formally seated as a member of Congress before he passed away.

So Congress, much like the rest of America, seeing firsthand just how deadly the coronavirus is.

KEILAR: Yes, they are. Rya, thank you so much. Ryan Nobles on Capitol Hill for us.

The impeachment trial aside, there is still a $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill in Congress, and the Democrats are set to reveal a big part of it, it's a $3,000 tax credit for children.

[14:23:04]

And while President Biden works to keep the moderate Democrats on board, the Senate majority leader is pushing the progressive wing. We'll have more on that, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Today, Democrats are set to unveil a critical new provision in the massive COVID relief bill. It would give parents -- pardon me -- it would give parents up to $3,600 per child under the age of six, it would give $3,000 for every child ages six to 17. There is at least one Republican on board, and that is Senator Mitt Romney.

Joining me now is CNN global economic analyst Rana Foroohar, she's also a global business columnist and associate editor for the "Financial Times."

I know a lot of people are looking at what is in this huge bill, and they're trying to figure out how all of this is going to work, you know, what is going to be in it for them, they're struggling. I wonder, Rana, is this enough money to make a real difference for parents?

RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: You know, I think it's a really great amount to be able to give in a fiscal package that, as you know, has been criticized by some economists for being too large.

You know, there are a lot of families struggling right now, food inflation is rising, you know, mothers are struggling with child care. There's a real crisis for American families right now, and so I think if there is a place that you're going to put fiscal stimulus and aid at the moment, this is the place to do it.

KEILAR: And you know, that employment of women has been so crucial to pulling families out of poverty, you know, above the poverty line. Right now, you know, the U.S., it has one of the highest child poverty rates in the world. I think that's something that a lot of people might not realize. Why? Why does the U.S. have this poverty rate for children?

FOROOHAR: Well you know, there's a couple of reasons, Brianna. One is that all of the things that make you middle class -- good health care, good education, housing -- the price of these things is rising a lot faster than wages are. You know, wages for most Americans have been stuck in neutral since the 1990s; for a lot of working-class people, they haven't been rising since around 1970.

[14:29:59]

So when you add those two things together, you get growing inequality, and you get an environment that is not great for child-rearing.