Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Today, Impeachment Managers to Zero in on Trump's Lack of Remorse. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired February 11, 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]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: It is the top of the hour. Good morning, I'm Poppy Harlow.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

Just into CNN this hour, new details on how House impeachment managers plan to close out their case against former President Trump. They're focus expected to be on what the president said on the day and what he said since then and not said this following new video they revealed yesterday showing just how serious a threat the riot posed to everyone in the Capitol, including Vice President Mike Pence.

HARLOW: Rioters and armed insurrectionists coming within just steps, just feet away from them, reaching our nation's leaders in some cases.

But this question remains, will any evidence be enough to sway the 17 Republicans that the impeachment managers need on board for conviction.

Let's begin this hour with our Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju on the Hill.

Manu, you have some new reporting on what they will do here, what Raskin and his team of impeachment managers will do with their final eight hours.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. According to senior aides on the impeachment team, what they're planning on to focus on in part here is Donald Trump's final actions, what he did and what he did not do, his lack of remorse. And it was a clear effort to draw a response from all of these senators who experienced everything that happened on January 6th and have seen what happened in the run up to January 6th, Donald Trump's actions and then an inaction afterwards.

So we've seen that through the course of the trial yesterday, but we're expected to see much more of that. Also we're told they're going to talk about the harm that feel felt and experienced through the course of the events on January 6th, not just physical harm but emotional harm as well. We expect to hear more of that. And as well as they're going to do a prebuttal that will come from the Trump team tomorrow. The arguments today coming from the impeachment managers will focus a lot on the legal issues, why it is appropriate for them to move forward with the trial, something we've already heard at the beginning but probably will be more detailed as well.

But this is all part, of course, as the final day here that will wrap up probably much earlier than what we expect what we saw yesterday, as they move into this next phase of the trial. Though the ultimate question too is will this connect with Republican senators who could break ranks and convict Donald Trump.

What they saw yesterday, the Republican senators I talked to, from the most moderate to the most conservative, it completely shook them. They were surprised with what they heard. They were surprised with the new footage that they saw, but still entrenched in their position that the Senate should not have a role in trying a former president, which means that Donald Trump still is on the path to acquittal despite what we saw. But still Democrats making that a last case here and showing what Donald Trump did and did not do in the aftermath of the attack. Guys?

SCIUTTO: Manu Raju, thanks very much.

HARLOW: All right. Let's bring in one of the smartest minds, period, on all of this, that is Steve Vladeck, our friend and our colleague and University of Texas Law Professor. We're really happy that you're on especially with us this morning, because you've written some great stuff lately on the constitutionality arguments of all of this.

I guess I just want to start with a really basic question. What do impeachment managers have to do today to close the deal?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. I mean, I think the problem, as Manu pointed out in his reporting, guys, is that there may be nothing that Congressman Raskin and the other managers could close the deal because it seems like a number of Republican senators have their minds made up. I think that's why the key to me is not just are the Republican senators whose minds are going to be changed by anything they see or hear or yesterday. Are there members of the American public?

I mean, I think part of what's going on here is not just a court of impeachment but also a court of history, where the House managers are trying to build a historical record that

even if Trump is acquitted, as Manu says, it seems likely where the votes are right now.

There is a consensus coming out of this proceeding that his conduct was directly traceable to what happened on January 6th, that he bears at least moral responsibility for what happened on January 6th, and that should factor into any future efforts he makes to run for public office.

SCIUTTO: And let's set aside the politics for a moment, because we can't change those in Washington. But let's take a look at the facts and the evidence. It is notable this morning that one of the Capital rioters, not the first one, in court is saying explicitly the president told me to do this. I'm referring, in this case, to the leader of the Oath Keepers, a paramilitary group, who says, as the inauguration grew near, Jessica Watkins, that's the person in this cases, indicated that she was awaiting direction from President Trump.

[10:05:06]

That is not the first person charged with crimes as a result of insurrection who said specifically he told me what to do.

From a legal perspective, constitutional perspective, what is the significance of that?

VLADECK: I mean, I think it goes pretty directly, Jim, to the argument that the president really did incite these armed rioters. I mean, there is another video that the managers played yesterday of one of the president's tweets being read out over a bull horn, a tweet about Vice President Pence being -- not coming through for Trump, not doing what Trump had asked him to do, which he had no power to do. And that gets read out over a bull horn in the middle of the riot while there are rioters looking for Pence.

And so I think the managers have made, to my mind, the factual case, guys, connecting former President Trump to what happened on January 6th. I think the problem is that there are a sufficient number of senators for whom none of these facts are going to matter, where they're using this constitutional objection that we've talked before, that is not a convincing one, as a way of just ducking and avoiding having to weigh in on the facts, avoiding of weighing on in whether they are condemning former President Trump's conduct or condoning it.

And so that's why, I think, these are really two different narratives, one about the case that House managers are building, which is a compelling one, and one about Republican senators who basically have put their fingers in their ears and just don't want to hear it.

HARLOW: But doesn't -- I mean, we had a former Republican senator on yesterday who made the argument to me that majority rule matters here. And when 56 senators voted that this is constitutional, that's the rule, and so, therefore, the current senators who are saying, well, I'm not going to vote to convict because it wasn't constitutional in the first place, that that argument goes out of the window, does it not?

VLADECK: I mean, I think it's available, Poppy, right? That is to say like, I think it is entirely possible that a senators if good faith could say, I voted against jurisdiction when we had that vote but I respect that I'm bound by the majority and so now I'm going to vote to convict, and that assumes, of course, that all those votes were in good faith. And that assumes that all those votes where people say, I genuinely believe we don't have jurisdiction as opposed to I'm just looking for a way to avoid taking a position on the merits of what former President Trump did.

And I wouldn't be surprised, guys, given what happened yesterday, in light of what we're expecting today, if we see a few more Republicans break ranks from that vote, if we end up thinking that there are 62, maybe even 63 votes to convict. But the report that Manu has done, the reporting that other folks have done suggest that there is not enough of a groundswell within the Republican conference to actually be sufficiently horrified by this conduct, as we all should be, to put those political posturings aside in the interest of sending a message about what is and what is not appropriate conduct by a president who is two weeks from the end of his term.

SCIUTTO: And let's not eliminate that as significant. If it's bipartisan vote, even if it doesn't reach two-thirds, to remove a Republican president from office, right, or to convict him for what he's been impeached for, it's not a small thing.

VLADECK: It is a huge deal, I mean, in the (INAUDIBLE) essential impeachments. I mean, you guys know this. There has been exactly one senator in all three prior impeachment trials who voted against a president of his own party, and that was Mitt Romney last year.

The fact that we're assuming that number is going to be somewhere between 7, 10, 11, 12, that is a pretty powerful repudiation of former President Trump. I just -- I think that the unfortunate reality is where the politics are right now, that is probably not going to be enough to actually get us to that threshold for conviction.

SCIUTTO: Fair point, and good historical point, only one senator has done this before. Steve Vladeck, thanks so much.

VLADECK: Thank you, guys.

SCIUTTO: Well, joining me now to discuss politics and more, CNN Political Commentator Bakari Sellers, former South Carolina State Representative, and Scott Jennings, who is a former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush, also worked a long time for Mitch McConnell. Thanks for both of you for coming on.

Scott, I want to begin with you, because you've heard the Republican senators who said, my mind is already made up, right? Mitch McConnell's mind is not already made up. He is deliberately signaling, one, to conference that this is a vote of conscience for you, you vote as you see fit, and my mind isn't made up. I wonder, you've worked with him a long time, is that accurate here, that his mind is open to voting to convict?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I do think it's accurate. I think because Mitch McConnell is not someone who ever really hides the ball and he tends to say what is on his mind. He doesn't engage in theatrics and he doesn't speak all the time, and he's one of the quieter members of the U.S. Senate. So when he says things, I tend to listen.

And he's obviously signaled an undecided posture here. And he's obviously told his conference it is a vote of conscience and he's obviously not doing what he did last time, which was essentially marshalling the acquittal forces for Donald Trump. This time the president is essentially on his own. So a lot different than the first impeachment and I think if you watched the first couple of days of the trial, it is obvious why, because the evidence is damning.

[10:10:01]

But there is no way to avoid the truth here. It's been put right in front of their faces.

SCIUTTO: Bakari, I wonder if we should reframe a bit how we look at this. I know the conventional wisdom is you will not reach two-thirds. You won't get 17 Republicans to join Democrats, assuming they all vote to convict here, but you do have discussions. I mean, Tim Scott said yesterday maybe five or six Republican senators vote to convict.

As Steve Vladeck made, the only precedent here is one senator voting against a president of his party. That's Mitt Romney in the last impeachment here. Should we look at it that way to say that you have, if not, a majority repudiation, you have movement towards something of a bipartisan repudiation?

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I do think it will be a bipartisan repudiation, but I think that the larger indictment is going to be on the senators who do not vote to convict. And the reason being is because I was having a conversation with a high school history teacher just recently. And the point was brought up that when we teach this period of time in American history, when we lay out and show the video of the rioting, when we talk about the officer that was killed, when we show the chaos and the anti-Semitism and the confederate flags in the Capitol and then kids see that and then they see what happened next.

And we talk about impeachment in the context of United States history, then they're going to ask when they see these images, he must have been convicted, this must be an impeachment. But then there are going to be senators who have to stand on that record. And they are going to be bound by this throughout the rest of the history. They are going to be people like Josh Hawley, like Ted Cruz, like Lindsey Graham, who are going to be on the side of insurrectionists throughout our history and when it is taught for years and years to come.

And so, yes, I don't think that anyone -- Scott and I, we come on here, and we're good friends and we spar and we don't agree often, but I do think we agree that there ain't going to be no conviction in this. But this is going to be a stain not just on the Republican Party but our democracy for a very long period of time. And that is what happens when you create a Frankenstein that is unchecked and that Frankenstein being Donald Trump.

SCIUTTO: Scott, what is the way forward then for the party? You have discussions of a third party, right a conservative Republican Party, Charlie Dent, Ambassador Bolton among those discussing that. Is that the way forward or is it reform or change of direction from within?

JENNINGS: My personal view is it will have to come from within. I mean, with all due respect to the people you mentioned, and I saw Evan McMullin and Anthony Scaramucci. I mean, with all due respect, no one is going to run off and follow those guys and create formidable third party.

Typically, you have this after you lose the White House. There are periods of fluctuation inside of parties. This one is different because you have a former president who is still staying active. But I think there is going to have to be some push and pull inside of the existing structure. And what Republicans have to realize is that we've reached the limits of Trump's electoral ability. He lost the popular twice, and that was before the events of January 6th.

And I think one thing he has done, and it is crazy to say, but he has redefined the purpose of party. Party is to win elections. He has redefined it to be a club of people executing cultural grievances and kicking out the folks that we don't like and punishing our enemies. That is vastly different than organizing for the purpose of winning elections.

And I think Republicans need to take a step back and ask themselves, do you want to win the presidency again. It's been a long since we won the national popular vote, unless your name George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush.

So we've got some internal work to do. I don't personally believe division is the way forward.

SCIUTTO: Yes. But once in 2004, the Republicans won the popular vote going back to George H.W. Bush.

Bakari, before we go, President Biden has been deliberately quiet on the impeachment through this, focused on policy, COVID, he's talking of infrastructure today. Has he taken the right tact, in your view, and can he keep alive his promise to take a bipartisan approach as leader?

SELLERS: Well, the answer is yes. Because, I mean, a lot of times, you have to let these things breathe. And by just showing the videos and not having, you know, the president of the United States being the large theme that is broadcast across the country and allowing these videos to speak, you're allowing the American public to see what happened unvarnished. So that is one.

Two, by not sucking up all the air in the room, contrary to the Republican Party, he's allowing new stars to emerge. Look at Stacey Plaskett, the United States congresswoman from the Virgin Islands, who is now a certified hero. We want to talk about Ilhan Omar and AOC and the squad, et cetera, we have other members of the Democratic caucus who are rising to the top, showing that they are more than capable.

And then the last thing is we're still in the middle of a pandemic. We still need infrastructure spending. And we still need things. And the president of the United States, Joe Biden, stated that he was going to fix the urgent problems that we're facing.

[10:15:02]

I'm glad he's focusing on that. And he also said he was going to do this in a bipartisan approach.

Now, whether or not he gets a Republican to vote for the $1.9 trillion stimulus doesn't mean that it is bipartisan or not, because Republicans throughout the country, Americans appreciate that. And he's going to get a bipartisan impeachment conviction. So -- I mean, well, vote, it may not be a conviction, but he's going to get five, six, seven, eight on that as well, so his strategy tends to be working.

SCIUTTO: Bakari Sellers, Scott Jennings, good to have you both on.

JENNINGS: Thanks, Jim.

HARLOW: Nice to see people with different beliefs getting along.

Still to come, a Democratic senator turned juror joins us to talk about the state of the impeachment trial right now.

SCIUTTO: Plus, Dr. Fauci claims that most Americans could start getting vaccinated by April. But is that true for black and brown neighborhoods as well?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

HARLOW: Welcome back. In just under two hours, House impeachment managers will resume their case against former President Donald Trump. Democrats have just eight hours left to try to sway Republicans toward conviction.

With me now is one of the senators turned jurors, Democratic Senator of Michigan Debbie Stabenow. Good morning, Senator, thanks for joining me.

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): Good morning, Poppy, it is good to be with you.

HARLOW: I know you lived through this, but I wonder if you could share with us what it has been like for you reliving it, seeing the videos, seeing things you didn't see before from, you know, internal cameras at the Capitol, of Pence and others being rushed down those stairs. I wonder what that has been like.

STABENOW: Well, Poppy, first, let me say, the House managers are doing an excellent, excellent job. So I want to thank them for that. And it is actually gotten for me and I think for a lot of colleagues progressively worse.

When we were there that day, debating whether or not to certify the vote on Arizona, we were not aware of what was happening outside. We never thought in a million years that folks would get into the Capitol building.

And then it all moved very fast. And then we really didn't know what was happening until we were together at a different location where they brought in televisions for us to see them climbing out of the outside of the Capitol, scaling the Capitol to the second floor and so on.

And so what happened yesterday was even more intense for me and I think for others because we saw really how close they were and one turn rather than another turn, the role of the Capitol police, which was extraordinary. My heart just going out to them and the intensity of what happened to them and I'm very grateful for them.

HARLOW: And we all got to see for the first time, for example, what Officer Eugene Goodman did for your Republican colleague, Senator Mitt Romney. I mean, really saving him in that hallway. This makes me think about the bigger picture, right? I mean, whatever happens, whether there's an acquittal or a conviction, the disinformation that lead this from the former president on down, that remains. And it is pervasive and I think you see it in what happened last night.

And that is that the leading Republican in the Michigan state senate, Mike Shirkey, doubled down on his conspiracy theory comments from that video earlier this week, calling what happened at the Capitol not Trump people, calling it all a hoax and he still thinks that.

The fact that you have a leader that believes those lies, I wonder what you think that says, and namely, if you think there is a responsibility from Congress going forward to fight this disinformation that goes well beyond when this trial ends?

STABENOW: There is a responsibility for all of us to fight this and we've a lot of work to do because of the misinformation. I cringe when, one more time, I see Michigan in the headlines, and it is not flattering. It is very concerning to me. And the reality is that we have now a former president who is yet to recognize the credibility, the election of the current president who is yet to say the violence that happened on January 6th was wrong. He said, stop the steal, continues to say stop the steal, never tweeted in all caps, stop the violence.

And so now we go forward with people who are believing, they believe in Donald Trump, they believe what he says. We've got a tremendous amount of work to do together. And, frankly, it is going to take our Republican colleagues at the state level, federal level, to stop saying, well, my constituents believe this when they know it is wrong. And instead step up and have some leadership to say, when somebody saw something that I know is totally wrong, I have some responsibility to correct them and to provide accurate information. None of that is happening with the Republicans right now.

HARLOW: Senator, let me ask you about the debate over COVID relief and stimulus. You are one of eight Democratic senators who recently supported an amendment to the $1.9 trillion Biden bill that would prohibit undocumented immigrants in this country from receiving a direct payment or direct check.

[10:25:11]

And at last check, there are 53 million children in the state of Michigan who live with an undocumented family member.

I bring that up because your Democratic colleague, Dick Durbin, said that this bill is not supposed to give money to undocumented people, but he knows the question is if you're a legal child of one of those, an undocumented person, and the child is a U.S. citizen, should you receive a check. He says, yes. And your new Democratic colleague, Senator Jon Ossoff, says, the language you're proposing risks American children being denied emergency aid during this crisis. Do you share those concerns about those kids?

STABENOW: Poppy, this was an amendment that basically reiterated current law that we passed at the end of the year. And what we did at the end of years is make sure if there is one undocumented person in the household, that they are able to proceed and get financial help and so on even if there are others that are undocumented. And, of course, children, American children, of course, they should be --

HARLOW: But if there is not, if there are children of one or two undocumented immigrants in the house, those children, according to your vote here, would not get that aid. I guess I'm just asking about what those kids? Should they get anything?

STABENOW: I actually disagree with that. I mean, first of all, I support comprehensive immigration reform. I support making sure that everyone who is legally documented is getting support and help and recognize for their value in our economy and in our society. And, certainly, children right now are able to do that. There are ways to do that.

So this was a vote that basically, in my judgment, very, very broadly written that could be interpreted in a lot of different ways that basically reaffirmed current law. What I want to see us doing going forward is a comprehensive immigration reform, is not having gotcha politics against those who are immigrants or essential workers who are part of our economy.

I can tell you, as somebody chairing the agriculture and nutrition committee, we need to make sure that we have legal way to support our farm workers, food processing workers and so on.

So this is -- we need forward -- that was in the context of just broad political gotcha votes. And I don't think it really reaffirms anything -- it doesn't impact anything, that vote didn't impact anything.

HARLOW: Senator, thank you very much for weighing in on that. I also misspoke. I said 53 million and I meant 53,000 children in your state with an undocumented family member. We'll keep talking about this as the debate continues. Thanks very much.

STABENOW: And we need the COVID package passed, Poppy. We got to get the COVID package passed to help everybody.

HARLOW: Thanks for coming on. We'll have you back soon. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Such an important conversation.

Well, coming up, breaking COVID vaccine barriers, the outcry growing as black and Latino communities struggle to get equal access.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]