Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Today, January 6 Panel Votes on Bannon Contempt Charges; Critical Day as Biden Hosts Two Meetings with Moderates, Progressives; CDC Considers Test-to-Stay in Schools Instead of Quarantine. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired October 19, 2021 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

ERICA HILL, CNN NEWSROOM: Good morning. I'm Erica Hill.

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

The House committee investigating the January 6th insurrection is preparing to officially hold Trump ally Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress.

HILL: And just hours from now, the panel expected to vote and recommend charges. Bannon, of course, defied the committee's subpoena citing executive privilege. House investigators overnight released a criminal contempt report saying, quote, there is no reasonable argument that Mr. Bannon's communication with the president regarding January 6th are the type of matters on which privilege can be asserted.

SCIUTTO: This comes as former President Trump is also trying to use the executive privilege defense in a new lawsuit against the January 6th panel in order to block the National Archives from releasing documents related.

CNN Law Enforcement Correspondent Whitney Wild joins us now. So, Whitney, listen, Congress is moving forward here to hold Bannon accountable, right, for defying the subpoena. Tell us what happens now and what happens next.

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: So, tonight, 7:30, anybody can watch this, by the way, it's going to be live streamed, the committee will vote on this criminal contempt referral. Then it go to the House for the vote, then it will go on to the Department of Justice. The chances though that the most extreme punishment is actually levied against Steve Bannon is pretty slim. He could face up to 12 months in jail.

The chances though, again, are slim. Because, typically, what happens in cases like this is that if things get jammed up in appeal, the timeline begins to be extended. But what the committee is looking for here, Jim and Erica, is leverage. They are trying to throw the book at Steve Bannon because they want his testimony. They believe that he was really at the nexus of this big election lie that preceded the rally that preceded the riot.

So, they want to know exactly who he spoke with, what is the intention of the rally, what were the conversations leading up to that rally and then specifically leading up to the violence.

What was notable about this information that came out last night was that, for the first time, we're seeing Steve Bannon's full subpoena. So, before we had just a two-page summary of what the committee was looking, now we see that they are trying to drill down on 17 key areas of investigation, which includes his communications with key Trump allies like John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn. Specifically, they're looking for communications as well between Steve Bannon and former President Trump on several key dates.

So there's a lot of information the committee thinks Steve Bannon can provide that is critical to this investigation into how January 6th actually happened. They think by throwing the book at him they can get that testimony, Jim and Erica.

HILL: We'll be watching to see what happens with that.

Meantime, separately, former President Trump filed a lawsuit to block records from being handed over to the committee. How could that impact the investigation? Could this slow things down?

WILD: Well, it could. I mean, the reality here is that once you start interjecting the courts, it does slow the calendar down. However, it's impossible to believe the committee hasn't accounted for this, which is why they had these key players among the first people to get subpoenaed because they know that those battles are going to last the longest. Then they'll move on to start to try to squeeze these lesser- known people who perhaps have less ability to fight these charges. So, for example -- excuse me, fight these subpoenas, not charges, subpoenas.

For example, we saw 11 rally organizers who were subpoenaed, several of whom we understand are cooperating, so they start at the top. People who might have the most ability to fight these subpoenas, and then move on to people who may not have the time or the money to fight this to try to get as much information as they can. So, the calculation here includes these potential court battles, Jim and Erica.

SCIUTTO: Listen, classic Trump strategy, right, just trying to run out the clock. We'll see if he is able to do that here. Whitney Wild, thanks so much.

Just hours from now, President Biden playing negotiator in chief, hosting two separate warring factions of Democrats as his sweeping domestic agenda hangs in the balance, first up, a meeting with progressives followed by a sit-down with moderates this afternoon. Biden along with Vice President Kamala Harris and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expected to discuss the future of their proposals with the top-line number $3.5 trillion, although that number, Erica, as you know, seems to be coming down. HILL: It seems to have shrunk a little bit.

All of this, of course, as the climate portions of that proposal really seemed to be in jeopardy this morning, which poses a threat not only to Biden's economic plans but, frankly, his global agenda as well. So really the president pushing to get climate legislation done, of course, before his appearance on the world stage at the U.N. climate change conference in two weeks.

CNN White House Correspondent John Harwood joining us now. So, in terms of those climate efforts and these meetings today, do we know how central climate is to those meetings?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's extremely important to Joe Biden, extremely important to almost all the Democratic Party. But what we're seeing today is, you know, Jim just mentioned a minute ago, classic Trump strategy, trying run out the clock.

[10:05:03]

This is classic Biden strategy, trying to use the clock as a forcing mechanism for these negotiations. Democrats hope to strike a deal by the end of this month on that reconciliation package, which is a large budget bill that includes both climate and social safety net provisions.

Now, the problem is you've got a very narrow majority in both the Senate and the House, can't lose a single Republican -- excuse me, Democratic senator. That includes Joe Manchin, who represents a coal state, West Virginia. And so Joe Manchin has got problems with provisions in Biden's original proposal that would penalize utilities that use coal and encourage people to use other things. Joe Manchin says it's going to hurt my state. So, they're looking at alternatives to deal with that, meeting first with house progressives today, then with moderates.

The progressives represent a larger share of the caucus. The moderates are the holdout group. That includes Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. And they're trying to narrow the differences on the size of the package, on the elements of the package. Manchin is concerned there are some things that look like welfare in this package, too much spending on giveaways. So he's looking for, say, means testing on things like the child tax credit. They're looking for workarounds on his objections on climate. And it's a big challenge to try to put this jigsaw puzzle together.

However, leaders within the White House and in the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill are optimistic that they're getting closer, that they've got a chance to get a deal, if not this week, next week. Not done by any means, but Joe Biden is pushing hard. He's clearly thought the negotiations were taking too long before, so he's scaled up his level of involvement, and that's what these meetings today are about.

HILL: And we know there was push for that too for more involvement. John Harwood, I appreciate it. Thank you. SCIUTTO: The cornerstone climate policy in President Biden's sweeping economic infrastructure package will now likely not survive. Democrats working to replace the clean electricity program, which was expected to help produce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 52 percent by 2030. That may not make it.

Joining me now to discuss, Congressman John Curtis, he's a Republican from Utah. And we're used to discussing this as a Republican versus Democratic issue on climate, but here but we have Representative Curtis on a committee, you know, and a caucus designed specifically to try to educate Republicans about this threat. Good to have you on this morning. Thanks for taking the time.

REP. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): Good morning. Good to be with you.

SCIUTTO: So, as I said, you know, folks tend to think of this as about Democrats being in favor of some sort of climate proposals, legislation, Republicans always against it. But here we have you, and you're pushing, you know, different approach perhaps, but you're pushing. So, explain to our viewers what specific kind of climate programs would you and perhaps other Republicans support?

CURTIS: Well, thank you for this opportunity. And, first of all, let me explain how important it is for Republicans to show that we do care about this issue. I regret that due to our own actions we've been branded as not caring. And the reality of it is I think Republicans care deeply and we have great ideas of our own. And to your question, we want to advance those. And they have a lot to do with policies that don't kill U.S. jobs, that don't demonize fossil fuels but do have a far greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions than I think what's currently on the table.

SCIUTTO: So, folks at home might not know, you're from Utah. You're on the frontlines of climate change, right, because as the atmosphere warms, you get less snow in those Utah ski mountains, which is important for Utah's economy. So, you're seeing it. You're seeing it firsthand.

So, tell us what those provisions are. For example, I mean, you look at taxing, right, the possibility of emissions as opposed to other plans. Tell us how that would work and do you have support on both sides of the aisle? Because right now, the climate proposals may not survive the budget negotiations.

CURTIS: Yes. Let me, first of all, answer your question about living here in Utah. We're in the longest drought in our state's history. Most of the summer we couldn't even see our mountains because of the smoke from the California and Oregon fires. And in just a few months, the ski resorts will open. And every year, they're facing decreasing snow and warming temperatures.

To the second question that you had, do I have support, I'm very, very excited that 70 of my House Republicans have joined me in this conservative climate caucus. That's a third of all Republicans who joined this caucus, and those numbers are growing. So, I do believe we have vast support. And to your question as to our ideas, we think we have ideas that are winners. We think they advance the U.S. economy, they advance so many things that are good for the United States and at the same time reduce those worldwide greenhouse gas emissions that we're all trying to focus on.

[10:10:07]

SCIUTTO: The sad fact is though that there are many members of your party, both voters, but also lawmakers, who just straight up don't buy climate change. I mean, the former Republican president, Donald Trump, stated out loud, denying the science here. And the irony is, of course, is that many red states -- look at Louisiana, right, or a Florida, are, like Utah, on the front lines of this, right, rising sea levels, stonger storms, et cetera. How do you fight that disinformation within your own party?

CURTIS: So, Jim, I'm not going to argue that we've done a terrible job branding ourselves as caring about the environment and the climate. I give you that. But I believe and I have a strong belief that Republicans and conservatives care deeply about this planet and about this earth. And the whole purpose for this caucus is to show the world that we do and that there are more of us that care than don't, and that we have good ideas and we intend to get a seat at the climate table and be productive with our ideas, productive in the dialogue.

And let's face it, it's important that we do. Because unless we can approach this from a bipartisan basis, we're not going to make the kind of progress we need to make.

SCIUTTO: No, no question. And, by the way, those deadlines are coming, right? The U.S. has made commitments. It's not clear that they're going to be able to meet those commitments. And meanwhile, some things are going in the wrong direction. Use of coal-fired power is actually on the rise for the first time since 2014, surge of 22 percent this year in part because natural gas prices went up so people going to coal, it's cheaper, but coal is way dirtier.

As you know, I mean, we could talk about messaging all we want, but where's the action going to come from? Are there serious discussions between you and Democrats who hold the majority in both chambers to do something?

CURTIS: Listen, I think one of the mistakes we make in this debate is we don't realize and celebrate the successes that we've had. Let me point to the Energy Act of 2020, one of the largest bipartisan efforts on climate ever, and we hardly celebrated it. We reduced hydrofluoric carbons by 85 percent on a bipartisan basis. We invested vast amounts of money into R&D.

So, yes, we have a lot of work to do, but I don't want to let this moment go by without saying we have had some success and we're making progress. Part of the problem is we've got to do a better job about bragging about our success.

SCIUTTO: Would you vote -- so Democrats have their own problem, right, in terms of what they can get past Joe Manchin in terms of climate provisions. But if they come up with a plan as part of this budget, given your focus on this issue, would you vote yes?

CURTIS: Well, as you well know, this $3.5 trillion is so complicated with many, many issues in addition to climate, and that makes it very hard for Republicans, the debt and all those things. But I can tell you this, Jim. We are actively looking for bipartisan paths forward where we can support our colleagues. And it might surprise your listeners that a lot of Republicans and a lot of Democrats are having those drinking fountain conversations, the conversations in the hallway about how we can work together. I have two Democrats, before we left Washington, invite me out to dinner and say, look, how can we work together?

And so we have got to focus on those that are willing to work together to be bipartisan and find this path forward.

SCIUTTO: Well, let's hope those water cooler conversations turn into some action. The ski hills of Utah are calling. Congressman John Curtis, thanks so much.

CURTIS: Great to be with you.

SCIUTTO: Well don't miss a CNN exclusive, President Joe Biden takes questions from the American people. Anderson Cooper moderates a CNN presidential town hall with President Biden, that's Thursday night at 8:00.

HILL: Still to come this hour, an effort to keep kids in the classroom even after they've been exposed to a positive case of COVID- 19. We'll take look at what some school districts are now trying.

Plus, prominent South Carolina Attorney Alex Murdaugh back in court this hour after facing additional charges. Will he be released on bond again?

SCIUTTO: And a Haitian gang is demanding a million dollars per person, this for 17 missionaries, including children being held hostage, the youngest only eight months old. The outlook for negotiations later this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: New this morning, CNN has learned that the CDC is currently evaluating what's known as test-to-stay programs in school, this is for students who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in school, can still attend classes in person rather than quarantine at home as long as they test negative for the disease and show no symptoms.

HILL: So, the approach may seem controversial to some, it's actually growing though in popularity.

CNN Health Reporter Jacqueline Howard joining us now with more on how some schools are following this approach. So, walk us through how this works, because we know, look, we'd all want kids to learn in person.

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Right, Erica. And there are some still questions left to answer here. That's why the CDC is evaluating the approach. But I spoke with three different superintendents across three different state, and they all say that their test-to-stay programs have been successful in keeping children in the classroom while also limiting the spread of the coronavirus.

Superintendent Michael Karner in Lake County, Illinois, says that less than 2 percent of children exposed to a COVID-19 case in school tested positive.

[10:20:06]

So, that means the remaining 98 percent, even though they were contacts of someone with COVID in the school, they still tested negative and were still able to come to class.

In Kentucky, Fayette County, Superintendent Demetrus Liggins told me that out of more than 400 COVID tests in their program, 402, only 4 came back positive.

And then here in Georgia, in Marietta, Superintendent Grant Rivera told me that only 3 percent of tests through their test-to-stay program come back positive. And that's not his only measure of success. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT RIVERA, SUPERINTENDENT, MARIETTA CITY SCHOOLS: Certainly there's a statistical number around students who test negative who can remain in class. And that is a measure of success. I think the other measure of success is just the social, emotional well-being of children and the lack of disruption to families 11th hour.

Test-to-stay allows us to say to families, if your child is asymptomatic, like we can test and bring them back to school.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD: So, you see there, the main goal is to keep kids in school if they test negative. But one other thing, when I spoke with superintendents in Illinois and Kentucky, they said that their programs are successful because they're part of a layered mitigation approach. They also require masks, for instance, as a mitigation measure. Here in Georgia, in Marietta, just over the weekend, the school district there changed its mask policy to be optional. So, we'll see how that impacts the test-to-stay program.

But this is something the CDC is evaluating, and we can expect to maybe, possibly hear more from the agency in the future.

HILL: Yes, interesting. We know you'll keep us updated. Jacqueline, I appreciate it. Thank you. Joining us now is Dr. Monica Gandhi. She is Professor of Medicine, Associate Division Chief of Division of HIV Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. Dr. Gandhi, great to have you with us this morning.

I want to pick up where we left off with Jacqueline's reporting, that the CDC is looking into this test-to-stay program. But I think what's really important was where Jacqueline pointed out at the end there, I mean, these numbers were impressive from the superintendents she spoke with, but they had this layered approach, which included masking in schools.

I know you've been really vocal about getting kids back for in-person learning. Do you think something like test-to-stay perhaps with this layered approach is the right way to do that?

DR. MONICA GANDHI, INFECTIOUS DISEASES EXPERT: I really think this is the right way to do it. Actually, quarantines have become the new school closures in the fall of 2021, because you're really asking children to stay out of school for a full 14 days at times because they were exposed to someone with COVID when they were wearing masks.

Modified quarantine means if you're both wearing masks you don't need to have that, the claim of that exposure. And test-to-stay means if there was a true exposure, that you can come in, test, and as long as you're negative, you're not endangering anyone, come in, do your in- person learning and stay. Then after five days, if you're negative, you just get to stay.

So, this has been used in Europe. This has been used in multiple states around the country. And if it becomes standard, we'll have less people out of schools, kids out of school.

SCIUTTO: Big picture, the question here really is about risk reduction as opposed to risk elimination. And for folks who don't know, you run an HIV-AIDS clinic in San Francisco, where has been an issue in the past, very different diseases here. But tell us what lessons you've learned about risk reduction as an approach as opposed to risk elimination as it relates to schools and COVID.

Yes, so, you know, in HIV, at least, this was also a prolonged infection. It turns out COVID was much longer than we thought it would be. And the idea is that you take people's needs into account, harm reduction, even while trying to reduce the incidence of a pathogen. In the case of HIV, it meant advising people how to stay safe but still have human contact.

In the case of harm reduction with COVID, we could have told people how to stay safe, mask, distancing, ventilation all work in schools, for example, but not just tell people to completely stay away from each other. And a good example is California did not imply harm reduction in our approach, and we had a terrible winter surge because there was at one point a statement last year that said you may walk outside only with two people masked, distance, and they all have to be -- those two people have to be from the same household. What we did was not take people's needs into account and harm reduction just says we're in this for the long haul, this is essentially going on a two-year pandemic, let's keep risk down but take people's needs into account. For HIV, it meant seeing people in person here.

HILL: So, to your point, California, at certain points in the pandemic, has had some of the most restrictive measures around the country.

[10:25:00]

Right now, according to the CDC, I think California is the only state with a moderate level of transmission.

I know you've butted heads with officials there in terms of your view of what would work and what you were seeing in place. Are you starting to feel that there's a meeting of the minds? Are things changing a little bit?

GANDHI: Yes. I mean, actually, everything changes after vaccination. What we had to do was keep people sort of in their needs and let them have their needs prior to vaccination. Then what happened with vaccination, vaccination is the way out of the pandemic. Immunity is the way out of the pandemic. Mask, distancing, contact tracing, testing, ventilation, they all were great tools.

But what we needed was a vaccine. What we need is immunity. And what California has done is they've done a great job with the vaccine. They had a lot of natural infection as well. And I think it's the combination of both that is keeping our rates so low. We're sort of like Denmark, who opened on September 10th. We had an 80 percent over 12 vaccination rate, and we have a lot of natural immunity, that's hybrid immunity, and I think it's keeping our rates very low.

SCIUTTO: Dr. Monica Gandhi, thank so much. It's an important conversation. We appreciate having you on.

GANDHI: Thank you very much.

HILL: Well, at any moment now, a judge will set bond for former South Carolina Attorney Alex Murdaugh. He's accused, of course, of stealing millions from the family of his late housekeeper. That's not the only scandal attached to his name. We are live outside the courthouse, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]