Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Mark Meadows Reaches Cooperation Deal With January 6 Committee; Now, U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Mississippi Abortion Ban; House GOP Fracturing in Real Time as Lawmakers Spar. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 01, 2021 - 10:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]

ERICA HILL, CNN NEWSROOM: In just hours, the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot will vote on a criminal contempt referral for Jeffrey Clark. The panel set to decide whether to refer the former Justice Department official who pushed election lies to the DOJ for contempt of Congress, all this as former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows staves off a criminal contempt charge of his own after reaching an initial cooperation deal with the committee.

Joining me now to discuss, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the January 6th select committee. Good to have you with us this morning.

So, in terms of this initial cooperation deal with Mark Meadows, Chairman Thompson saying through his lawyer, he's turned over some 6,000 emails. He's agreed to appear for an interview. Do you expect him to be forthcoming? Do you expect him to show up and actually answer questions or just show up?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Well, I think it's not quite accurate to say there is a deal. We subpoenaed him and he's now agreed to come in. We subpoenaed documents and he sent some. So, we'll see. I would hope that his intention is to answer the questions that we ask truthfully. I'm glad that he appears to have come off his prior position, which was that he had absolute immunity and couldn't be asked anything. So, I think we're making progress, but we'll see.

HILL: So, not a deal, but can we say it's a tentative agreement? Because it's my understanding some of that --

LOFGREN: It wasn't really an agreement. He's responding as he is supposed to, and we'll see how broadly his compliance is. We don't know that yet.

HILL: In terms of what constitutes privileged information when it comes to Mark Meadows, where does the agreement stand between the committee and his legal team?

LOFGREN: As I say, there's not really an agreement. He may make assertions of privilege and then we will consider whether those assertions are valid or not and make a ruling.

HILL: But nothing has been settled on at this point in terms of any of those claims of privilege?

LOFGREN: No. Everything is on the table. I think there's been some acknowledgment through his attorney that clearly a number of the questions that we -- areas that we want to pursue have no possible assertion of privilege associated with them. We may have disagreements or discussion about some others. So, we'll just have to see.

HILL: And what specifically are some of those questions? What are some of those areas that you'll be asking about?

LOFGREN: Well, I don't want to get into all of what we're going to ask him at this point, but, as you know, we want to find out everything there is to know about not only what happened on January 6th but the days leading up to January 6th, how was this devised, how was it funded, who did what, what did the president know, when did he know it, what role did he play, what role did Mr. Meadows play, did they coordinate with others before the riot, the assault on the Capitol occurred. We don't know the answer to all of those questions. So, we will be trying to find out the truth and we will share the truth that we discover with the American people.

And I'll also add, it may also give us some insight into what legislation we need to propose to make sure something like this can't happen again.

HILL: Two other points I do want to get your take on, as I mentioned off the top, the committee set to vote today in terms of Jeffrey Clark, whether to refer him to the DOJ for criminal contempt. How do you plan to weigh in on that? How will you vote?

LOFGREN: Well, I mean, I want to see if there's anything further -- any further information. But based on what's happened so far, I think it's pretty clear that he has failed in his obligation to respond to the committee. I mean, I was participating in the interview, and he basically came in, his lawyer handed a letter saying, we're not going to answer any questions, and they left. That's not compliance with the subpoena.

Now, they've just sent a very long letter that I've read through that just seems like frivolous, honestly.

[10:35:00]

But I want the lawyers on the committee staff to give us their advice.

But no one is above the law here. I mean, it's worth pointing out that his superiors in the Department of Justice have already come in to be interviewed by the committee. So, why he thinks that he is above the law is really a mystery to me.

HILL: Can you tell us more about what was in that letter you just referenced? LOFGREN: Not at this point. I mean, it's a very long letter. I don't want to misstate it. But it's frivolous. One of the issues is we're not partisan enough in the committee.

It's been a burden to be on this committee, but the good thing is that every member of the committee is operating in a collegial way. You don't have, as you often see in congressional committees, Republicans and Democrats throwing bricks at each other, no. We're obviously in different places in terms of our being a conservative or not a conservative, but that has nothing to do with our search for the truth.

This is the way committees ought to work with a unified group of Congress members and the staff that is unified with one mission, to uncover the truth.

HILL: We are out of time, but really quickly, there's been some criticism about how the DOJ is or is not responding at this point. If, in fact, Jeffrey Clark was referred for criminal contempt, do you think that the Justice Department would act?

LOFGREN: Well, that's up to them. They have to go through the facts and the law.

HILL: Right. But do you feel based on what you've seen that they would?

LOFGREN: Well, I mean, they did bring an action against Mr. Bannon, and I think this -- that shows that they are taking this seriously. We're not a prosecuting body. We're a legislative body, so we're going to make our best determination and do a referral. We wouldn't do a referral if we didn't think it was valid.

HILL: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

LOFGREN: You bet.

SCIUTTO: Right now, oral arguments, very important ones, continue inside the nation's highest court in a case that could change the future of abortion access across this country. We're going to bring you the latest, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

HILL: Right now a consequential case that could reshape abortion rights in the United States. This morning, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Mississippi's push to ban abortions after 15 weeks with very few exceptions, and that is directly putting the future of Roe v. Wade in jeopardy.

SCIUTTO: Back now with former Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Wehle and New York City prosecutor Paul Callan.

There was a moment just moments ago where Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the issue that the Mississippi lawmakers who actually proposed this law said in public they did so because there is a new conservative majority on the court. Have a listen. I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, SUPREME COURT: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? If people actually believe it's all political, how will we survive? How will the court survive?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice Sotomayor, I think the concern about appearing political makes it absolutely imperative that the court reach a decision well grounded in the Constitution, in text, structure, history and tradition and that goes through the stare decisis factors.

SOTOMAYOR: Casey did that. Casey went through every one of them. You think they did it wrong. That's your belief, but Casey did that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Kim, you know the law better. What's your view on that? And, by the way, I remember during all these justice's confirmation hearings, them saying, yes, of course, I will respect precedent, seems like that's an open question on this particular precedent.

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Yes. I mean, Sotomayor, Justice Kagan and even Chief Justice Roberts are all hammering the idea of stare decisis, that you just don't disturb things unless they're really wrong. And Chief Justice Roberts asked counsel, what is the test for that? How do we know this is wrong today, then? It's been on the books for a long time.

Justice Sotomayor also really emphasized, listen, there's a lot in the Constitution that's vague. Our ability to decide what the Constitution means goes back to Marbury versus Madison. That was novel way back then. Lots of it is vague.

And the last piece she said is what is the state's interest except for religion? This idea of when life begins is something that philosophers and religious leaders have thought about for centuries. This is not something that the state can say it knows better than women. It's really a compelling exchange with Sotomayor.

HILL: I have to say following along some of it on Twitter, it is fascinating the tidbits being put out there, because we're not able to listen to it at the moment.

Paul, based on what we're learning, in terms of the questioning and the responses, how are those responses landing?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's interesting. Judge Sotomayor is -- she sounds very, very aggressive and angry about what's happening in this argument. And, of course, she's part of the three liberal sort of minority that still exists on the court.

[10:45:05]

And she's being very decisive in her questioning about this.

I mean, one of the other issues that has been raised as a result of Sotomayor's questioning, even Judge Roberts came in and said, hey, when this case was submitted to us, there was never a question that Roe would be something that we were considering overturning. It was only coming to us on the issue of when is viability a fair factor, and how do we judge viability of the fetus. So, it sounds like Judge Roberts is more inclined to keep Roe in place and only tinker with this case around the edges.

SCIUTTO: Well, we'll see where the other five go, right, in that case. It wouldn't be the first case Roberts sided with the liberal justices, but were still overruled by the more conservative justices. A long way to go.

Kim Wehle, Paul Callan, thanks very much.

CALLAN: Thankyou.

SCIUTTO: Struggling to keep the Republican Party unified, the latest very public feud between lawmakers playing out on Twitter. How this could spell trouble for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy in 2022, that's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

SCIUTTO: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy held separate meetings Tuesday with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy Mace, both Republicans, urging them to end their public feuding. Moderates fear this threatens their party's efforts to win back the majority next year.

CNN Political Commentator Ana Navarro joins me now. Anna, I want to begin with the anti-Muslim portion of these comments against Ilhan Omar. Our KFile Andrew Kaczynski has noted that Boebert did this not once but twice, uncovered video of her making the same kind of intimation that being on the elevator with Omar, she might be some sort of suicide bomber. Tough question, does that indicate that stations like this are not accidents or outliers but deliberate, in other words, that someone such as Boebert sees a political advantage in making such offensive comments about Muslims?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Of course, she does. Look, she was saying them in the middle of a political event. She was saying them in the middle of fundraising. And she uses it as some sort of lame, recycled standup routine to make people laugh. It is pathetic.

First, it's not funny. It's offensive. It's outrageous. But that's what these women live off, right, the Marjorie Taylor Greenes, the Boeberts, the bigot Barbies, as I call them, they live off outrage and offense and how do I get myself attention and in the lime light by saying something really offensive, ridiculous and stupid.

SCIUTTO: So, speaking of offensive and ridiculous and stupid, I want to talk about another portion of these very public and sometimes juvenile exchanges, and that is Marjorie Taylor Greene took aim at Congresswoman Mace, also a Republican, Mace had criticized Boebert's comments about Muslims, claiming that Mace is pro-abortion. I want to play some sound here relevant to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): I was raped when I was 16, Neil. I dropped out of school and it had a devastating impact on my life. And most of America agrees with me on the protections for victims of incest and victims of rape. And I'm quite frankly have a zero tolerance policy for people, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who thinks 9/11 is a hoax and has been lying about my record and others.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Note the amazing offensiveness of this, that Greene appears to be calling Mace pro-abortion because the congresswoman noted there she was raped when she was in college. This is a remarkable depth to go to. I just -- is there a bottom to this?

NAVARRO: No, there is not. Look, and I think Republicans, Republican donors, Republican-elected officials, Republican voters have to look at themselves in the -- and ask can they still call themselves the party of family values, the party of Christian values and look other way as these (INAUDIBLE) have no bottom. They're all in a contest of limbo rock. How low can they go? You have got Paul Gosar tweeting out violent animes against Joe Biden and killing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You've got Lauren Boebert being an Islamophobe all over the place, Marjorie Taylor Greene going after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, going after the 13 Republicans who voted for a bipartisan infrastructure bill, going after Nancy Mace. And you've got Ted Cruz trying to fight with anybody who will listen and who's got a pulse in hopes of getting some attention. It is pathetic. It is unseemly. It has no place in Congress.

Listen, Jim, you've got kids. If your kids were behaving this way at school, the principal would call them, would call you and they'd probably be suspended or expelled. If they were behaving this way in any other workplace, if there was this level of toxicity and threats to colleagues, they would be fired, and rightly so. There's got to be an end to this happening in Congress. Children are watching. The world is watching, and these people are behaving like if they were raised by wolves.

SCIUTTO: Listen, I have to deliberately sensor those comments from my children, to hear it or read it, because of the level of offensiveness.

[10:55:06]

NAVARRO: And you know what's very worrying -- I mean, Jim, let's think about this. We've heard the death threats against Ilhan Omar. We've heard on tape, the voicemails, the death threats against the 13 Republicans that voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Just this week, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell's office in Dearborn, Michigan, was broken into and vandalized.

What needs to happen? What more violence needs to happen for Kevin McCarthy to grow a backbone and put this under control? Or is he going to continue to be the pusillanimous coward held hostage by these out- of-control banshees? Is that what he's going to be? What's the point of being speaker and leader if you've got no leader and no spine?

SCIUTTO: We saw the violence on January 6th, and yet. Ana Navarro, thanks so much.

And thanks so much to all of you for joining today, a busy news day. I'm Jim Sciutto.

HILL: And I'm Erica Hill.

Stay tuned. At This Hour with Kate Bolduan comes your way after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]