Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Mark Meadows Stops Cooperating With January 6 Committee; President Biden Holds Call With President Putin. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 07, 2021 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:25]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Victor Blackwell. It is good to be with you.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: And I'm Alisyn Camerota.

Any moment now, the White House is expected to give a briefing on President Biden's two-hour-long video call today with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Here's the image of the call that was released just a short time ago, the White House also just issuing a statement, saying that President Biden -- quote -- "voiced the deep concerns of the United States and our European allies about Russia's escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine. And he made it clear that the U.S. and its allies would respond with strong economic and other measures in the event of military calculation -- escalation."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good to see you again.

Unfortunately, last time, I -- we didn't get to see one another at the G20. I hope, next time we meet, we do it in person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Well, satellite images show the buildup of Russian troops along the Ukraine border. A top American general said 100,000 forces are already there. U.S. intelligence estimates that -- estimates, rather, that that number will grow to 175,000.

And according to sources, the Biden administration is now exploring ways to evacuate Americans from Ukraine if Russia invades. One policy expert said today it may be the most important foreign policy day so far in the Biden administration.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House. CNN's Matthew Chance is in Odessa, Ukraine.

Kaitlan, let's start with you and what more you know about this call between President Biden and President Putin.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, you talked about how this could be one of the biggest conversations that President Biden has had since he's taken office.

It's certainly seen that way inside the White House as a critical call that happened today for two hours and one minute with these leaders, as you just saw there, from the Russian side of things, the meeting happening virtually, where the two leaders could actually see each other, instead of just a phone call like typically you see in these world-to-world-leaders conversations.

And so far, we only have a readout from the White House of that call, in addition to them noting that it lasted for just over two hours. And the White House said in part that: "President Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. The two presidents tasked their teams to follow up. and the U.S. will do so in close coordination with allies and partners."

Now, that last sentence there is a reference to a call that we're also expecting President Biden to have this afternoon. And that is with the leaders of Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy to talk about what happened during their two hours of conversation, because, obviously, the big topic that they were talking about is that troop buildup on the Ukraine border.

You have heard government officials here in the United States say that their assessment so far is that Putin has not made a decision about whether or not to invade yet, though you could see from that troop buildup and you heard from the plan that the U.S. intelligence has assessed is that he's basically planning to do so should he make that decision.

And so the question for the White House is, how do they respond in case he does make that decision? And, clearly, they would like to do so in coordination with his European allies. But, also, can they deter him from doing so in the first place?

And I think that is where they talk about the strong economic measures that they're prepared to take. That's the White House sending a warning sign to the Russian leader. And whether or not he listens, of course, is going to be the big question.

CAMEROTA: Matthew, what's the Russian version of how this call went?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, what Vladimir Putin wants very much from this video call -- and the expectation is that this is what he's done -- is to set out directly to President Biden what Russia's red line is, namely, that it does want -- it wants legal guarantees that the NATO military alliance will not expand any further eastwards towards Russia's borders.

It's been a national security concern inside Russia for a long time. But it's really come to the fore in the mind of the Kremlin or the Kremlin leader over the course of the past several weeks. Not just NATO membership does he want ruled out for Ukraine, but he also wants an end to the deployment of what he calls NATO military infrastructure to Ukraine, missile systems, sophisticated weapons, things like that. He doesn't want NATO -- sorry -- Ukraine turning into some kind of

forward operating base for NATO countries. And so these are what President Putin says that he wants from the United States and its allies. He denies, of course, the Kremlin denies that it's planning any kind of invasion.

But U.S. intelligence indicating the Ukrainians saying the same thing as well, that there's tens of thousands of Russian forces building up near the borders of Ukraine, and, obviously, it's a big stick that Vladimir Putin holds if potentially he doesn't get what he wants.

[14:05:00]

And so the reason this is such an important diplomatic meeting for President Biden is because, depending on what he says to the Russian leader will determine perhaps whether the very real military tensions in this region ratchet up even further, or whether they de-escalate from here on in.

CAMEROTA: OK, Kaitlan, Matthew Chance, . thank you both very much.

Let's turn now to Jim Sciutto. He's our CNN chief national security correspondent. Susan Glasser is CNN global affairs analyst and a staff writer at "The New Yorker." Great to see both of you.

Jim, I know you have been doing a lot of reporting on this. Obviously, until we get the statement, I mean, actually a press conference from the White House, we won't know exactly what was said. But we can assume that President Biden spelled out the consequences of more aggression to Vladimir Putin.

And so what do we think those are?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: So the readout from the call from the White House, which are always tea leaves, right -- there's not a lot of detail in there -- does say that he spelled out both economic and other consequences.

The economic consequences, we know from CNN reporting that that would mean really a higher level of sanctions designed to really hit Putin's inner circle, go after their money, in effect, the billions that they have spirited away overseas, but also, potentially, if the administration goes this far, would seek to consequentially penalize Russian businesses, energy producers, for instance, keep them from raising debt on international markets.

That kind of thing matters. That would have consequences. The other measures, we don't know how far the president went when -- we know the U.S. is not talking about sending ground forces to Ukraine. It's not a treaty ally. But there is the possibility of positioning more NATO forces among Eastern NATO allies, which Russia, frankly, doesn't like.

On the good side, I will say this. Reading the readout, the couple of things that looked like vaguely positive signs is, one, that they assigned follow-up discussions to lower level working groups, a sign that you're at least talking, right, and also that they talked about this big picture process called strategic stability.

This was one of the results of their summit in Geneva earlier this year, a way to kind of normalize the relationship and normalize back and forth on things.

Now, if that discussion leads you down a path to diplomacy, as opposed to tit-for-tat escalation, that's positive, but we got a long way to go to see if that actually happens.

BLACKWELL: Susan, let's talk about these potential sanctions against Russia, also against those, as Jim says, around Putin, the oligarchs, those who are close to him. They matter.

But Russia has faced sanctions for how many years now? They have not served as a deterrent. Any indication that more economic sanctions will keep Putin from crossing that border?

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes, look, I think there are definitely stronger tools in the toolkit that the United States has that they have hesitated to use.

But you're exactly right, Victor. It's been since 2014, when Putin illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine and essentially began supporting the low-grade conflict in Eastern Ukraine that continues to this day. There have been sanctions by the United States and its European partners ever since then.

I remember so vividly officials back in the Obama administration hoping that they would find some sort of off-ramp. That was the phrase they kept using for Putin at that time. Obviously, he didn't take the off-ramp, years worth of sanctions. He was thrown out of what was then the G8 and then became the G7 as a result of that. Didn't stop him from taking that action then.

So, I have spoken with very senior former officials who say it is definitely possible to inflict more pain than the U.S. has been willing to on Putin and his inner circle with kind of much more stringent sanctions, but I think one should be skeptical.

The other point, though, that's important for people to understand, this is a completely manufactured crisis, manufactured by the Kremlin, it seems in part to get this summit. I can't state that enough. NATO was not about to offer membership to Ukraine this year, any more than it was in the last several years.

And this is -- again, it seems to me that Vladimir Putin wanted to have this summit with Joe Biden and has chosen a very maximalist way to get it.

CAMEROTA: And, Jim, I hear you responding to that. Is that what Putin's endgame is? Or does he want to reconstitute the Soviet Union in some form?

SCIUTTO: The truth is, the U.S. doesn't know, right? I have been speaking to folks for weeks about this. And the U.S. intelligence assessments have been dire, because they

have seen the force build up around the border. This is bigger than what happened in the spring. And Russia is layering it with capabilities that would allow it to invade in very swift form.

It's not just regular troops. They have got special forces. They have intelligence units. They have the KGB involved in what would be a whole political front to this, plans for assassinations in the Ukraine, right? Doesn't mean Putin is ordered that, but they have the capabilities there for a very swift and decisive invasion.

[14:10:00]

The question is, does Putin order that? And you basically -- I don't want to say you have a split, but you have folks who just say, honestly, I don't know if he's going to go ahead. He has the ability to. He very well could. But this might again be brinksmanship.

And, to Susan's point, I mean, Russia has been compared to the mob before with that classic pattern of they create a problem, then offer to fix it. And this would be in that category, right? They have got this massive buildup and say, OK, we won't invade, but we really got to talk about this NATO thing, which, as the NATO secretary-general told me last week, is like, that's not Russia's decision.

It's Ukraine's decision and NATO allies' decision, whether or not it's a realistic possibility.

BLACKWELL: Susan, let's talk more about what you call this manufactured crisis and the timing of it.

2014, it was during the Obama administration, when Russia invaded Ukraine last time that President Biden -- he was the vice president then. Now, even after he had this friendly relationship with the Trump administration, this happens again when Biden is in the White House.

Can you help us understand the timing of why now staging 100,000 troops on the border and potentially invading, skipping what could have been a friendly period for President Putin?

GLASSER: Well, look, I mean, partially, in the United States, we tend to be very focused on what -- that we're at the center of all decisions.

And Vladimir Putin is acutely conscious of what's happening in Washington, but he's also focusing on what's happening in Moscow and what's happening in Europe, so a number of things right now. First of all, Vladimir Putin does face increasing skepticism at home, poll numbers dropping even within his very authoritarian political context.

He's engaged in a very significant crackdown domestically, arresting his main opponent, Alexei Navalny, political opponent. That is something to distract. That was also happening back in 2014. The other thing is that was happening in 2014 was Ukraine had a revolution and essentially threw out a very pro-Russia leader and turned in a way toward the West and toward NATO. And I think there's a sense that Putin, he may not want to recreate

the Soviet Union, but all things being equal, he's spoken of Ukraine as if it should be still a part of Russia, that to deny the legitimacy of this country makes it a key pillar of Putin's desire to stay in power and his rationale for leadership of the Russian people.

So that's a domestic political consideration. Also, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is leaving office. For the last more than a decade, she's been Putin's main interlocutor in Europe. This is a transition there, as well as the transition from Trump to Joe Biden here in the United States.

So all of those factors I think are playing into it. But, remember, Vladimir Putin's main goal is to stay in power in Russia and to distract from any signs of weakness at home or any signs that his model for Russia is weakening by, say, Ukraine, turning away from the Eastern sphere and looking West.

BLACKWELL: All right, Susan Glasser, Jim Sciutto, thank you both.

We know that National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan will be joining the briefing at the White House that's expected just in a few minutes. Of course, we will bring that to you live when it happens.

Former President Donald Trump's White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is no longer cooperating with the January 6 Select Committee. We will tell you what's behind this decision.

CAMEROTA: And a judge sets a trial date for former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in that contempt of Congress case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:17:59]

CAMEROTA: Major developments today in the investigation into the January 6 insurrection.

CNN has learned that Donald Trump's former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is no longer cooperating with the House select committee. And last week, he had agreed to some cooperation, but now his attorney says in a letter -- quote -- "Actions by the select committee have made such an appearance untenable. We now have every indication that the select committee has no intention of respecting boundaries concerning executive privilege."

Meanwhile, former Vice President Pence's Chief of Staff Marc Short does appear to be cooperating. He was subpoenaed a few weeks ago.

BLACKWELL: Also today, the DOJ and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon just wrapped up a court status hearing with very different ideas for how his contempt of Congress case should proceed.

The judge today scheduled Bannon's trial to begin on July 18. Now, the DOJ's wanted this to start in April. Bannon's attorneys wanted this to start in October. CNN political correspondent Sara Murray is with us live now.

So, let's start with Steve Bannon. And what more can you tell us about what came out of that hearing?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we have seen that Steve Bannon and his team want to drag this on for as long as possible.

The judge was not buying it. He was essentially like, I don't know why we need to wait until October to do this. He set a trial date for July 18. But it's worth noting that is still much later than what the government was hoping for there. That is still a blow to the government. It's still a blow to the committee that is trying to get information out of Steve Bannon or at least use him as an example to other witnesses to say, hey, look, defying these subpoenas is not going to work.

We're going to take you to court. We could hold you in criminal contempt. The fact that this is going to draw out through the summer certainly is not a plus as far as the committee would be concerned.

CAMEROTA: And, Sara, what about Mark Meadows? What do we know about his major reversal?

MURRAY: Well, it was a big deal when it looked like Mark Meadows was going to cooperate, he was going to sit for a deposition, he was handing over documents. Now this is a reversal.

His attorney wrote a letter essentially saying, look, we don't believe that this committee is going to respect our claims of executive privilege.

Obviously, the committee has made it very clear that they don't think that privilege exists, since it's being exerted by the former president, not the current president.

[14:20:08]

They also said there was this wide-ranging request for information that went to third-party communications providers. That, they're saying, is part of the reason that this relationship with a committee has deteriorated, and they say they no longer want to participate in a deposition. They might respond to some written questions, if that's the way the committee wants to go.

BLACKWELL: All right, Sara Murray in Washington, thank you.

Let's bring in our former U.S. attorney Harry Litman. He's also a legal affairs columnist for "The L.A. Times."

Harry, good to have you back.

Let's start with Mark Meadows and this 180 on cooperation. Part of the letter, they say, as Sara referenced there, that they made this about- face because the committee had issued wide-ranging subpoenas for information from a third-party communications provider.

What credence do you give this explanation from his attorney?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Credence? I mean, I don't -- that -- I think there's something of a pretext here. It happened. And they're worried.

Of course, Meadows has already given some 6,000 e-mails. But I take this, Victor, as a basic gambit. They're trying to change the rules, but without triggering a criminal contempt reference, because he's saying, I will still answer written questions. You're not respecting executive privilege.

But that really wasn't part of the original deal, and the law on that may change very soon. So I take this as a gambit for continued negotiations, and in the hope that it won't push the committee over the edge, because they do not want to lose Meadows' testimony. And Meadows and George Terwilliger, his lawyer, know that.

So there's a little -- this is a little bit of brinksmanship, I think.

CAMEROTA: Let's talk about Steve Bannon and what the judge did today in terms of timing.

LITMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: So the committee had wanted the trial to start as soon as possible. They had given the date of April. And then Bannon his lawyer wanted to push it as far as possible. They had given October.

So it seems like the judge split the difference and said, OK, July.

LITMAN: He did. That's a victory for Bannon too.

And Bannon also said, we need 10 days, and we have all these motions, and the government said they don't need any time and it's only one day. Look, Bannon has a different agenda, here to make a sort of media circus out of this. So far, at least as of today, the judge basically indulged him well enough.

But he's got to be careful. This is a very, very conservative judge. Nevertheless, no judge wants a defendant to be using his or her courtroom to make a media circus. And when might Bannon push him too far?

For now, though, this is a victory for Bannon that he split the difference, because -- and it will continue this way, because Bannon will always take the most extreme, crazy position, and splitting the difference will be for him, just taking him all the farther toward the midterms and the like.

BLACKWELL: All right, let's talk Marc Short now.

LITMAN: Yes.

BLACKWELL: This is the highest-level engagement yet or even possible, except for maybe the vice president himself, on his team, deciding to cooperate with the 1/6 commission, Marc Short, former chief of staff for the vice president.

Your perspective on the content of that cooperation and the context of it?

LITMAN: Yes, could be big.

First on the content, Victor, he gives them two big things. The first is the 6th itself. When he is with Pence, there's actually a picture of him there seeing a tweet where Trump is saying it's all Pence's fault. Trump has said: I checked and I knew Pence was safe.

I think Short will put the lie to that. Maybe even more importantly, he is in the Oval Office meeting on January 4 when John Eastman is hatching this ridiculous plot with Trump's support to try to undo the election. So, Short gives them that as well.

In general, since we're not going to really see the marquee players here, we're not going to see Pence, we're not going to see Trump, a guy like Short is sort of tailor-made to set the table and be a pretty high-level witness who has both access and credibility. He has been with Pence forever.

And I think it looks as if not just he, but team Pence, including their legal counsel, may in fact be cooperating in a real way and giving -- and giving tough evidence against Trump.

CAMEROTA: Really interesting.

Harry Litman, thank you.

LITMAN: Thanks, Alisyn. Thanks, Victor.

CAMEROTA: OK, COVID cases are on the rise again. And New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is responding to criticism over his vaccine mandate for the private sector, how he plans to enforce it, next.

BLACKWELL: And here's what else to watch today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:29:57]

BLACKWELL: COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths are rising again across this country.

The Omicron variant has now been found in at least 19 states.