Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Congress contempt case against Meadows; Mitch McConnell; Vaccines against Omicron Variant; Derek Chauvin changing plea; President Biden to travel to Kentucky. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 15, 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]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: For criminal contempt of Congress. The House voted overnight to recommend that the DOJ pursue criminal charges against Trump's former Chief of Staff. This after Meadows stopped cooperating with the January 6 committee. Meadows did hand over thousands of documents including communications before suddenly defying the panel's subpoena to testify.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: President Biden was just asked about Meadows in the last hour as he was leaving the White House on his way to Kentucky to survey the storm damage there. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSEPH BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know enough of what - just what I have seen. I have not spoken to anyone. It seems to me he's worthy of being held in contempt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So the documents handed over by Meadows are shining a light on these text messages, right. A number of them sent by currently unidentified sitting lawmakers which reveal a plan to overturn the election, Joe Biden's win. That plan was already in the works as early as November fourth, the day after Election Day.

Joining us now to discuss; CNN's Senior Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid and CNN's Chief Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju who's on Capitol Hill this morning.

So, Paula, as we wait to se, right, what the DOJ decides to do and how long it will take to learn of that decision there are these texts from lawmakers to Meadows. And specifically one from November fourth that has really stood out in terms of what it laid out in the hours after the election.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely and let's take a step back here for the full context. Before he stopped suddenly cooperating, Meadows handed over 9,000 pages of records to the committee. Now it's been interesting over the past three days to watch the House Select Committee take a more aggressive stance really sharing a lot more about what they learned specifically from Meadows. And before the vote last night the committee revealed more messages including this one you just referenced from November fourth. Now the day after the election a member suggested to Meadows a quote "Aggressive strategy for Republic led states legislatures to just send their own electors to Congress then let the Supreme Court decide who won the election".

That's the day after the election a member of Congress suggesting that they disenfranchise millions of voters. No there's another text message from last night to Meadows urging him to move their conversation. The conversation between him and a member of Congress to Signal, an encrypted app suggesting that there are a lot of records, a lot of messages that potentially this committee does not have.

And again all of the things that we've heard about over the past several days and weeks, these are things that Meadows has handed over voluntarily. Really makes you wonder what he could potentially be withholding. Now there have been a lot of questions about why lawmakers have not been named. They named "Fox News" hosts, the President's son but they did not name the lawmakers who were sending these messages.

Now who better to ask the important questions than our own colleague, Manu, who pressed the committee on this yesterday. And he was told that within a week or so they will consider whether to release these names. They wanted to get the context out, they said, before releasing the names; so definitely though some more potential news to come out of this committee related to these messages.

SCIUTTO: Manu, just two Republicans; Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, of course both members of the January 6 Committee voted for this Meadows contempt resolution along with Democrats. Seven had actually voted for Steve Bannon's referral. I mean neither number particularly large. But do they explain their differences between one vote and the other?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well we heard very little from those members. But we do - a lot of them were siding with their former colleague and indicated that this was different than what happened with Steve Bannon. Of course Bannon at the time was not a member of the administration. Mike Meadows on January sixth was the White House Chief of Staff.

But the Republican leadership made clear they wanted all of their members on the House side to vote no. They recommended a no vote. Just two you mentioned, Kinzinger and Cheney, members of the committee were the only ones who voted to go forward with this contempt referral. But the seven others who voted for Steve Bannon's contempt referral they voted no including several of those who also voted to impeach Donald Trump.

Someone like a John Katko of New York, someone like Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, all --or Jaime Herrar Beutler of Washington State, all of whom were a part of that 10 who voted to impeach Donald Trump. Now at the same time there are a lot of question about who these Republican lawmakers were who were in contact with Mark Meadows on January sixth. Yesterday I had a chance to ask the Republican Leader of the Senate,

Mitch McConnell, about whether he was in contact with Mark Meadows. And he made clear he has interest in learning more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: You were learning from the House Select Committee that a number of Republicans had reached out to Mark Meadows asking for Donald Trump to get more involved and do more on January 6 to secure this building. Were you personally in contact with Mark Meadows that day and other White House officials to urge to Trump to do more?

MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER: I was not but I do think we're all watching, as you are, what is unfolding on the House side. And it will be interesting to reveal all the participants who were involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:05:00]

MANU: So interesting comments from the Republican Leader there because unlike other Republicans, top Republicans who have criticized this committee contending it's a partisan witch hunt and made to go after Donald Trump even though there are two Republicans who sit on that committee. Mitch McConnell sounding more open to learning about it.

And also McConnell was instrumental in killing that outside commission that would have investigated what happened here that would have been split evenly between the two sides. And as a result because of his posture and Kevin McCarthy's posture on the House side ultimately this is why the House Select Committee formed led by Democrats was formed to investigate this going forward.

But interesting comments from the Republican Leader in the Senate who has of course criticized Donald Trump for his role on January 6 has not backed away from that criticism. Hasn't said much about Donald Trump in the last several months. But clearly wants to learn what this committee finds out.

HILL: Yes and who also, as has been noted a number of times this morning, he chooses his words carefully and he decides when he wants to answer a question.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HILL: So the fact that he was giving you that answer, Manu, also speaks volumes. Manu Raju, Paula Reid appreciate it. Thank you, both.

Joining us now, CNN Chief Legal Analyst and former Federal Prosecutor, Jeffrey Toobin along with Republican Strategist, Alice Stewart. So, Jeff, looking at where we stand this morning, look there are a lot of questions about is the DOJ going? How long could that take? We're going to have to wait that out, is the bottom-line. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

HILL: But when you look at the cases that are being laid out here methodically by Liz Cheney, specifically yesterday and Monday. What more do you anticipate is coming? Because this it would seem is really sort of the tip of the iceberg.

TOOBIN: It is - if I can just make one comment first about what President Biden said?

HILL: Yes.

TOOBIN: He shouldn't say that. You know the Democrats criticize President Trump for years for interring with Justice Department decisions. There is no reason for President Biden to say that this looks like contempt to him. He should leave those decisions to the Department of Justice.

However it does look like this investigation has a long way to go and there are potentially lot more prosecutions. And the evidence that came out this week only adds to that. Two federal judges this week said that the obstruction of justice statute does apply to the attempt to interfere with - on January sixth. That raises the question of not only the people who were inside the Capitol, the people who were actively disrupting, but the people who were trying to influence in perhaps in a corrupt way the Justice Department - the members of Congress from certifying the election.

That raises the question of what were the people in the - in the famous Willard War Room doing? And even Mark Meadows and people in the White House.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Yes.

TOOBIN: The scope of potential liability has only grown.

SCIUTTO: Alice, I wonder as you see more and more evidence; explicit text messages between sitting Republican lawmakers going back to November fourth mentioning this - detailing a plan, right, to overturn the election. It says straight up as Paula was recounting there. Just reject the electors from these half a dozen states that didn't go the President's way here.

Do the Republican Party need to be policing itself on this, right? I mean clearly there's very little political appetite in the House but should they be looking in to say, what were you up to here? I mean I know that's probably a pie in the sky idea given the partisan nature of politics today.

But what's your view, you're a long time Republican?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Right, Jim, and there are a lot of long time Republicans like myself who have faith in the election process and do believe Joe Biden was a duly elected President and did support a peaceful transfer of power. And did oppose the insurrection at the Capitol. That's important to stress to people looking on the outside.

But there are a lot of Trump supporters who question all of that and didn't believe the election results and do think that the questioning and challenging the certification of the election was the right thing to do.

Moving forward, at the end of the day, we need to find out exactly how this insurrection happened, who was responsible and make sure this doesn't happen again. And this is not a political issue, this is - right now it's a legal issue. And the goal here is to find out who was responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power.

And looking at these texts that we have seen from Mark Meadows, I see this as certainly undisputable evidence. But what this shows me is that not that he did anything criminal or he did anything legally wrong. This demonstrates that he simply did not have the influence to pressure the President to stop and quell these protestors at the time this was happening.

And I don't see that as a crime. That just goes to show he is not quite as influential as many Chief of Staffs would have. And that's what we need to look at moving forward. I do appreciate the fact he has cooperated by producing documents. Whether or not this means that he will eventually speak I seriously doubt that.

HILL: But to follow-up on one point that Jim was asking about, Alice, specifically when we're dealing with these unnamed lawmakers I'm curious in your conversations with folks there in D.C. how concerned are people this morning that those names are going to come out?

[10:10:00]

Some of those folks may not care if their name comes out. But how much concern is there even within the Party about their texts - the senders of those text, excuse me, being revealed?

STEWART: That's a good question there. I have spoken with several of them over the last several days and they have all checked their old texts to see exactly if they texted Mark Meadows during this time period and what exactly they were. A lot them that did actually text with him during that time it was things absolutely nothing to do with this.

But those that are involved they are concerned that what is going to happen is that the Democrats will do death by a thousand paper cuts and subpoena and drag this out closer to election and use this more as an election tool against Republicans who communicated with Mark Meadows.

That's where we run into the challenge of taking something that is truly important from a political standpoint and an American democracy standpoint of who is responsible for trying to stop the certification of the election. And using important information as a political tool to use against a Republican in the midterm elections. That's where a lot of them are concerned. But that right there goes to show that the motives are not where they should be.

TOOBIN: It's kind of surreal to suggest that Democrats are stretching this out when no one from the White House is cooperating. And practically no one close to the President is even agreeing to testify so they have to go to court to force people to testify. It's not Democrats who are stretching this out. They are trying to get the facts and it's actually all the people connected to Trump who are not cooperating and stretching this out.

STEWART: I agree with Jeffrey, we need to get to the facts, we need all of the information out there. My point was we are hearing from Democrats that they have more texts, they have more information. Let's put it out there. Let's get it all out there, let's have everyone answer to what their communication was with Mark Meadows and let's move on.

Because, look, Democrats may think this is a winning issue for them. I can tell you Republicans are ready to move forward and talk about the economy and jobs and other issues. The Independents are really frustrated with the 9/11 Commission.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Except - except of the head of the Party, he's not willing to move on from the 2020 Election. He's still claiming falsely that it was stolen.

But, Jeffrey, from a criminal perspective here, Liz Cheney is deliberately using language from the criminal code that gets at obstruction, that gets at, from her point of view, that the President not acting that day, right. At a minimum not acting that day to quell this - would put him in criminal exposure. Just briefly, we don't have much time. But is that possible?

TOOBIN: It is definitely possible. And remember there is potentially a lot more than simply the President silence. Who was he talking to? And President Trump is not a demure person. He was undoubtedly in-touch with various people.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Yes.

TOOBIN: What was he saying to them? Was he encouraging them? Given all his public statements, I mean given what he said on the Ellipse at the speech about how we, you know, you can't be weak, you have to be strong, you have to fight. I mean all of that suggest a very active role in what went on on January sixth.

SCIUTTO: Jeff Toobin, Alice Stewart thank so much to both of you. I'm sure we'll have many more opportunities to discuss this investigation.

As we have mentioned, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says that he is interested as well to learn which Republican lawmakers sent those texts to Meadows. This week marks exactly one year since he last spoke with President Trump and recognized President Biden's victory.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITCH MCCONNELL, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: The Electoral College has spoken. So today I want to congratulate President Elect Joe Biden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: McConnell is already facing criticism from the pro-Trump wing of the party. Several GOP candidates for Senate have made voting him out of leadership now part of their platform. CNN's Chris Cillizza has a piece about that right now on CNN.com. So walk us through how real this morning is that threat actually for Mitch McConnell, Chris?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORT AND EDITOR AT LARGE: Sure, Erica. OK let's start with what we definitely know. Point one, Donald Trump does not like Mitch McConnell. He has gone after him a many number of times. Point two, Donald Trump has tried to recruit someone within the Senate to challenge Mitch McConnell for that leadership role and so far has been unsuccessful.

So what's he doing now? Well Kelly Tshibaka who is the Republican running against Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Senator in Alaska, came out on Monday and said, if I'm elected I will not vote for Mitch McConnell to be the next leader. Now she is not the first Republican candidate to say that. Eric Greiten, former Missouri Governor, left office very controversially, he said back in September he too would not vote for McConnell if he wins.

Now why does this matter? Well there isn't an obviously rival to Mitch McConnell right now. That's why Mitch McConnell is Mitch McConnell. He's done a really good job at sort of beating back any potential people who are going to beat him in a leadership race.

[10:15:00]

But what is worrisome for him is if this becomes a sort of Trumpian litness test (ph) there's races in Ohio, in North Carolina, in Pennsylvania. Senate races where if it becomes necessary to secure Donald Trump's endorsement or keep Donald Trump from attacking you to say I won't vote for Mitch McConnell if I am elected. Well then if Republicans have a good year and Mitch McConnell is in a position to be Majority Leader, well now if you have four, five, six incoming Senators who say I'm not going to vote for him it doesn't mean he can't win -

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Right.

CILLIZZA: -- but it complicates it. And I think that's the concern if you're Mitch McConnell. Now he's good at this stuff, Jim, you know, he's able, he sees this coming down the pike. But Trump is out to get him and this is a way to make it happen.

SCIUTTO: Yes. HILL: Yes.

SCIUTTO: Notable.

HILL: One more thing to watch, right, as we head into 2022. Chris Cillizza, good to see this morning, thanks.

CILLIZZA: Thank you. You too.

HILL: Still to come, the first set of data from U.S. researchers on the Omicron variant expected today. So just how well do our current vaccines work when pitting against this new variant.

SCIUTTO: Plus, this hour former Minneapolis Police Officer, Derek Chauvin is set to appear in court. He's expected to plead guilty now to violating George Floyd's civil rights. Will the potentially change his sentence. And later President Biden on his way to Kentucky to see, first-hand, the devastation from the deadly tornadoes there. We're going to take you there live just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

SCIUTTO: Next hour we do expect to learn long anticipated new data about the efficacy of vaccines against the Omicron variant. According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, when we spoke to him yesterday, that data mostly confirms what has come from other countries. Right now Omicron accounts for nearly 3 percent of the virus circulating here in the U.S.

HILL: The Delta variant still accounts however for nearly all other cases that are being - positive cases that are coming out there. But there is new information as well about how the Moderna vaccine is responding to that specific strain, to the Delta strain.

So to work through all of this, let's being in CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. So let's start first with that new study. What do we know?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, like you said, we are going to hear more specifically about Omicron and the effectiveness these vaccines. But Delta is still the biggest concern. And so we do get - we do have some data from Moderna specifically about Delta. Looking at hospitalizations, looking at infections and we'll separate those out.

And look against hospital admission and what the vaccines were really to design to do to prevent severe illness, it remains very effective against Delta. That data sort of holds up. What a lot of people are paying attention to is this sort of waning of immunity when it comes to preventing infections overall.

So, you know, high in the first two months and then it wanes to about 80 percent after that. The larger story that is also a part of this as well is still the distinction between the vaccinated and unvaccinated overall. If you just look at hospitalizations of COVID patients and say OK let's separate out the unvaccinated from the vaccinated. Look this is a - this is a story that is being told with this graph. The green line is the vaccinated and the red line is the unvaccinated.

So as much as we are going to talk about Omicron and the distinctions between infection and severe illness and what the vaccines do that graph on the screen tells a really important story about what still needs to be done just in terms of getting people vaccinated in the first place.

SCIUTTO: Dr. Fauci told us yesterday morning that this new NIH data that's coming out in the hour will confirm most of what we know so far on Omicron. Based on that is Omicron just more transmissible or are there signs it also causes more severe or maybe less severe disease?

GUPTA: Well I think the first question you asked in terms of transmissibility, I think that that's become very clear that it is more transmissible.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GUPTA: I mean you can look at, as you're talking about in this country, look at how the percentages have changed just over a short time. It's still a small percentage. But if you look in the country overall, you look at what's happening in New York and New Jersey you see that it's gone from 2 percent to 13 percent of cases in that particular area as compared to two weeks ago.

You know a lot of times in science they'll look at doubling times. How quickly is the virus doubling in terms of its proportion. And, you know, with Delta it was doubling every couple of weeks. This seems to be doubling every few days. So I think that's - it's pretty clearly more transmissible.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Wow.

GUPTA: In terms of severity, I think it's early to tell but when we look at the South African data, because that's where you had a lot of the initial data, it does seem to be less severe. And by that you sort of look at the number of cases overall and you say what is the percentage of those people that are actually developing severe illness.

You remember early days of the pandemic we could say based on this number of infections we can anticipate this number of hospitalizations a few weeks later. That percentage, that proportion seems to be lower. Is that because the virus is actually causing less disease? Is that because there is some existing immunity in the population? Not sure.

But overall I think the news on severity of disease is better and that it doesn't cause as severe disease.

HILL: That's a good thing.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: That is good to hear.

HILL: I'll take it. I will take it.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: We will take it.

HILL: I will take that. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, appreciate as always, my friend, thank you.

GUPTA: You got it. Thank you.

HILL: Well soon President Biden will be landing in Kentucky. [10:25:00]

Of course he is there is there to survey the deadly tornado damage first-hand. Survivors working to rebuild after so much devastation and we're going to take you to Kentucky for a closer look next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: President Biden set to soon touchdown in Kentucky where he'll tour the extensive damage in that state that got left behind by those deadly tornadoes.

[10:30:00]

He is expected to be briefed at Fort Campbell before heading to some of the hardest hit areas; Mayfield and Dawson Springs.

SCIUTTO: Yes, you look at those communities here and they have -