Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Panel Asks Supreme Court to Deny Trump Request to Shield Records; Biggest Economic Threats in 2022; Dow Flat on Final Trading Day of 2021. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired December 31, 2021 - 09:30   ET

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

JOHN HARWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Came out and said, "Well, I laid out my demands. He didn't meet them. Therefore, we're going to move."

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, that's a great point, John. All right. Thanks very much. Happy New Year, friend.

HARWOOD: Same to you.

HARLOW: Joining me now to discuss is former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, John herps. He served as us ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006. And now, serves as the Senior Director of the Atlanta council's Eurasia center. It's great to have you, Ambassador, and thank you. Let's start there. President Biden told Putin, "Look, if the troop buildup continues, we're going to impose new sanctions. We're going to enhance the U.S. presence in the region, increase assistance to Ukraine. A Kremlin official says what John just reported, any new sanctions would be a colossal mistake. Do you read that response from Russia as Putin actually being concerned about what the U.S. could do to it with further sanctions and economically?

JOHN HERBST, SENIOR DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC COUNCIL'S EURASIA CENTER: Putin is hugely concerned about it. And in fact, that's exactly what that statement represents. And the Russian threats that this will rupture relations between Russia and United States means far less to us than it does to Mister Putin.

HARLOW: So when you talk about breakthroughs, I mean, the call yesterday did not per se accomplish any major breakthroughs, but it is telling in the way that you just laid it out. You've said something interesting. You've said it's time for Washington to cut the happy talk. What does the U.S. need to do as diplomats head into those talks on January the 10th?

HERBST: Look, Biden has done a solid job with the Russian relationship. It could be better. He's been weak on cyber, as I mentioned that article, but his reaction both in the spring and the fall to the Russian buildup on Ukraine's border has been the best we've seen since began to March in Eurasia, first to Georgia in 2008, and then Ukraine in 2014. And that's why in the spring, Putin pulled back. But because Putin did route rather well and pushing Biden non- cyber, he's tried it again now in the fall. And this time, it's gone on for two and a half months. And it's probably going to continue longer. He's going to see if he could somehow reach some concessions from us in response to this crisis that he himself has created. Biden's position has been a strong one and that's good. It could be stronger, but it's still good. And I don't think our negotiators going to give handover what Russia wants in the talks coming in Geneva.

HARLOW: You are one of 24 experts and former senior officials who signed onto a letter published just yesterday by the Atlanta council. And it offers ideas on how to try to deter Moscow from escalating aggressions against Ukraine. Let me read part of that letter. It says, "Moscow appears to be setting the stage for launching a major conventional assault on Ukraine. A Kremlin officials said President Biden told Putin, the U.S. does not intend to deploy offensive weapons to Ukraine." The letter also says, "The most important thing that west can do now is to enhance the deterrence strength of Ukraine's armed forces. And that made me think of the piece that you published in the national interest earlier this week, in which you said, it's time for Washington to boost its force posture in the region now. What do you think Washington needs to do that it's not?

HERBST: First, the weapons the Ukraine -- The additional -- We provide Ukraine a lot of military support. But the additional weapons that we've been threatening should not wait until Russia invades with 100,000 additional troops. It should happen now to deter such an invasion. Also, on the Biden Administration as smartly said that NATO will increase its force posture in the east, in the Baltic States and Poland if Russia invades. Well, in fact, that should happen now. As in Putin should see that when he ups the ante, we respond with strength, because we are much stronger whether it's from a military or an economic point of view than Russia. And if we take advantage of that strength, we went without a war, without any increase in Kremlin aggression. It's when we dawdle, which we've done in the past that Putin decides to take a slice of Ukraine. And that's what we want to prevent.

HARLOW: How does the Nord Stream to gas pipeline that is done, and full, and ready for the spigots to be turned on, if you will? How does that play into all of this? Because it appears to me listening to the White House, Jake Sullivan a few weeks ago, essentially saying, "Well, it gives us a lot of leverage because if they invade Ukraine, you know, the west will cut it off." And Russia sees it the other way as it having leveraged because the thing is completely.

HERBST: I think that the administration's decision to waive sanctions on North Stream 2 was one of the great foreign policy mistakes. And in fact, we've seen it an increasingly weak White House position on this subject. Sullivan said not long ago, "Well, if Russia goes into Ukraine, they may lose North Stream 2." He's even questioning -- He's easily quibbling about that. We've shown weakness throughout on the subject. We've given Russia 11 --

HARLOW: Sorry to interrupt. I was surprised that the Biden Administration did not act on North Stream 2. I just wonder why you think that was.

[09:35:08] HERBST: I am surprised as well. So I thought he was going to be tough across the board on Kremlin nastiness. I believe they did it most importantly, because they want it to improve the relationship with Germany. I don't think we needed to do that in order to improve the relationship with Germany. That was their principle calculation. But sadly, they also played this as a gesture to Moscow. And this was a serious additional mistake. The decision on waivers took place the day that Blinken and Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister met to plan the Geneva summit. That was very clearly a signal to the Kremlin. And they took it as a sign of weakness, which sadly it is. But again, they had been response to Russian aggression Ukrainian by the Biden Administration has overall been the best we have seen.

HARLOW: OK. Ambassador John Herbst, it's really nice to have you. And thanks so much for your insight. Up next, the January 6th committee asks the Supreme Court to deny Former President Trump's efforts to keep his White House documents secret. But could his inaction on that deadly day make him criminally liable? A former us attorney joins us live to weigh in.

[09:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: The January 6th committee and the Biden Administration are asking the Supreme Court to deny Former President Trump's efforts to shield more than 700 pages of records related to the deadly Capitol riot. Some of the documents in dispute are from the day of the insurrection, White House visitors' logs, call logs, handwritten notes from former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, Last week, a lower court ruled against Trump's lawyers who would argue that the record should remain secret. Let's go to our law enforcement correspondent with me, Wild. She joins me now. So the January 6th committee Whitney is asking the Supreme Court to act quickly. How quickly?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, they like to see at least some resolution in the next couple of weeks. At a minimum, Poppy, they're asking that the Supreme Court hear these arguments by January 14th. So let's break down everything that's going on here. So this newest filing from the house and the Biden administration, both on the same page here. And what they're arguing here is that lower courts have ruled correctly when they pointed out that the Trump team has not articulated a specific harm that would arise from releasing these records. The Trump team has made a list of arguments.

One of them, Poppy, is basically that the former president just has a right to executive privilege. And that's basically the end of it. They haven't said why releasing these documents would be specifically even though judges have sort of tried to lead them there. They've questioned them saying, OK, well, if these records get released, what's going to be the results? And they haven't articulated, again, a specific concrete harm that would override the interest from the House Select Committee in getting these records. The House Select Committee filing basically says this, again, that the lower courts were correct when they sided with them. In their filing, they said generalized interest in confidentiality must yield to the select committees, overwhelming need for the records at issue. Poppy, further, here is what one of those House Select Committee Member, Zoe Lofgren, said on CNN Thursday. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZOE LOFGREN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: It's clear, obviously, that the former president's main effort is to delay. He doesn't have a case. If he can delay it, he thinks he will win. So I'm hopeful the court will see right through that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILD: Poppy, the impact here could be enormous because there just isn't a lot of definitive case law to dictate how this should go. So these will be consequential cases. And again, the house select committee, hoping that there's going to be some signal from the Supreme Court that they're at least going to take this by January 14th.

HARLOW: Because they don't have to. They don't have to take it at all, so we'll watch very closely. Wild, happy New Year. Thank you so much.

WILD: Happy New Year to you.

HARLOW: Joining me now to discuss is Former U.S. Attorney, Harry Litman. Harry, great to see you. How important is it for the Select Committee to get an answer either way pretty soon?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, what they really want is the right answer. So there's not going to be that -- What they've requested is that the court consider the request on the papers on their conference on January 14th. The hope here is the court will just say, the lower courts were right. We don't need to weigh in. And at that point, they're good to go. As of say, January 30th, it's all over for Trump. And the administrator just turns over the records. Even if the court takes the case, they're still barely enough time for them to hear it and decide by June. And then within a very quick scramble, they could still use the records if they do receive them.

And there are two issues in the case. It's not just what the harm could be, but it's this whole issue of does Biden make the call when he is clearly said so here? And that would be the issue that the court would be the siding. But when here matters almost as much as what, and the first focus is getting them not to take the case saying it's not worth their time. It's fairly settled and doing it by say four weeks from now.

HARLOW: Yes. Let's talk about more broadly the January 6th House Select Committee investigation there. So it's this really interesting op-ed in the Los Angeles times title, "Do Trump's January 6th sins of omission and commission make him criminally liable?" Let me just read people part of this quote. "Even if Trump anticipated merely a peaceful rally at the Capitol on January 6th, his role in setting a deadly insurgency in motion arguably means he could not legally decline to intervene as if he were just an accidental bystander." Goes on to say, "Trump's criminal liability isn't only dependent on the fact that inaction can sometimes break the law. He's vulnerable to an even more potent charge, aiding and abetting criminal behavior." [09:45:21] Now, for the President's part, he said earlier this month

on Fox, I wasn't involved in that. And if you look at my words and what I said on the speech, they were extremely calming, actually. Not exactly correct, but that's what the President says. I find this question of aiding and abetting fascinating. What do you think?

LITMAN: Yes. Let me start here. Aiding and abetting feels to a lot of us, like, kind of criminal liability light. It's not. The federal law is really clear. You aid and abet, that's the same as a principal. So that's for starters. Then how do you aid and abet? You do it by encouraging with the right mental attitude. In other words, when he's there, he's trying to rev them up. And then thereafter, right, we know it goes over three hours when all his closest associates are screaming -- well screaming at Mark Meadows, because nobody can get to Trump, make him stop this, and he does nothing. That under the law, the so- called inaction really is action. And it is action logically too. The people are there. They're saying, "Trump sent us," they're buoyed by being let loose and nobody's stopping them. And that's the real impact of what he was doing. Under the law, the criminal charge is solid. Now, that big saber has been rattled by the committee starting with Cheney. And it means that they would be on solid ground and making a referral. What happened thereafter at the Department of Justice, that would be huge headache for Merrick Garland.

HARLOW: Let's talk about that. Let's talk about what would happen there, because -- And I think it's important to note, you don't need a criminal referral to DOJ from this committee for DOJ to move forward. They can do it without a referral from the committee. But if there was a criminal referral of the former president to the committee, given that DOJ so far has not prosecuted any political figures for the insurrection, what does that indicate to you regarding whether Attorney General Garland would charge Trump?

LITMAN: Yes. So your point is really well-taken, Poppy, because when the department knows it's getting in, you know, before the criminal referral, arguably the house was the victim. And that made them their referral more weighty. Here, it wouldn't carry any extra weight on paper, because they'd be saying, we have this information. We're investigating. Thank you very much. But it would carry extra weight, I think, sort of politically and then the whole dynamic. And I just want to say, you know, the New York -- New Years of focusing event for all of us, for the committee who wants to hold public hearings on five separate topics, and issue an interim report, and litigate all these things, and maybe go after their colleagues, they are now having to be in an all out sprint. And adding to it, the possibility of a criminal referral for the former president, there's not going to be a lot of sleeping by their very big and competent staff over the next few months.

HARLOW: All right. Harry Litman, thank you so much. Wishing you all good healthy New Year.

LITMAN: Yes. Happy New Year.

HARLOW: You, too. Between the pandemic and the supply chain, the U.S. economy has overcome some serious challenges, still grappling with some serious challenges still. What is the New Year going to look like? One of the biggest threats to this recovery ahead.

[09:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: The Dow pretty flat this morning, final trading day of 2021. The U.S. economy is heading into the New Year with some momentum, but it could be the fastest year of GDP growth in decades. Inflation though, big concern. Supply chai remains a huge concern. Just this morning, Ikea announced it would raise prices 9% on average at it stores around the world to compensate for increased costs on transportation and raw materials. Matt Egan joins us now. Matt, you've outlined the five biggest risks to economic recovery in 2022. What are they?

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Poppy, again, first, we have to acknowledge the economy is ending the year in pretty good shape. Jobless claims near the lowest levels of 52 years. Unemployment down to 4.2%. GDP expected to pick up. And the hope is the U.S. could get back to full employment in 2022. But it's also important to outline some of the risks, not to be pessimistic, just to be cognizant of what could go wrong. And we've got to start obviously with COVID. Hopefully, Omicron is short-lived, if not or if it's scarier variant emerges, that would obviously cause problems with the recovery. Supply chains, the Delta variant got workers sick. That added pressure to inflation and supply chains. Will Omicron do the same? It's too early to say. Inflation, the cost of living is very high. Many expected to cool off next year. Let's hope so because it's eating into the cost of living for people and eating into their paychecks. That fed is taking the training wheels off the economy, planning to raise interest rates, that makes sense. The risk is that it moves too fast and that endangers the recover.

And then the federal government, Washington after pumping in trillions of dollars of help, that help is going away. Again, that makes sense. But that is going to be a headwind for the economy. And Poppy, you know, lastly, we've got to think about sort of this surprise events, whether that's a massive cyberattack, or some sort of a natural disaster, or something else. Because remember, you know, many people in - very few people in 2018 or 2019, we're talking about the risk of a global pandemic wrecking the economy. And now, that's all we're talking about.

HARLOW: I'm really interested, Matt, in what you think -- how you think this economy and COVID over the last years has may be me fundamentally changed our economy.

[09:55:34] EGAN: Well, it has. I mean, I think that it's really forced government and businesses to adapt to -- Just this new reality, I think it's really put so much more attention on how important supply chains are. And it's also, unless the situation where workers have so much more leverage right now in terms of the balance of power between bosses and workers. You know, we've seen a record number of people quitting their jobs, we've seen wages go up, and companies are desperate to hire. And all of that has been really good for the jobs market, but it's also led to some inflation. HARLOW: Yes, that's true. I think the year of the worker for sure is

what this year has been. Matt Egan, thanks. You've helped guide us through all of it all year. We really appreciate it. Have a happy and healthy New Year.

EGAN: Thank you, Poppy.

HARLOW: Speaking of the New Year, the boys are back. These guys join Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen. They are hosting CNN New Year's Eve live from Times Square tonight. The party starts 8:00 PM Eastern right here on CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]