Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Russia Tensions; January 6 Committee Seeks Testimony From Ivanka Trump; Georgia Prosecutor Requests Grand Jury For Trump Election Probe. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired January 20, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to NEWSROOM.

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

We are following breaking news on two investigations into the aftermath of the 2020 election.

First, let's go to Georgia. The Fulton County district attorney is requesting a special grand jury to help her investigation into Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results. Now, this centers around the former president's phone call on January 2 to -- last year, I should say, with Georgia's secretary of state, where Trump urged the Republican to find votes to help him win.

CAMEROTA: Also breaking this afternoon, the House committee investigating the January 6 attack wants to interview former first daughter and White House adviser Ivanka Trump.

But let's begin with CNN's Sara Murray. She's following the developments out of Fulton County, Georgia.

So, Sara, explain how a grand jury could change this investigation.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, she has been looking into Donald Trump and his allies for roughly a year now and their efforts to overturn the results in the Georgia 2020 election and whether any of that is criminal.

So what a special grand jury allows her to do is, it allows her essentially to compel witnesses to gather more evidence. And, also, it has this group of people that are just going to be focused on this Trump matter. They're not going to be looking at evidence in any other case.

So here's how she described it in her letter to the court asking for a special grand jury. She said: "We have made efforts to interview multiple witnesses and gather evidence and a significant number of witnesses and prospective witnesses have refused to cooperate with the investigation, absent a subpoena requiring their testimony."

By way of example: "Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, an essential witness to the investigation, has indicated that he will not participate in an interview or otherwise offer evidence until he is presented with a subpoena by my office."

Now, we know the secretary of state's office has already provided documents. They provided a couple of staffers, but what she is saying is, I want Brad Raffensperger in front of me in front of a grand jury offering his testimony.

And we can expect a lot of that is going to be focused on that infamous phone call. Let's just jog everyone's memory with a portion of what Donald Trump was asking Brad Raffensperger to do.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MURRAY: So, that was him asking Raffensperger to just find the votes, find the votes, so Donald Trump could win Georgia, instead of Joe Biden.

I think the most important takeaway is, this means that she is still seriously looking at a potential criminal charge against either Donald Trump or one of his allies.

CAMEROTA: OK, Sara Murray, thank you for that breaking news.

Let's turn now to CNN's Paula Reid. She is following this new request from the House select committee to interview Ivanka Trump.

So, Paula, what do they want to ask her?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, this is a big move on Trump's innermost circle.

And it's notable this is a voluntary request to come in. This is not a subpoena. And what's incredible in this eight-page letter that they have sent to Ivanka, it reveals just how much evidence the committee has already gathered, particularly through witness interviews.

They are deep in the Trump White House. They know an astonishing amount about what was going on inside the Trump White House on January 6, and they want to talk to Ivanka to learn more about two specific issues. One, they want to learn more about any efforts to try to block the certification of the 2020 electoral votes, and they want to know more about the pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence.

Now, let's go through this letter. First, they say they're interested in a meeting that they have been told Ivanka was at on January 6 in the Oval Office. There was a phone call between Trump and Pence where Trump was allegedly pressuring his vice president to go along with his plan to block the certification of electoral votes.

They want to talk to Ivanka about what she heard on at least one end of that phone call. Now, they also want to know why the president didn't just walk down to the Briefing Room -- there's always a live camera there, plenty of reporters -- and call for an end to the violence.

In this letter, the committee says -- quote -- "Testimony they have obtained indicates that members of the White House staff requested your assistance on multiple occasions to intervene in an attempt to persuade President Trump to address the ongoing lawlessness and violence on Capitol Hill."

They also want to know what Trump did or did not do to order or deploy the National Guard. Now, this is significant, because this is something that speaks to the committee's argument that Trump abdicated his responsibility to the nation.

And in their letter, the committee says that they are aware that certain White House staff devoted time during the violent riot to rebutting questions regarding whether the president was attempting to hold up the deployment of the Guard."

[14:05:12]

And, lastly, they also want to talk to her about efforts to protect the president from -- quote -- "crazy people." This was apparently an effort spearheaded by FOX News host Sean Hannity. He was trying to enlist the help of then-Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and others.

But this letter is remarkable, because it reveals so much new evidence that they have gathered. And it paints a picture of a chaotic White House and staffers just believing that Ivanka was really their one hope to get through to the former president.

Of course, the big question now, will she cooperate? Will she comply? Well, her camp released a statement a short time ago saying: "As the committee already knows, Ivanka did not speak at the January 6 rally. As she's publicly stated, that day at 3:15 p.m., any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful."

OK, that statement does not address what is in this letter, and it does not answer the question about whether she will testify. CNN has followed up to clarify with her camp, but so far, they have not responded.

BLACKWELL: All right, Paula, read on the breaking news for us, thank you so much.

Let's bring in now CNN legal and national security analyst Carrie Cordero, and Michael Moore, former U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia.

Good to see both of you.

Michael, let me start with you...

MICHAEL MOORE, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Sure.

BLACKWELL: ... and on this reporting of the special grand jury that's requested by the DA there in Fulton County.

I want to play first the exchange that she references from the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, that has prompted this request. This is from October 31 on MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER (R), GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: So, if she wants to interview me, there's a process for that. And I will gladly participate in that, because I want to make sure that I follow the law, follow the Constitution. And when you get a grand jury summons, you respond to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: All right, so that's what she referenced as part of her letter.

What does this now request tell us about how far along in the investigation she likely is?

MOORE: She's made some progress. I'm a little surprised that were at this point and they have not already asked for a special grand jury.

But she indicated earlier, a couple of weeks ago, actually, that she would likely or hopefully have a decision within the first part of the year, in the first half of the year. So she might be just trying to button up some evidence to fill in some holes that the investigation has found to sort of use the belt-and-suspenders approach to her case as she moves forward.

As for Raffensperger, I mean, certainly, you don't have to have a subpoena from a grand jury. You could be asked to attend and participate if you're part of the investigation. But he's, as you know, in a pretty tight political race with a Trump ally -- or against a Trump ally, rather.

So he's probably doing all he can to make it look like his appearance is anything that volunteer.

CAMEROTA: Carrie, I had forgotten the deluge of phone calls that the White House and President Trump put in to Brad Raffensperger after the election. It wasn't just that one phone call where they connected and he said, hey, I need you to find me these extra votes that I didn't get.

There were 18 attempted calls from the White House. And, basically, Secretary of State Raffensperger was dodging these calls, because he knew that it was already being litigated. He knew that it was going to be a mess when he did connect with Donald Trump.

And so the idea that he doesn't want to offer up what he knows voluntarily, I mean, I think it is what Michael just said, political, but it didn't have to get to this point.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this DA, she has been conducting this investigation for some time.

And they're in a variety of investigations. We see this and other investigations. We see this with the January 6 Committee as well. Sometimes, people voluntarily cooperate. Sometimes, they demand -- they need to be compelled. And so then the authority, in this case, the DA, would want to issue a subpoena.

And, sometimes, people want, for whatever reasons they are, sometimes political, they want to be compelled. In other words, it's someone who's not going to challenge the subpoena, but it's somebody who wants that legal process so that they are compelled to appear.

And so it sounds like that's the category that he's in. And so the DA is taking this additional step so that she can further her investigation, but the grand jury would enable her to continue to gather evidence for her investigation.

BLACKWELL: Michael, we talk about the updates and developments from the January 6 investigation almost daily. And we will talk about it actually a couple of minutes with this Ivanka Trump request.

But as it compares to what's happening in Fulton County and the problem it could cause for the former president, how do these two stack up?

MOORE: You know, the case is being investigated here by a DA who has other things going on. And that's just the reality of life on the ground. And that is that she oversees the prosecutions in a county where homicides are going on, crime is up. It's just that she's dealing with other things on her plate at the same time.

And, at the same time, she's dealing with some recalcitrant witnesses or potential witnesses to the case. So, she's moving through it at her pace. I have hoped and I suggest that she treat this like she would any other criminal case, just move through, slapping on a grand jury calendar behind an armed robber, and let's go on to the next thing, as opposed to turning this into some kind of platform for the former president.

[14:10:23]

So, while she's doing that, she's got a limited staff, limited budget. Then you have got the House committee that's in -- the January 6 Committee, and they have huge resources. They have other abilities to do things that she just didn't have. And that's why earlier you also saw her say, if there's some cooperation back and forth, I'd be happy to have it, that type of thing.

So I think she's dealing the hand that's -- or playing with the hand that has been dealt her. And now she's she's moving toward making a decision, hopefully, but by midyear, also mindful that this is a state that -- this case will end up in an appellate court if she decides to charge the former president.

And our appellate courts are dominated by Republican appointees. So, just making a decision in a case is not the beginning here or not the end of it. It really will be just getting the ball rolling as it moves through the criminal system, if that's the way she decides to go.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

CAMEROTA: OK, Carrie, let's talk about this request for Ivanka Trump to appear before the special committee.

So there was this phone call, as our reporter Paula Reid just laid out, and this was the phone call between President Trump and Vice President Pence. And just to remind people, it was when -- I will just recap. It's been reported that the president said to the vice president, you don't have the courage to make a hard decision, maybe not those exact words, but something like that. Do you remember anything like that?

And then it has already been testified to the General Keith Kellogg answered, yes, I don't remember exactly either, but something like that, yes, being like, you're not tough enough to make this call. And then another report of the phone call is that Trump said: Mike, it's not right. You can do this. I'm counting on you to do it. If you don't do it, I picked the wrong man four years ago. You're going to wimp out.

So the reporting is that Ivanka was there in the room, in the Oval Office for that phone call, but they already have what sounds like the verbatim of that phone call and Keith Kellogg, General Keith Kellogg, the national security adviser to Mike Pence, testifying about that. Why do they need Ivanka?

CORDERO: Well, that sounds like it's one example of the pieces of information that the committee would like to hear.

As Paula laid out, it sounds like, from the letter that has gone over to her or her counsel, that there -- that's one piece, and then there's a variety of other information. Look, we all know she was a White House adviser at the time. She took on a formal government title.

But there is nothing special about her when it comes to her potential status as a witness, as the committee has demonstrated, it goes through a process. And the first step in that process when it's looking at witnesses is asking them to come in and speak voluntarily. The next step, if they're unwilling to do that, and if they're unwilling to engage with the committee, the next step is that they are subject to a subpoena.

And we have seen, in a couple of examples already, if someone is not willing to comply with that lawful process, then they're willing to refer to contempt. So there's nothing special about her in particular. She was in the White House. She was around these phone calls and this effort to subvert the election.

And so she will have to decide whether or not she's going to cooperate with the committee's important work.

CAMEROTA: OK, we will see what happens next.

Carrie Cordero, Michael Moore, thank you very much.

MOORE: Good to be with you. Thank you.

BLACKWELL: Well, President Biden is doing major foreign policy cleanup today. Some in Ukraine are warning that his words could serve as an invitation for Russian aggression. What the president is saying to Putin now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:18:01]

BLACKWELL: President Biden's news conference was supposed to be an opportunity to reset. Instead, it created confusion and international concern.

CAMEROTA: The president and his team have spent much of today clarifying his remarks predicting that Vladimir Putin will indeed send troops into Ukraine and questioning what the West's response would be.

CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny joins us live.

So, Jeff, do they -- are they admitting that there were missteps, verbal major missteps made here?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Admitting it, not necessarily using those words, but it's obvious, because, really, since that press conference ended last evening, about two hours' long or so, the White House has spent much of that time scrambling to try and clean up that.

And the president did so himself. He was supposed to be starting the second day of his -- or the first day rather of his second year in office talking about infrastructure, trying to tout one of his accomplishments and really begin the implementation of this landmark bill.

But he started that meeting out with something else, again, trying to clarify, in his words, his comments toward Russia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If any, any assembled Russian units move across Ukrainian border, that is an invasion.

Let there be no doubt at all that, if Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, this is all about the level of invasion or the level of incursion or border crossing, if you will, that Russia would do to Ukraine.

Would a small border crossing necessarily get a big a piece of retaliation? That's what the president was essentially saying out loud yesterday. It would not necessarily.

He clarified that today after a firestorm of controversy both here in Washington and in fact in capitals around the world and in Ukraine, of course, saying that a minor incursion is major to them.

The Ukrainian president, Zelensky, was very forceful in his words. Now, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki just a few moments ago said that President Biden has not yet spoken to President Zelensky, but there have been high-level communications between the two countries and leaders.

[14:20:01]

And she said she has made clear, the president has made clear his point here, that any land crossing or invasion at all will get a full- scale retaliation, so, again, one of those things that was an act of cleanup. There have been a few of them here today after that very long press conference yesterday, Victor and Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. Jeff Zeleny, thank you for all that from the White House.

BLACKWELL: Secretary of State Antony Blinken will meet with the Russian foreign minister in Geneva tomorrow.

CNN senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen joins us from there now.

So, Fred, talk us through the reaction to the president's remarks yesterday.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a lot of international confusion about those remarks. And you could really see that Secretary of State Blinken, Victor, he was doing some diplomatic legwork, not just obviously visiting Ukraine, but today visiting Berlin, where he met not just with the German foreign minister, but also with the foreign ministers of France and of the United Kingdom as well.

And I watched the press conference after that meeting. And there, again, the secretary of state was also asked about President Biden's remarks and whether or not something like a limited incursion could also have limited consequences. And Secretary of State Blinken said, no, there would be severe consequences.

And he said that the U.S. and its allies are absolutely on the same page about that. But, of course, it did cause some discontent, especially in Ukrainian. And Jeff was just talking about President Zelensky of Ukraine seemingly taking offense to that.

I want you to read -- I want to read you a little bit more of what Zelensky wrote in his Twitter account. He wrote -- quote -- "We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations, just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones. I say this as the president of a great power."

So you can see the Ukrainians obviously saying that as well. As far as the Russians are concerned, they have come out once again and said that they have no intent of invading Ukraine. They have called a lot of the talk that's going on hysteria. But they're also saying -- this is very important in the form of the Kremlin -- that they believe that the talks that are going to happen here are of the utmost importance.

They certainly say they want written responses to from the U.S. as far as some of the demands are concerned. The secretary of state has already said those written responses are not going to be forthcoming at this meeting.

Another thing that the Kremlin also said today is that they would really like to see another phone call between Vladimir Putin and President Biden. So, seemingly, the Russians now also looking at least a little bit more towards trying to make at least some diplomacy happening. Whether or not that will change anything about the situation there in Ukraine is something we're going to wait and see.

BLACKWELL: All right, Fred Pleitgen for us, thank you.

CAMEROTA: Joining us now is CNN global affairs analyst and staff writer for "The New Yorker" Susan Glasser.

Susan, great to see you.

You were basically tweeting yesterday in real time during the press conference about the things that you thought that the president was saying that would later prove problematic. So what was it that most jumped out at you?

SUSAN GLASSER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, look, when you hear the president of the United States trying to make distinctions and talking about minor incursions vs. major invasions, that -- I wasn't surprised that it was going to generate considerable heartache in Kiev. And that's exactly what happened.

I flagged that as soon as Biden said it. And then you saw officials in Ukraine saying, hey, wait a minute here. From the beginning, that's been the concern all along, that Russia, essentially, this is a hostage-taking, right? You have 100,000 troops on the border. And that was the means by which Russia has demanded that the United States and NATO come to the table and negotiate. Negotiate over what? Over a crisis that they created. And it's really been remarkable to me how successful in some ways Putin has been at getting that -- setting the terms of the debate, first of all. How many times have you been discussing with me and other guests on the air NATO this and NATO that? NATO actually didn't do anything right now, right? This is all a Putin creation here.

And now here we are talking about Biden and his messaging. That's the thing in an international crisis like this one. The importance of messaging in the advance of any military conflict, I think, is so important to avoid it off. The lessons of history suggest where there are many examples where the United States or Great Britain were very unclear in their messaging, and that can sometimes inadvertently lead to increased risks of war.

BLACKWELL: Let's talk about NATO.

We heard from the president that if there is this -- quote -- "minor incursion," that there would be this fight within the organization about what to do. How much dissension is there in the organization?

GLASSER: Well, I think this one falls in the category perhaps of a classic Washington gaffe, named after the great writer and columnist Michael Kinsley, who defined this kind of gaffe as telling the truth in public about something that is best left unstated at a press conference.

[14:25:00]

And it's not a shock or a secret to reveal that NATO allies have differences of opinion when it comes to how to deal with Russia. That's been true for a long time. It would certainly be true right now as well. You look at the back-and-forth over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany, which the U.S. has opposed, but with different levels of opposition in recent years.

But Germany's refused to hold off on it. Now you have elements of the new German government saying, even in the case of a full-throated military invasion, we're not sure we should bring a ban on Nord Stream 2 into it. And so that's the kind of division we're talking about.

It's not a shocker, but, in the diplomatic world, also seen as not the kind of thing the president of the United States should be saying at a time when his main goal is to stop and to deter Russia from taking military action.

CAMEROTA: Do you think that President Biden's distinction that he is making, I think, between what he calls a major incursion, which is a military aggression, and I think the minor incursion that he I think was referring to was more of a cyberattack, and that those would warrant different responses?

GLASSER: Well, I think that, again, that the general guidelines here would be not to get into making distinctions and parsing things for your adversary to then see as an opening and an opportunity to take action of any kind. I think the general U.S. position is that it's unacceptable, no matter

what kind of incursion. And I would point out again Russia has already invaded Ukraine. Russia has already illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula. We have never recognized the legality of that move, even though it happened in 2014.

Russia has been supporting and maintaining the ongoing war in parts of Eastern Ukraine since 2014. So, these are not theoretical debates. It's not angels dancing on the head of a pin. And, again, it seems best for the president of the United States probably not to be giving Russians permission for minor incursions or any incursions.

BLACKWELL: All right, Susan Glasser, thanks for the insight.

CAMEROTA: All right, now to this.

The FBI searched the home and campaign office of Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar. What investigators are saying about this raid next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)