Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Florida's Race Discomfort Bill; January 6 Committee Seeks Testimony From Ivanka Trump; Georgia Prosecutor Requests Grand Jury For Trump Election Probe. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 20, 2022 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:55]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Top of the hour on CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Victor Blackwell.

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

We have breaking news on two investigations into attempts to overturn the 2020 election. The House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack once an interview with Ivanka Trump, former first daughter and White House adviser, in part to understand why President Trump would not help police and lawmakers under attack for so long.

BLACKWELL: Also breaking this afternoon, the Fulton County Georgia district attorney is requesting a special grand jury for her investigation into Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results.

Now, this all centers around Trump's infamous call with Georgia's secretary of state. This was January 2 of 2021.

(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)

BLACKWELL: Let's begin with CNN's Sara Murray.

Sara, tell us about Fulton County DA's decision to request this special grand jury.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, sure. The Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, opened this investigation into Trump and his allies' activity to try to overturn the results of the Georgia election about a year ago. And now she sent this letter to the court requesting a special grand jury. She wants to be able to compel witnesses to testify with subpoenas. She wants to be able to more readily gather evidence.

And, as you pointed out, this all sort of stemmed from the recording of this incredible call between former President Donald Trump and Brad Raffensperger. Here is another portion of that.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TRUMP: The people of Georgia are angry. The people of the country are angry. And there's nothing wrong with saying that you've recalculated.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER (R), GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MURRAY: Now, in her letter, Willis explicitly says that they're having trouble getting some witnesses to cooperate. She wants to talk to some with a subpoena.

She specifically says Brad Raffensperger is one of those people. We know the office already provided them documents and allowed them to talk to some staffers. But I think the most important takeaway here is that it's very clear from this letter, it's very clear from this move to try to seat a special grand jury that she is not letting go of this Trump investigation.

She is still seriously looking at potential criminal charges against either Donald Trump or some of his allies.

CAMEROTA: Sara Murray, thank you very much for that reporting.

Let's get more now on that request from the House select committee. They want to interview the former president's daughter Ivanka to sit for a voluntary interview.

BLACKWELL: CNN's Jessica Schneider joins us now on this story.

Jessica, the panel has revealed it has detailed information about Ivanka Trump's interactions with her father on that day. What have you learned?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so they're telling Ivanka that, since she knows all of these intimate details about the former president's actions on January 6, and, more importantly, his state of mind, they want her to come talk to the committee voluntarily.

Now, this isn't a subpoena, but the committee is asking Ivanka to talk with them. They're suggesting the beginning of February as a possible date. So, a spokesperson for Ivanka did not say whether she would or would

not comply with this request, but did release this statement, writing: "As the committee already knows, Ivanka did not speak at the January 6 rally. As she 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.'"

The committee, though, contends that Ivanka has a lot more insight than just that tweet. They say she was in the Oval Office when Trump called V.P. Mike Pence to pressure him to stop the vote count. They want to know more about that phone call.

And the committee says they are also investigating Trump's response to the Capitol riot. They want to know more about the reports that White House staff pleaded with Ivanka on multiple occasions to get Trump to take action to stop the violence, since, of course, many in the White House believed that Ivanka was the only person who could persuade the president to act.

In addition to that, the committee also wants to know about that filmed video statement that Trump finally made and released about 4:20 that day. That was hours, though, after the Capitol was breached. The committee says they want to hear from Ivanka about why it took her father so long to respond.

[15:05:06]

In fact, they want to get her response to public reports that she had been urging Trump to ask people to leave the Capitol for two hours by the point he released that taped statement. And, in addition, they want to know why Trump didn't simply walk out in the White House Press Briefing Room, where there are always cameras poised and ready to broadcast.

And finally here, the committee is saying they know that White House officials and even FOX hosts were trying to get Trump to stop talking about what he called the stolen election even after January 6. We have seen the texts, FOX host Sean Hannity imploring Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany to keep Trump away from what Hannity said were -- quote -- "crazy people."

So the chairman of the committee, Bennie Thompson, writing this to Ivanka, saying: "The select committee would like to discuss this effort after January 6 to persuade President Trump not to associate himself with certain people and to avoid further discussion regarding election fraud allegations."

So, Victor and Alisyn, this is all a massive ask from this committee. It is several pages in this letter detailing what they want from this voluntary interview with the president's daughter, who, of course, was also a senior adviser, constantly by his side.

Ivanka's rep, guys, is not directly responding to questions about whether she will actually sit down and meet with the committee. But chances are she might resist, like people all over Trump's world already have -- guys. CAMEROTA: OK, Jessica Schneider, thank you for your reporting.

Let's discuss all this with Harry Litman, former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, and Page Pate, criminal defense attorney and constitutional law attorney in Georgia.

Harry, let me start with, of course, the committee wants to talk to Ivanka. She was there at critical points. But the idea that they want her to tell them why President Trump didn't feel the need to try to save the lives of police officers and lawmakers as this bloody attack was going down, I mean, don't we sort of already know it's because he didn't care, and he was sort of excited, as the reporting says, watching this bloody attack on TV?

What more can she tell them?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: We think so.

But, Alisyn, it's only why in this case. It's also what. They want to nail down -- as Jessica was saying, she's thickly involved here before, during and after. She's in the call when Trump says Pence is a wimp who doesn't have the courage to make a decision here. She's in the infamous 183 minutes when he's doing nothing. And she's after -- and this is an important point -- when he's being told, says the committee, by the White House counsel that the Stop the Steal stuff needs to stop because it's all wrong factually.

So she paints not just his state of mind, but really the what. And that was the same. If you saw the subpoena document request that they successfully got to that from the Supreme Court yesterday, they are first about getting a narrative of everything he did and who he was trying to pressure, et cetera.

I think they will draw their own conclusions, as will the American people, about the why, but they have got a lot more what to pursue.

BLACKWELL: Page, is there any distinction between Ivanka Trump and, let's say, General Kellogg, who's also in the room, any protection she would have or credibly could claim if she decides to resist this request?

PAGE PATE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Victor, I would be very surprised if she didn't claim some sort of executive privilege here.

Obviously, not only is she the daughter of the former president, but she was serving as a White House adviser at the time. I think by issuing this letter, by issuing this request, the committee is effectively saying, we want her to cooperate, but we're not going to go forward with a subpoena. We're not going to try to force her hand, because then we will have to litigate this executive privilege issue against a witness we would prefer not to.

So she will probably not agree to do it. And I think that may be the end of getting her testimony in front of the committee.

CAMEROTA: Page, I want to stick with you and go to Georgia about what the DA there is now doing in assembling -- in asking for a special grand jury, because she says that the investigation into the phone call between President Trump and the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and all of the phone calls, in fact, that President Trump was trying to call and trying to find votes that didn't exist, she's saying that, I think, since the secretary of state has been reluctant to appear without a subpoena, as well as other important witnesses.

So what will change now if this request is granted?

PATE: Well, Alisyn, it's not common in Georgia to have a special grand jury. Most cases go in front of a regular grand jury. You present witnesses, if you're the DA, maybe present some documents, and then you ask them, vote up or down on the case. Do you indict? Do you not indict?

A special grand jury in Georgia is more like an investigative grand jury. They can subpoena witnesses. They can subpoena documents. And they can take their time, which is really not the case with a regular grand jury.

[15:10:08]

So, what I think is happened here, Fani Willis, who I have known for over 10 years, very diligent prosecutor, she's been investigating this case now for over a year, but she's gotten to a dead end. She has witnesses now that she can't get to testify. And the only way to do that is to get them in front of a grand jury.

Now, this grand jury will not decide whether to bring an indictment or not. That will be another grand jury after the investigative grand jury has completed its work.

BLACKWELL: Harry, the DA only references Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state here, but we know that Senator Lindsey Graham made calls to Georgia officials after the election, B.J. Pak, who was the U.S. attorney for Atlanta, who eventually resigned because he thought it was about to be fired in reaction to the president's dissatisfaction with Georgia officials' handling of the election.

Should we expect, although they were not named in this letter, that they too could be called in front of this special grand jury, or is that a different process?

LITMAN: No, we should. It's the same process. And as Page says, it permits a kind of longitudinal investigation of the sort that you have in the federal system.

One point to make, the Raffenspergers of the world might not be recalcitrant witnesses. A lot of people just want the subpoena to be able to show to Trump or whomever, hey, I didn't have a choice. I had to go there. I'm actually surprised she hasn't asked for it sooner.

But the case is clean and discrete. And for that reason, I think it's dangerous to Trump, particularly so, because it all centers around the call and they have got the audiotape of the call, which is very unusual. But, yes, I think you can expect her to call different people into the grand jury and for them to do an overall investigation, as Page says.

That's what they're doing. They will then take that corpus of evidence to whatever grand jury is sitting for two months and turn to them and say, would you return this indictment that we recommend, if that's where they wind up.

CAMEROTA: OK, Page Pate, Harry Litman, thank you.

PATE: Thanks, guys.

CAMEROTA: President Biden and his team are in damage control mode after suggesting that a minor incursion by Russia into Ukraine may not get the same response as an invasion.

So CNN is live on the ground in Ukraine with the aftermath of that.

BLACKWELL: And a Florida Senate committee approves a bill backed by Governor DeSantis that would block public schools and private businesses from anything that would make people feel discomfort or guilt because of their race, gender or origin.

That story ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:57]

CAMEROTA: Secretary of state Tony Blinken is meeting with European allies in Berlin today, after President Biden sparked confusion over what the Western response would be to a Russian incursion in Ukraine.

BLACKWELL: And Blinken hopes to leave no doubt that Russia will pay a price if it invades.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: So we're at a decisive juncture. We cannot choose the path for Moscow. But we can make crystal clear the stark consequences of that choice, positive on the one hand, if we pursue dialogue and diplomacy, but very negative on the other hand, if Russia chooses the path of aggression.

No matter which path Russia chooses, it will find the United States, Germany and our allies united.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: CNN chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward joins us now live from Kiev.

So, Clarissa, what is the view from Ukraine now after what we heard from the president and from the secretary of state?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Victor, as you probably know, there's been a huge amount of consternation here about President Biden's comments last night in which he appeared to indicate that a minor incursion from the Russians would not necessarily result in a sort of full-throated retaliation from the international community and from NATO and the U.S.

Of course, President Zelensky actually took to Twitter earlier and 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."

We did see U.S. Senator Chris Murphy responding to President Zelensky in an interview with our Christiane Amanpour, saying that it's perhaps not the best time for the president of Ukraine to be picking a Twitter fight with the president of the United States, but certainly fair to say, Victor and Alisyn, that people here were, in the words of one Ukrainian official, stunned and shocked to hear those words in President Biden's comments last night.

Now, we have seen a real effort from the White House to clarify those comments. We also saw, as you played just there, Secretary of State Tony Blinken's comments, trying to reaffirm a very strong sense, a stance against Russian aggression, and also trying to reaffirm, crucially, the idea that there is unity between the different NATO member states about how any potential Russian aggression should be responded to, because you remember also President Biden in his comments had alluded to the fact that there might be a difference of opinion within the different member states about how a crisis should be dealt with or how a minor incursion even should be dealt with.

And a lot of fears here in Kiev that projects weakness and sends a very bad message to Russia. In fact, one official here saying it felt like it was giving a green light to Russia to go ahead and start an invasion.

CAMEROTA: And, on that point, Clarissa, do we have any idea how Vladimir Putin is interpreting all of this and interpreting -- so those are the words -- but the actions of transferring more support and weapons to Ukraine?

[15:20:05]

WARD: I think what we can see and understand is that President Vladimir Putin is trying to maximize the pressure and to underscore his seriousness ahead of these meetings between the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and Secretary of State Blinken tomorrow.

The Russians had asked that the U.S. respond with a written statement to their list of security requests. And Blinken has already said that that's not going to happen, at least in written form. But one has to be prepared at this stage for every possible eventuality.

Is there still a chance for diplomacy to save the day? Many analysts seem to think that there is, but one cannot minimize the risk of a potential invasion. And no one knows what shape that would take, including potentially President Putin himself, who many believe has not yet arrived at that decision yet. BLACKWELL: Yes.

There was some discussion from those in the administration trying to clarify the president's comments, said that, potentially, an incursion could be cyber. But you don't amass 100,000 troops on the border and then call in the Belarusians to begin some exercises if you are going in the direction of a cyberattack, do you?

WARD: Well, what's interesting about President Putin, if we look at his actions, historically, he often will do the thing that is least expected.

And he has talked in the past about the way he responds to threats. And the first thing he says, tough, quick, and asymmetrical, asymmetrical being the key word there. If everybody is waiting and expecting President Putin to order something to happen, it's just as likely that he will go about and do the exact opposite.

So that's why the U.S. is really in an unenviable position here in terms of trying to understand what the realistic threat is, and trying to adapt and prepare and respond to that. It has to be prepared for all possible eventualities.

And that runs a huge gamut right now.

BLACKWELL: Very interesting. Clarissa Ward for us in Kiev, thank you.

Ukraine is not the only topic the White House is trying to smooth over after Wednesday's news conference. Add election integrity to the list. We're going to discuss the criticism that the president is facing and the pushback on the Trump comparisons.

CAMEROTA: And what is an election police force that we're hearing now David Perdue, as well as Governor Ron DeSantis talk about?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:30]

CAMEROTA: Listen to this.

Republican Governor Ron DeSantis is backing a bill to ban public schools and private businesses from making people feel uncomfortable on the basis of race, sex or national origin. This bill just passed out of committee on a party-line vote.

BLACKWELL: So it prohibits training or instruction that could cause guilt or anguish based on the actions of people's ancestors. It also mandates that teachers must address racial issues in a -- quote -- "age-appropriate manner."

Critics say it's an obvious attempt to just whitewash history. Now, here's how the governor defended the idea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): You think about what MLK stood for, he said he didn't want people judged on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.

(APPLAUSE)

DESANTIS: You listen to some of these people nowadays, they don't talk about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Joining us now is CNN political commentator Ana Navarro.

Ana, since when did Governor DeSantis become a snowflake and think that Floridians need a law to be protected from their own feelings?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Since he decided that he wanted to be the heir apparent for the Republican base and the Trump base and be the favorite to run for governor -- for president in 2024.

So he is appealing to -- this is a very different Ron DeSantis than the -- than he was when he first swore in as Florida's governor. He was much more inclusive back then.

I'm so disappointed. I really am that Florida, the legislature and the governor, keep waging these fictional culture wars and creating issues that don't exist.

Here is the fact. CRT, the Critical Race Theory, is not taught in any of the public schools, in any of the schools in Florida. So we are waging war against something that doesn't exist. And I would say to some of those legislators, including some of the Cuban Americans who are voting to pass this legislation, that we should be uncomfortable with some of the things that have happened in history in this country and in our state.

We should be uncomfortable. Those Cuban American legislators should be uncomfortable that there were signs in the '60s in Miami that read "No Blacks, No Cubans, No Dogs." They should be uncomfortable that this is a country that had slavery. They should be uncomfortable that we turned away Jewish immigrants fleeing the Holocaust who were coming here on ships.

So, if we don't learn from history, how are we going to avoid repeating some