Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
U.N. Security Council Meets on Russia-Ukraine Crisis; Then V.P.-Elect Harris Drove Within Several Yards of Pipe Bomb at DNC Headquarters; Trump Threatens to Pardon January 6 Rioters if He's Re- Elected. Aired 10-10:30a ET
Aired January 31, 2022 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:03]
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She cared, she loved, she laughed and she shined.
And, Jim and Bianna, the medical examiner has the jurisdiction and authority if they want to go the farther in this, including an autopsy and toxicology.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN NEWSROOM: Well, we are thinking of her family and obviously she was such an inspiration to so many out there. Jean Casarez, thank you so much.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Well, a good Monday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. We are following two major stories this morning. First, an emergency meeting at the United Nations set to begin any moment. U.S,. Russian and Ukrainian diplomats will come face-to-face as Russia shows no signs of backing down from an invasion of Ukraine.
U.S. officials say the U.N. Security Council meeting is a diplomatic off-ramp for Russia should they want to take one, but this morning, the Kremlin is accusing Washington of stoking, quote, hysteria, all of this as the U.S. says it identified several Russian elites who could face sanctions if Russian President Vladimir Putin moves forward with an invasion.
SCIUTTO: We will have much more on our lead story in just a moment.
Plus this, there are new details on just how close then Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris came to a pipe bomb planted at the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington. Multiple sources telling CNN that on January 6th, Harris was inside the DNC for nearly two hours before that bomb was detected.
We do begin this morning with that emergency meeting at the United Nations. CNN National Security Correspondent Kylie Atwood, she is there this morning.
Kylie, listen, it's the U.N. -- two prominent members of the U.N. Security Council are on Russia's side in this, and Russia and China. What do we expect or hope to come out of this meeting today?
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, what's significant about this meeting is that the U.S. and Russia are going to face one another at the same table and we will see that diplomatic conversation play out because there have been diplomatic meetings between the U.S. and with Russia over the last few weeks, but we have only received readouts of those meetings from each individual side.
What is happening here is that this is an open meeting. So, we will be able to see what the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. says, what Russia's ambassador to the United Nations says and the U.S. called for this meeting with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. saying that they needed to examine what is at stake here for Russia, for Ukraine, for Europe, and for all of the international order if Russia further invades Ukraine.
And it is significant that she also said that the U.S. would challenge Russia if it presents disinformation, saying they don't want to give Russia an opportunity here to just present propaganda.
So, this could get fiery, right? We could see the U.S. and the other countries who are in opposition to what Russia is doing with this military build-up along Ukraine's border fire back at Russia. We will wait and see.
Now, for Russia's part, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations said that the United States is essentially hysterical here. They are the only ones who are concerned and said even Ukraine isn't concerned. Obviously, that is not the case, but trying to exploit, trying to create some differences between the U.S. and Ukraine heading into this meeting. Jim?
SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, those public differences between U.S. and Ukrainian officials certainly creating an air of division. Kylie Atwood at the U.N., thanks very much.
GOLODRYGA: Well, right now, civilians in Ukraine are gearing up to try to fight off that potential Russian invasion. CNN's Sam Kiley explains how volunteer militias are preparing to defend their democracy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): An abandoned factory near Kyiv is now a training ground for civilians who volunteer to fight off the possible Russian invasion.
They're outnumbered here by journalists and armed at best with pellet guns. They know they'll be outmatched by Moscow's military machine but they are keen.
SERGIY CHURNIK, CLINICAL RESEARCHER AND VOLUNTEER: We have crucial moment for our country. We have really big risk that a Russian invasion might occur very soon, so this is why even civilians have to be ready. KILEY: These men believe that it's their country's democracy that Vladimir Putin fears more than a threat posed by European Union or NATO membership.
MIKHAILO GERALDO RAMIREZ, LAWYER AND VOLUNTEER: In Putin's Russia, all Russian citizens are completely slaves. He feels it's a threat because Ukrainians gave to Russians and Belarusians a bad example. We show to our neighbors how each citizen of free will must defend his social and national rights.
KILEY: You wouldn't know that Ukraine's government says that Russia has at least 127,000 troops amassed on three sides of the country here in the capital, where there are no signs impending war.
[10:05:02]
And in the poorer districts, where people hope whatever they can to get by, the mood is similar.
SVIETA, STYLIST: People are relaxed, although for some, I would say not. It depends on the circles you communicate in. If someone in your family is from the military or the police, it's a completely different mood.
KILEY: But aged air raid shelters are being opened just in case.
The Ukrainian government is appealing to its population for calm, but at the same time, dusting off these Soviet-era bunkers because there is a threat to a young country's democracy.
The shelter can house about 300 people. It even has a hand cranked air filtration system. Kyiv has the capacity to shelter 2.8 million of the estimated 3 million residents in 5,000 bunkers and in the metro system. It's an irony lost on no one here that this shelter was built in 1956 to protect against NATO striking Russia and the Soviet Union. Now it's offering shelter against a possible attack by Russia.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KILEY (on camera): Now, Jim and Brianna, the government here is very anxious indeed about what they're calling hybrid warfare, economic warfare being waged. That's why they don't like these references to an imminent war because it affects the economy.
Today, there's been a very peculiar report coming from the government suggesting that some kind of fifth colonist-type of group may have been trying to organize demonstrations against the government here. We've got no independent confirmation for that. But I think it's a very good illustration of just the sort of febrile atmosphere ahead of a possible invasion that exists here, at least at a political level.
SCIUTTO: I mean, it's been U.S.'s intelligence assessment for some time that any Russian activity might involve a political element as well, including a political disruption inside the country. Sam Kiley, good to have you there in Kyiv. GOLODRYGA: Well, joining me now to talk about all of this is Ian Bremmer, President Eurasia Group and GZERO Media. Always great to see you, Ian.
So, you seem to be more aligned with what Sam is hearing from Ukrainians on the ground, less focused on a major military incursion from Russia but more of a limited incursion that would include more hybrid warfare. Explain that.
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP AND GZERO MEDIA: Well, I mean the consequences of the Russians engaging in a full-on invasion are so much greater, in terms of NATO becoming much stronger, much more focused on Russia, which is clearly not in Putin's interest as well as the unpopularity of maintaining the cost of that domestically inside Russia.
But I will say that the fact that the Americans have been able to align almost all NATO allies more strongly, even in response to a more limited incursion, and that's something that really only picked up in the last couple of weeks, that includes most importantly German Chancellor Scholz, who's going to be coming to meet with Biden on February 7th in the White House and has said that Nord Stream 2 is a dead letter, if there's even a limited incursion into Ukraine.
That clearly surprises Putin. I don't think he would have counted on that a few weeks ago, and it makes the calculations for the Russians going forward a little more challenging, Bianna. I mean, basically, what it's saying is it's a little bit more likely that the Americans are effectively deterring the Russians against the limited incursion but also it means that if a limited incursion occurs, the likelihood that it still blows up and escalates has gone up.
GOLODRYGA: Look, one could argue that if one of the rationales for Putin choosing to do this now was to further strain, right, and divide NATO and the United States given how highly polarized things are here, it is reassuring to see bipartisan support for both preempted and obviously sanctions if, in fact, Russia does invade.
That having been said, could you take the reverse view and argue that it could be more complicated if, in fact, we do see minor incursions, if we do see hybrid warfare, if we do see cyberattacks, right? Remember, President Biden said that was his red line when he met with Vladimir Putin last year. He may have some plausible deniability if we continue to see the attacks. What then if that's the course Putin chooses to take?
BREMMER: So, to be clear, Bianna, the red line you're speaking of was specifically if there were continued Russian cyberattacks against American critical infrastructure. Ukraine was never a part of that formulation and still isn't. We've seen Russian cyberattacks against Ukraine just two weeks ago. The NATO response has been absolutely nothing.
But you're right that, I mean, Putin, so far, has been steadily escalating those cyberattacks as well as continuing to put combat- ready forces on the border, both of Ukraine and Russia and now increasingly in Belarus too. The last five, six weeks have been nothing but escalation from Russians and diplomatic engagement, notwithstanding.
[10:10:06]
And I do think that Putin is, as this is occurring, watching and see if there are any cracks developing among NATO allies. So far, there really haven't been. Even the Turkish president, who you wouldn't have expected to be standing with all the NATO allies on this, has said, yes, if the Russians put military troops in Ukraine, we're firmly a part of NATO, we're going to respond as an ally of NATO.
So, I think that -- look, I think the Putin/Xi Jinping summit is very important to see how much support and friendship he can count on from the Chinese president but he's also going to be watching to see if the Americans can keep this coalition together. So far, Bianna, they have.
GOLODRYGA: I'm glad you brought China up because we've seen many political and military analysts say that as goes Ukraine, so too goes Taiwan. Watch Taiwan. You're not necessarily on the same line and page with them. Explain why.
BREMMER: I'm not at all on the same page because the Americans have made very clear that U.S. troops will not come to Ukraine's aid if they are invaded by Russia. The exact opposite is true when we talk about Taiwan. Indeed, I've made the other argument. I would say that Biden's focus on China with the AUKUS defense pack, with the quad and with the engagement on saying the Uyghur treatments and genocide --
GOLODRYGA: Ian, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we are going to have to go to the U.N. now, where the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is speaking so much. Thank you so much, Ian.
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: -- in terms of the actions of the Russian federation on the territory of -- on the border with Ukraine. They indicate that it's in their own territory, but it is also very close to their neighbor's border. It's a neighbor that has been invaded already before. It's a neighbor that has Russian troops occupying their territory.
We have had numerous meetings, over 100 meetings over the course of the past few weeks both with Russian officials and consultations with our European and Ukrainian colleagues. All of these meetings have been in private. We think it's now time to have a meeting in public and have this discussed in a public forum.
We have worked with the Ukrainians at their request to provide assistance to them so that they can prepare for what they see as inevitable, including having provided $200 million in assistance in recent weeks and over $5 billion in assistance since 2014. And that is so that they can be prepared.
You heard from our Russian colleagues that we're calling for this meeting to make you all feel uncomfortable. Imagine how uncomfortable you would be if you had 100,000 troops sitting on your border in the way that these troops are sitting on the border with Ukraine. For us, this is about peace and security. It's about honoring the U.N. charter that calls on us as members of the Security Council to protect peace and security. So, this is not about antics. It's not about rhetoric. It's not about U.S. and Russia. What this is about is the peace and security of one of our member states. Thank you very much, Madam President.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thank the representative of the United States.
SCIUTTO: You heard just now there from the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bianna, interesting, pushing back on the Russian talking point here that this meeting and U.S.-NATO pressure is just antics, saying this is not about making you feel uncomfortable. Imagine how uncomfortable you'd be if you had 100,000 troops sitting on your border, referencing, of course, the Russian military build-up in and around the Ukrainian border.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Listen, it's clear that this is part of the U.S. and greater NATO strategy to be very transparent about this, and very public about the steps that they were taking and what Russia was doing to avoid this very scenario, what the Russians are calling everyone else hysterical, right, and then there's nothing to see here because, clearly, that's not the case.
SCIUTTO: Yes, a classic, Putin create the crisis, right, and then blamed everyone else for it. We'll continue to monitor the events there at the U.N. Security Council.
Still to come this hour, new CNN reporting shows what may have been a serious security lapse on January 6th last year. Just how close then Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris came to a pipe bomb planted at the DNC.
[10:15:03]
We'll have those details next.
Plus, Joe Rogan has apologized to Spotify. How he plans to get truth in his shows? We're going to speak to one of the doctors he's crediting.
GOLODRYGA: And later this hour, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to speak on that highly anticipated report, calling some of the Downing Street parties, quote, hard to justify. We'll bring you the latest live from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: New this morning, CNN is learning new details about just how close then-Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris was to the pipe bomb planted outside the DNC headquarters on January 6th, 2021. Multiple law enforcement officers familiar with the situation say that Harris drove within several yards of the explosive device.
SCIUTTO: CNN Law Enforcement Correspondent Whitney Wild outside DNC headquarters in Washington. Whitney, you've also been learning Harris was inside the headquarters for longer than we previously knew. I suppose the question is, how close do investigators believe she came to danger here?
WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's the question. And what FBI has made very clear, as these pipe bombs, though they did not detonate, were viable.
Let me take you back to January 5th, 2021. It was right here where there were, back then, benches as well as several bushes and back then, sometime between 7:30 P.M. and 8:00 P.M., the suspect who remains at large planted a pipe bomb pretty much right here.
Fast forward to January 6th, 11:30 A.M., that's when Kamala Harris came here with her motorcade and she came within yards of this pipe bomb, Jim, coming around this corner, coming right into this garage. She arrived at 11:30 A.M. The pipe bomb was not discovered, Jim and Bianna, until 1:06 P.M. Further, she wasn't evacuated until 1:14 P.M. So, that timeline puts her here at the DNC for almost two hours while this pipe bomb lay outside.
What law enforcement tells us is that the United States Secret Service, which was responsible for her protection that day, did sweep the areas where she would be at the highest risk, the areas inside the building where she was the most vulnerable, the areas coming into the DNC, the area's exiting, the parking deck, all of the areas where she would physically be. However, very clearly, something was missed, and it's an example of the wide security gaps that existed not only here but throughout Washington on January 6th and the ways in which bad actors sought to exploit those security gaps.
Further, again, though the FBI says that that bomb didn't detonate, it was viable, it is an example of just how much worse that day could have been. We're still learning a lot more about this, but, again, more proof that though we know a lot more of what happened on January 6th, there are still so many details that we don't know and so many places where law enforcement surely in the future will need to shore it up. Back to you.
GOLODRYGA: Whitney Wild, thank you so much. Just stunning how close she really was.
Let's bring in former Federal Prosecutor and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. So, Elie, as the DOJ continues its investigation into the insurrection and all the unrest, really, surrounding January 6th, I want to turn to what happened over the weekend with former President Trump, where he gave a rally in Texas outside of Houston. And he's done things like this in the past, but suggesting that if he, in fact, did run for president again, that he would likely pardon those who participated in the insurrection. This is as the investigation is going on and as we are getting more and more details about just how dangerous that day proved to be. Do you see any links here to obstruction of justice from what we heard from the president?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Bianna, this absolutely could be obstruction of justice if the intent, if the purpose behind these statements was to try to dissuade people from cooperating, against Donald Trump or I should note, anybody else. And let's remember, several of these January 6th rioters who have been charged have already gone on the record and said in court, said to judges, said in their papers, that the reason they did this was because they were inspired by Donald Trump.
And Donald Trump himself, by the way, has a track record of doing this. Remember back during the Mueller investigation. He was constantly dangling pardons and ended up delivering those pardons to people who refused to testify or people who started to cooperate and then stopped, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone. So, if the purpose is to stop people from talking whether against Donald Trump or other people who stormed the capitol on January 6th, that could be obstruction.
SCIUTTO: But if he didn't face it, actual charges, when he did it as a sitting president, why would he face it, you know, as someone who might be running for president, might win but isn't president today? I just wonder, I mean, the system hasn't proven itself capable of policing this, has it?
HONIG: Jim, I completely agree with that question that you're posing, and I think it leads to the next question, where is the United States Justice Department on this. Yes, they have charged 700-plus Capitol rioters, yes, they did charge some Oath Keepers a few weeks ago with seditious conspiracy for the first time. But the fact of the matter is they are still quite still literally at ground level. They have not charged any person who was not physically present at the Capitol, at or around the Capitol that day.
[10:30:03]
And unless and until DOJ shows that it's serious, that it's really moving up the chain to the real powerful players, I don't see why there would be any disincentive to anybody to try to engage in this kind of thing. Donald Trump has been given no reason to back off of this talk as patently illegal as it may be.
GOLODRYGA: And despite the fact that time and time again, we do see real life consequences come from the former president's words. Case in point, what happened just this weekend with the D.A. investigating his election interference in Georgia. The Fulton County D.A. there asking and requesting for FBI protection after the former president said that there should be mass rallies at these cities where these investigations are taking place, that being in Atlanta, in New York City, and, of course, Washington, D.C.
Have you ever seen a situation like this and what's the likelihood that the president could be culpable of anything here?
HONIG: Well, I have seen situations like this, Bianna, where law enforcement, prosecutors have had to call on the FBI to receive protection around the clock but here's where I'm seeing it, two scenarios, one in terrorism cases, and, two, an organized crime or mafia cases. And the fact that we're now talking about that kind of need, that kind of remedy in relation to Donald Trump and his supporters, I think, tells you something about how serious this is.
Look, the president's rhetoric is dangerous. It is wrong, and it is irresponsible. He's using language that we all know what he means. Let's forget about this coded stuff, this stuff that he comes up to the line. We have proof. It's the same kind of language he used that led to January 6th and it sounds like he's trying to incite a similar attack in the event he might be indicted.
SCIUTTO: But bottom line, so far, no legal consequences for those words. Elie Honig, thanks so much.
Still ahead this hour, how to navigate this latest stage of the pandemic, what you should consider when it comes to the booster shot as well. Our next guest, Dr. Peter Hotez, warns of the possibility that omicron isn't the last surge.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:30:00]
