Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Advisers Drafted Two Executive Orders to Seize Voting Machines; Trump White House Documents Torn Up; Trump's Support Amid Defense of Rioters; Michigan State Senate Candidate Urges Supporters to be Armed; Pfizer Asks FDA for EUA. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired February 01, 2022 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:26]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Tuesday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. We begin this hour with a CNN exclusive. Advisers to former President Trump drafted more than one executive order to seize voting machines in an unprecedented scheme to undermine President Joe Biden's victory. "The New York Times" also reports Trump was directly involved in looking for ways for top national security agencies to seize those machines.

SCIUTTO: That's right, seizing polling machines.

This morning, the ramifications of Trump's continuing big lie about the election and attacks on the Democratic process playing out very much in public. A Republican candidate for state senate in Michigan facing criticism after saying people should be prepared to, quote, show up armed. Show up with guns at polling stations.

The other big story we're following this morning, Pfizer is expected to ask the FDA to authorize its Covid-19 vaccine for children under the age of five. And that request could come as early as today.

GOLODRYGA: Some welcome news there.

But let's begin this morning with our CNN exclusive reporting.

Joining us now is CNN law enforcement correspondent Whitney Wild and CNN crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz.

Whitney, let's begin with you, because on thee executive orders, the one to the Pentagon was previously known. But what's new here is that we're learning about another one to the Department of Homeland Security this time. What more can you tell us? WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna,

multiple sources are telling us that this second order seems to reflect a lot of the themes of the Pentagon order, which was directing officials, specifically in this case the Department of Homeland Security, to seize voting machines. Obviously, this would be unprecedented. It marked a dramatic ramp up of this effort by the Trump administration and those surrounding the Trump administration to overturn President-Elect Joe Biden's victory.

It's unclear who actually put pen to paper and, of course, neither order was actually issued, nothing actually happened. But sources tell CNN that the idea of even seizing voting machines from states Trump lost was the brainchild of retired Colonel Philip Waldron and retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Both have continued to push the narrative that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump's former attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has been spearheading efforts of this big lie But we've learned Giuliani approached Ken Cuccinelli, who was then second in command at DHS, about seizing voting machines and Cuccinelli told Giuliani the department didn't have that authority.

Cuccinelli also tells CNN that those conversations never materialized into anything. They were -- never got to the point of an executive order. So Cuccinelli clearly trying to take as far of a step away from this mess as possible.

"The New York Times" is reporting it was President Trump who directed Giuliani to reach out to DHS.

Now the House select committee is looking into this effort to draft an executive order, how it began, specifically the roles of Giuliani, the roles of Flynn, the roles of Phil Waldron, who was a pretty obscure figure up until very recently. So it's -- again, it's another example of these people who seem to be, from our vantage point, very much in the periphery or obscurity, now seeming to find themselves at the very center of this effort to try to overturn the election. So huge news from my colleagues Paula Reid and Zach Cohen.

SCIUTTO: OK. Right. And the possibility of the president being in the center of it. The former president.

WILD: Right.

SCIUTTO: Katelyn, so a lot of Trump White House documents getting turned over to the January 6th committee. But they had to be taped back together by National Archives staff because they had been ripped up. OK. Do we know who ripped them up?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: We don't. But we did get a statement from the National Archives yesterday that said some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump. So, they're saying it was Trump. We don't know why they're saying that. And Trump didn't respond to requests for comment.

But this is something that sources have told me, it's a quirk of the Trump presidency. It's no big deal.

There were reports in 2018 that Politico had reported that White House staff were designated to reconstruct documents that Trump would tear up, purportedly to throw away. But the bottom line here is these are January 6th records. They're relevant to the House committee. And these aren't just tissues to throw away or scraps of paper for the president. They're historical records. They're White House records. They're maintained by the National Archives after a president leaves office. And these, apparently, were significant enough for Trump to go to court after the -- in this investigation, so that the National Archives could potentially give them over to the House.

[09:05:03]

They are doing that now. Trump was unable to stop them.

So, the House is looking at them now.

SCIUTTO: And, by the way, those records required to be kept by law.

Katelyn Polantz, Whitney Wild, thanks so much to both of you.

OK, so what does this all mean legally? Joining us now, former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers.

Jennifer, I know for folks at home, it's difficult to follow all these developments as the January 6th committee proceeds because there, seemingly every day, there's a discovery about efforts taken to overturn the 2020 election.

Let's zero in on this idea that it got so serious an executive order drawn up, not just for the DOD that we knew about, but for DHS, and efforts by the former Trump White House to get that done, right. Tell us the legal significance of that.

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jim, it really depends on what the draft executive order was meant to do. You know, it could be an overt act and a conspiracy charge, ultimately. That's when you take a step towards the completion of the conspiracy that the co- conspirators agreed about.

You know, we don't know who drafted it, was it drafted at the direction of the former president, or someone else in his inner circle? Was it instead drafted by a lower level person as part of just, let's have a discussion about this? These are the facts that they need to investigate and learn about before the significance of the draft executive order really comes clear. But it's certainly a huge development. Anytime someone puts pen to paper you know it's something that they're at least talking about.

GOLODRYGA: And, Jennifer, what's perhaps the most damning out of this reporting is it directly links it to the president, the former president of the United States. And I want to quote from "The New York Times" here where he told his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to call DHS. President Donald J. Trump directed his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to make a remarkable call. Mr. Trump wanted him to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states.

What does this say about the former president's direct involvement here and how does that -- how is that impacted by the DOJ's current probe now?

RODGERS: Well, what's so interesting, Bianna, is that of course folks who have been watching this develop, it's common sense that this was directed by the former president. He's the one who's been talking about this. He's the one who seemingly has been pushing it. But that's different from saying there's actually evidence that you could bring into a courtroom to prove that he was directing this scheme. So now we're actually starting to hear about what might be evidence of that. So that's what's so crucial.

What's also really interesting to me is if the reporting is correct, this is the first time that Rudy Giuliani seems to maybe be breaking from the former president and pointing the finger at him. If Rudy Giuliani now is going to come clean about what happened and tell us about those conversations, that would be a huge break in this -- in this investigation.

SCIUTTO: That's really remarkable to note, Jennifer.

Another question here, right, is the president's personal involvement in pressuring Pence to overturn the election results. I mean he talks about it publicly all the time right now what Pence should have done. But in those moments there. So far Pence has not testified, but Marc Short, his chief of staff, has.

You've noted that the committee needs evidence on those interactions between Trump and Pence on getting Pence to overturn the results as vice president. Would Short's testimony without Pence's be enough to do that?

RODGERS: Yes, if he was there. I mean you need to have personal knowledge. So if he was in the room and he can testify about what the former president said in this regard to Mike Pence about what he should do, that's just as good as Mike Pence saying it himself, absolutely.

GOLODRYGA: What does this say to you, Jennifer, about how the committee has gone about their actions here and piecing together the pieces behind the insurrection and being so public about it, whether it's directly from them or all of this incredible -- the trove of reporting that we've had over the past few weeks.

From a legal perspective, what does that tell you about the direction that this investigation is headed in?

RODGERS: I think they've been really smart about it, Bianna. I mean I thought they started off a little slowly, but they've really been gathering steam. I think they've been letting enough out into the public eye so that they're starting to educate all of us about where this is headed, what their ultimate report is likely to look like.

And, of course, what we don't know is what criminal referrals they might make to DOJ and what DOJ might be doing on its own. But we do know that we're going to learn a lot more about what happened after the election leading up to January 6th and even after that. So I think they've been very smart about the way that they've done this and really looking forward to what they continue to dig up.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And, Jim and Jennifer, they have doubled down on their announcement that they want public hearings, right, in the spring. So a lot of this will be made open for the public as well at that time.

Jennifer Rodgers, thank you, as always.

RODGERS: Thanks.

GOLODRYGA: Well, President Trump's open defense of the January 6th rioters is turning into a collective shrug from some within the GOP. But despite Trump's apparent willingness to pardon them if he becomes president again, many Republicans are still suggesting that they will support him if he becomes the 2024 nominee.

[09:10:10]

SCIUTTO: That's right, suggesting, so we note, that he would pardon hundreds of folks who have been convicted, right, of these crimes.

CNN Capitol Hill reporter Melanie Zanona joins us now.

Melanie, how are Republicans responding to his latest assertion about potential pardons?

MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, in talking to Republicans yesterday, it was clear that they were not comfortable with Trump's suggestion that he might use pardons on these January 6th rioters, and also that he was encouraging protests against investigations into him if they don't go his way. Some Republicans called it inappropriate and said it would send the wrong message. Others were just very eager to dodge and deflect our questions in the Capitol.

But, for the most part, Jim and Bianna, Republicans were very careful to not directly criticize Donald Trump and most of them are keeping the door open to supporting him again in 2024 if he does run for president and is their party nominee.

Take a listen to some of the rather muted reaction we heard yesterday on Capitol Hill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): If he has some specific cases that he thinks would meet a pardon criteria, that's up to him. But the reality is, he's the former president. We have a president now who's, like, messing up the country in a really big way.

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I believe to the -- to the former president has -- I never judged the appropriateness or not of his comments. I mean that's not my role. So he, you know, I think that that's his view and -- then that's his view.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZANONA: What's striking is that the language that Trump used over the weekend was eerily similar to the same rhetoric he was using in the leadup to the January 6th insurrection. The same rhetoric, by the way, that many Republicans were very quick to condemn after January 6th.

But flash forward a year later, and Republicans recognize that Trump is likely to run again in 2024. They also want to capitalize on his ability to juice the base ahead of the midterms And so increasingly what we're seeing here is Republicans are turning a blind eye to his most problematic comments about January 6th. But I'm telling you, it's going to be harder and harder to ignore those comments as Trump increasingly hits the campaign trail ahead of the midterms.

SCIUTTO: Well, Senator Josh Hawley was there on the day too. Also encouraging those folks who went to the Capitol.

Melanie Zanona, thanks very much.

Despite everything we as a country witnessed on January 6th, some GOP candidates for office are still encouraging election interference at the polls, as well as the potential for violence. In Michigan, a man running for state senate told voters they should be prepared to show up armed in order to protect GOP election observers.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, really dangerous rhetoric there.

CNN correspondent Alexandria Field is following this story.

And, Alex, it's comments like these that have so many Americans, and rightly so, on edge about the state of our democracy today, right, for a politician to just loosely say something like that.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, because we have seen rhetoric lead to violence. We've also seen misinformation lead to violence.

What we're talking about in this case is this often repeated, frequently debunked falsehood about Republican poll watchers being kept out of ballot counting rooms during the 2020 election. So now when this Republican state senate candidate in Michigan was asked about how to protect Republican poll watchers, he said people should be armed.

Listen to the whole exchange here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAN 1: What can we do to prepare for that event that's going to occur again?

MAN 2: I have some thoughts unless you want to say anything there?

MIKE DETMER: Are you armed? I say that in all seriousness. MAN 1: I can be.

DETMER: The Second Amendment isn't there for hunting rights, it's not there for self-defense. The Second Amendment is there, the founders put it there, to protect all the others. The ideal thing is to do this peacefully. That's ideal. But the American people, at some point in time, if we can't change the tide, or don't (ph) believe we can, we need to be prepared to lock and load.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FIELD: So, Mike Detmer does say ideally things should be solved peacefully. CNN has reached out. He talks to "The Detroit News," though, about that comment, lock and load. He says the people have the responsibility to stop the tyranny, but in the worst case lock and load.

Reaction, of course, has been swift from Democratic Party leaders. The states attorney general condemning the comments. She put out a tweet reminding people that it is in fact illegal to use firearms to intimidate voters. She goes on to say that the states GOP leaders should also be condemning these comments.

Bianna. Jim.

GOLODRYGA: Listen, people take these words literally and seriously. And we've seen incidents in the past that has led to violence. So, it is just inexcusable.

SCIUTTO: He said, we need to be prepared to lock and load. Those are his exact words, if we can't change the tide. I mean listen to what they say.

GOLODRYGA: Oh, yes. Exactly.

Alexandra Field, thank you so much for the reporting.

And up next, we have some great news for you this morning. Finally for parents of kids under the age of fie, Pfizer may have its vaccine for young children approved very soon.

[09:15:05]

We'll break down the timeline for you.

SCIUTTO: Plus, at least eight historically black universities have been targeted with bomb threats this morning. Many of them have been forced to cancel or postpone classes. What we know about these messages coming up.

And we are following a huge -- following a huge fire that broke out overnight and is still burning at a fertilizer plant in North Carolina. Look at those pictures there. Firefighters forced to abandon their efforts over concerns that chemicals nearby may explode.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCIUTTO: New this morning, Pfizer is expected to seek authorization from the FDA as soon as today for its Covid vaccine for children under five years old.

[09:20:04]

GOLODRYGA: Yes, the two-dose regimen would be the first vaccine for this age group and could be available as soon as the end of this month. So, let's go to CNN's senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen for more on this.

Elizabeth, as you know, so many parents have been waiting for this news. Tell us more about this timeline.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, finally, this is the last age group that will be able to get a Covid-19 vaccine and finally be protected. My own children are much older than this, but I know many friends who have children this young, they really have been waiting a long time for this.

So, let's take a look at what these dosages are.

So what Pfizer is going to be asking for is for the under five-year- old group, two shots of 3 micrograms each. And they're studying whether a third shot will be necessary for this age group. For the five to 11-year-olds, they're going to be asking the FDA for authorization of two shots of 10 micrograms each. Now that's much lower than what we give to 12 and older, that's 30 micrograms. So these are much lower dosages.

Now let's take a look at what's been happening with children and Covid-19. If we take a look at this graph, if you look to the left, that's way back at the beginning of the pandemic, childhood cases kind of puttered along and then shot way up in the age of omicron, just in the past month or two. So, you can see that even though, you know, children can get omicron -- children can get Covid, they do get Covid, they've been getting it in much higher numbers. And even though, thank goodness, for the vast, vast majority, they're fine. Any parent knows children are great at spreading germs to people who might be older and who might be vulnerable to getting very sick from Covid.

Unfortunately, the message to vaccinate children has not gone so well. Let's take a look at this.

So, children ages five and 11, they've been able to get a vaccine since November 2nd, but only 22 percent of them are fully vaccinated. Compare that, as you can see, with the other age groups. The trick here might not just be getting the vaccine, but convincing parents to give it to children. That may be an even bigger hurdle.

Jim. Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, this has been a major frustration for within the CDC. Nonetheless, some really good news this morning.

SCIUTTO: Yes. GOLODRYGA: Elizabeth Cohen, thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, controversy over pandemic rules and restrictions has created such animosity in some school districts that more and more superintendents are resigning to get away from all of this hostility.

SCIUTTO: I mean, a sad fact, a lot of these things have become politicized issues.

CNN's Leyla Santiago spoke with educators who say they are being worn down by the waves of anger coming their way.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEYLA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Donald Fennoy craved stress-free moments like this for months. The now former school superintendent of Palm Beach County stepped down 16 months into the pandemic. He wanted to spend more time with family.

DONALD FENNOY, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Come on, baby.

SANTIAGO: Less time with this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stop trying to incite division among us!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We reserve the authority to fire all of you, including you, Dr. Fennoy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What absolutely -- just as bad as some of those Nazi generals --

FENNOY: We will be having school tomorrow.

SANTIAGO: Dr. Fennoy expected the superintendent job to include some tough days, but not like this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Behave yourselves or I'll have you removed.

SANTIAGO: Not the hostilities, stress, exhaustion, the threats that came with the politics of Covid-19.

SANTIAGO (on camera): Did that happen to you?

FENNOY: Oh, God, yes. Oh, yes. Yes, I had letters sent here. I've had security teams. You know, this is -- this is just -- this is the new reality, right?

SANTIAGO (voice over): A new reality that fueled his decision to resign.

A growing number of superintendents are now leaving the job because of pressure from the pandemic and the political divide, especially as it relates to masks, vaccines and critical race theory, according to The School's Superintendent Association. DR. MICHAEL HINOJOSA, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT: These cultural wars are wearing people out. I had friends that tell me, this job, they didn't sign up for this.

SANTIAGO: Dealing with Covid was a crisis, Fennoy says, that had no playbook and at times contradicting national and state response strategies. It all took a toll.

FENNOY: I came home from the board meeting and I was in my office and my daughter said, daddy, it's time to eat. So I stood up and the next thing I remember they were standing over me screaming and yelling, right? So, I passed out. And I tried to brush it off and it scared me.

DAN DOMENECH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION: It's alarming. No question about it.

SANTIAGO: A recent survey found nearly two-thirds of the superintendents who responded considered quitting during the 2020-2021 school year. And Dan Domenech points out that there was already a shortage of superintendents before the pandemic.

DOMENECH: I can tell you that I've been in this business for 54 years. And I have never experienced what we're experiencing today.

SANTIAGO: There is no national system keeping tabs on the turnover. But organizations tracking superintendents in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Wyoming, Kansas, and Idaho told us they're seeing more superintendents leave their positions now, compared to the pre- pandemic school years.

DOMENECH: This is a time where you need experienced leaders.

[09:25:03]

SANTIAGO: Experienced leaders whose roles continue to expand beyond the traditional scope of management.

FENNOY: We're social workers. We're pastors. We're -- I mean we're -- a school system does everything now. That's hard when you have to be, you know, medical professionals. You know, that was -- you know, that was the hardest part about Covid, when I was asked to like make decisions about medical -- as my kids love to tell me, I'm not a real doctor.

SANTIAGO: One of the largest education leadership research firms in the country told CNN it's seeing fewer people wanting to go into school superintendency right now.

FENNOY: I think the first thing they're doing is looking at YouTube videos of board meetings. Now, think about that. You know, you have candidates looking at board meetings to see if I even want to deal with that.

SANTIAGO: All part of that new reality for superintendents, Fennoy says. A reality that has resulted in more superintendents leaving school districts still struggling across the country. (END VIDEOTAPE)

SANTIAGO: And the pandemic and the politics has become such a part of the conversation that it's actually becoming a part of the interview process for candidates. Case in point, just last week, here in Miami- Dade, the school board asked the three finalists in a public meeting about politics out of Tallahassee and masks and how that would be part of their decision making moving forward.

Jim. Bianna.

SCIUTTO: That's a shame to lose public servants like that.

Leyla Santiago, thanks so much for covering it.

Still ahead, the FBI is investigating a series now of bomb threats in just the past two days targeting more than a dozen historically black colleges and universities. We're going to be live with new details coming up.

GOLODRYGA: And we are just moments away from the opening bell on Wall Street. Stock futures pointing higher this morning as investors awaited manufacturing data and earns from big name companies, including Exxon Mobil and Alphabet. Investors are hoping that the broad turbulent training seen in January is behind them. The market's losses have halted this week while investors continue to assess the economic outlook.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)