Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview With Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA); Russia Tensions; Second Trump Draft Order to Seize Voting Machines Emerges. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired February 01, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Even though Pence himself has not come in, the committee is getting a great deal of cooperation from his orbit -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: The committee is getting pretty high up on the Trump inner circle, or totem pole, if you want to put it that way.

Ryan Nobles, appreciate the hustle on the breaking news.

Appreciate your time today on INSIDE POLITICS. We will see it tomorrow.

Ana Cabrera picks up our coverage right now.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Ana Cabrera. Thank you for joining us.

We are following multiple developing stories today. We have learned of a second executive order drafted by former President Trump aimed at seizing voting machines from the 2020 election.

I will speak to January 6 Committee member Congressman Adam Schiff on what this means for their investigation.

We are also closely monitoring whether Pfizer will apply for FDA authorization for its COVID vaccine for kids under the age of 5. A source tells CNN that could come as soon as today.

And it's official. The GOAT, the greatest of all time, is retiring. Legendary quarterback Tom Brady explains why he's walking away after 22 NFL seasons and seven Super Bowl wins.

We began with the January 6 investigation, where it seems like, just about every day, there's a major new revelation. And, today, we have two, both CNN exclusive. First, we have learned Trump advisers drafted two different executive

orders to seize voting machines. Now, the initial draft that was made public would have directed the Pentagon to do it. But a second version that we have learned about would have given the task to Homeland Security, another glimpse at the level of planning behind Trump's effort to overturn a free and fair election.

Also, sources tell CNN Trump White House insider Marc Short has testified with the January 6 Committee. The former chief of staff to former V.P. Mike Pence has been on the committee's radar for months, because he was in the room for key moments after Trump's loss.

And, on January 6, he was with the vice president.

CNN senior legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid joins us from Washington.

Paula, first, what do we know about this second draft executive order aimed at seizing voting machines?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, we have previously reported on the existence of a draft order tasking the Pentagon with seizing voting machines. That was shocking news when it was first reported.

That document has been handed over to the House select committee investigating January 6. And we know, from our reporting, lawmakers have been asking me this is about that document. Now, multiple sources tell our colleagues Zach Cohen and I that a second version of that same document also exists.

But it instructs DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, to carry out the same task. And we have also learned from multiple sources that the idea of using the federal government to access voting machines was the brainchild of retired Colonel Phil Waldron and former Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn.

Now, both Army veterans were pushing the narrative that the election was stolen from Trump. But, Ana, it is not clear who specifically put pen to pencil and drafted the E.O. itself.

And we have also previously reported Trump's former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, he was the one spearheading these efforts to challenge the election results. He had a group of Trump allies working to brainstorm ideas for how to challenge the election outcome.

Well, now we learn that Giuliani approach Ken Cuccinelli, who at the time was second in command at Homeland Security, and asked about seizing voting machines after the election. Cuccinelli told him they didn't have that authority.

Cuccinelli tell CNN that his discussions with Giuliani, though, never developed to the point of talking specifically about drafting an executive order. Now, Ana, the House select committee is now looking into this effort to draft an executive order and how it began, including the roles of Giuliani, Flynn, Waldron and others. And while neither memo was ever issued, this reporting really shows

the lengths Trump advisers were willing to go to as part of their broader effort to undermine the election results.

CABRERA: And, Paula, we have learned that Marc Short met with the select committee. Now, we have just learned within the last few minutes another top aide to former Vice President Pence is meeting with that committee.

What do we know about all this?

REID: Well, here, Ana, the House select committee has really nabbed one of its most significant witnesses yet.

Our colleagues Gloria Borger and Jamie Gangel reporting exclusively that Short provided lengthy testimony to lawmakers last week. And it's so significant, because Short can really provide firsthand testimony of what was happening behind the scenes.

And, look, it shows the committee has been able to carve out this window through the Pence staff into what was happening in the West Wing. And, as you noted, our colleagues up on the Hill spotting another Pence aide, Greg Jacob, heading in to talk to lawmakers.

And all of this, Ana, sets up a big question for Pence himself. Will he testify before this panel?

CABRERA: Paula Reid, I appreciate all that. Thank you.

Let's bring in CNN legal and national security analyst former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa.

Asha, two drafts, one involving the Department of Defense, the other the Department of Homeland Security.

So they were weighing their options, talking about seizing voting machines. How significant is this?

[13:05:02]

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: This is just one more front, Ana, in this plan to overthrow the election beyond even trying to obstruct Congress.

I mean, this would have literally -- or their plan was literally a federal takeover of elections. I think there are two key takeaways here. One is that this is really showing the extent of Trump's direct involvement in these efforts.

I mean, traditionally, he has sort of tried to keep an arm's length and left a lot of dirty work to lackeys and minions. But, here, he's actually having his aides reached out to these agencies in an effort to weaponize them. And the executive orders would have been coming directly from him.

This also goes to his state of mind, Ana. In the process of trying to draft these orders and get this plan in motion, he's reportedly being told several times that this is not legal. Bill Barr, the attorney general, tells him that DOJ can't seize these machines. He's told by Ken Cuccinelli at DHS that they can't seize it.

And even Giuliani says he can't do it. And when something is beyond the pale for Giuliani, I think that you have really hit rock bottom in terms of legality.

CABRERA: So, if Trump were directing Giuliani, for example, to reach out to DHS, as "The New York Times" is reporting happened, is that a crime?

RANGAPPA: Well, Ana, I think that this sort of highlights where there may be limits to criminal law.

I mean, there may be a conspiracy to interfere in the election. I mean, this was not specifically trying to obstruct Congress, but it highlights why the impeachment process was so important, because what this is, is a classic abuse of power, the attempt to use the power and authority of the presidency to basically undermine the will of the American people and overturn an election.

And the question I have, Ana, is, why didn't Barr come forward with this information when he had it during the impeachment proceeding? Because, as you know, even though Trump left office, one of the penalties, had he been convicted, would have been possibly also prohibiting him from holding public office ever again.

And so even if the Department of Justice is able to find a crime to charge him with, that would not necessarily stop him from holding office or running again, which I think all of this just shows that he is completely unfit to do that.

CABRERA: We have had reporting that Barr has met with the committee. Our new reporting today in terms of the January 6 Committee and who they're meeting with, is Marc Short.

He was the former chief of staff to then Vice President Mike Pence. And he's super significant because we know he was with then-Vice President Pence at the Capitol as people were invading, calling out, "Hang Mike Pence." He was with Mike Pence as Trump was tweeting, Pence didn't have the courage to overturn the election.

He was also with Mike Pence, we're told, in the Oval Office on January 4, when Trump and lawyer John Eastman tried to convince Pence that he had the power to overthrow and turn over the election.

So, what are the implications of Short's testimony?

RANGAPPA: The implications of Short's testimony is that it's giving really firsthand knowledge of the interactions between Pence and the president what was transpiring both in the pressure campaign leading up to the certification of the electoral votes, and also possibly what Trump or John Eastman were communicating to Pence maybe even as the mob was attacking. Were they still trying to use that? Were they intending for that mob to be leveraged, for Pence to try to undo or overturn the certification? I mean, Pence is ultimately, for the obstruction of Congress, really the epicenter of this. He was the one who Trump believed held the Keys to the kingdom in terms of invalidating many states and their electoral votes for Biden, and possibly even certifying a fake slate of electors or throwing it back to the House, so that they could give the election to Trump.

So I don't think, though, that Short is a substitute for Pence. I think Pence should testify as well, because he is the one who can speak directly to his own communications and state of mind when that was happening.

CABRERA: Well, we will ask Representative Adam Schiff about that specifically when we talk to him coming up.

Asha Rangappa, I always appreciate you, your expertise. Thank you very much for taking the time.

RANGAPPA: Thank you.

CABRERA: A short time ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrapped up a high-stakes phone call with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov.

And this meeting came after Russia said there was some kind of mixup over its written response to U.S. questions about Russia's presence along the border with Ukraine.

Now, Biden administration officials say they expressed willingness to work with Russia on some key issues. But at a press conference this morning, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia's key security proposals were ignored by the West.

[13:10:08]

CNN national security correspondent Kylie Atwood is at the State Department.

Kylie, can you just walk us through this back-and-forth and what happened at today's meeting?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

Well, there's a lot going on today on, Ana. But the main thing to look at is the fact that we heard from President Putin. He has not talked to the public in weeks. And that has left U.S. officials looking at the comments from those who work below him in the Kremlin, but, ultimately, not exactly knowing where President Putin stands on all of this.

And, as you said, he came out saying that his security demands were ignored by the United States. That is not a -- does not pass the fact that this looks like diplomacy is going somewhere, right? Now, we should also note that the U.S. officials have repeatedly said that Putin's primary security concerns with regard to the expansion of NATO are off the table. That's not something that they are going to discuss. So it's sort of like we're back to square one here.

Now, diplomacy hasn't completely dead-ended. As you said, Secretary of State Tony Blinken spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov today. The secretary continued to reiterate the need for Russia to de- escalate. But, according to a senior State Department official, Russia gave no indication in that phone call that they plan to de-escalate the situation along the Russia-Ukrainian border, indicating that escalation is the area that they continue to head in vs. de-escalation and diplomacy.

CABRERA: All right, Kylie Atwood, thank you for your reporting. I thought we might have a little bit of sound there that you were going to throw to.

Always appreciate the update there.

Up next, we're going to talk about all this with the chair of the House Intel Committee and member of January 6 Select Committee, Representative Adam Schiff.

Plus: The GOAT makes it official. NFL legend Tom Brady announces he is retiring after 22 seasons and seven Super Bowl rings. Why he says now is the right time to walk away.

And COVID vaccines for kids under 5 years old could be coming even sooner than we were discussing just yesterday.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:41]

CABRERA: Right now Congress is contending with two dual threats to democracy, one inside America and one at Europe's doorstep.

Here at home, lawmakers are uncovering stunning new information about the amount of planning behind former President Trump's plot to nullify the 2020 election. Meanwhile, with Ukraine now staring down the barrel of a gun, essentially, and Russia appearing to have an itchy trigger finger, well, top Biden administration officials will brief all of Congress on this standoff this week.

And let's dive right into both these issues with House Intelligence Committee Chairman and January 6 Committee member Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff.

Congressman, thank you for being with us.

Let's start with worries of potential war breaking out with Russia. The full House will get a classified briefing on Ukraine on Thursday. What's the top question you want answered? REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, I have had a several briefings already

this week.

And, obviously, we're watching this very closely to figure out what Putin's next move is, and if there's anything that we can do to raise the deterrence against A Russian invasion. And I think the Biden administration has done everything conceivable, rallied our allies around a really tough set of sanctions, tougher that we have ever exacted on a country like Russia.

We have worked with the British, I think, to front some of what we know about their efforts to create a pretext for invasion, about their efforts to create a puppet government in Ukraine.

We have made it clear to Putin we're going to move NATO assets closer to Russia, not further away, if they go through with this, so it will defeat his objective. And I think, in every way that we can, the administration and now the Congress is working to try to deter Putin.

Now, he still may not be deterred, but we're doing everything possible.

CABRERA: So, right now, do you think Russia will invade? And has anything changed your assessment one way or the other in recent days?

SCHIFF: You know, I have been skeptical from the very beginning about whether anything we could do would stop Putin from invading, if that's his intention.

And I think it's very possible that is exactly what he intends to do, and nothing will stop him. But we can raise the costs if it comes to that. And, obviously, we're working on that to provide weapons to Ukraine, defensive weapons, where they can make it long and painful if Russia tries to occupy further portions of Ukraine.

And so we're doing what we can. I have been skeptical of Putin's intentions all along. I think he feels that his last invasion of Ukraine did not have its intended effect. It really drove Ukraine more into the West. And he may feel now he's just got to militarily take over the whole country to prevent it from growing closer to the United States and the West.

CABRERA: In terms of potential leverage Putin could have, we know Russia supplies a lot of energy to parts of Europe.

And the Polish prime minister brought up the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project today, saying that it's a threat to peace in Europe. And he called it a -- quote -- "gun in the hands of Mr. Putin with which he can blackmail the European Union."

Do you agree?

SCHIFF: I do agree.

That's always been a concern I have had about that pipeline, which is, the more you allow Europe to become dependent on Russia, the more that you make that easy, the more, for example, he can cut off Ukraine through which that fuel would otherwise flow, then you're strengthening his position geopolitically and strategically.

[13:20:18]

Now, our allies...

CABRERA: So, what should be done about that?

SCHIFF: Well, look, I'm glad to see that there's strong sentiment in Europe, including, I would expect in Germany, that, if Russia invades, that's the end of that pipeline, it's gone for good.

And that's the way it should be. So, I think that is one of the more powerful deterrents that we and Europe have. But it's got to be crystal clear to the Russians that, if you do invade, they can kiss that goodbye, and not just temporarily, but for good.

CABRERA: Bottom line, help our viewers understand why this matters so much here at home.

If Russia takes over Ukraine, what does that mean for the U.S.?

SCHIFF: Well, what that means for the U.S. is that nations can remake the borders, like during World War II, by dint of military force, and today, maybe Ukraine, and maybe, tomorrow, Russia decides to invade a NATO ally.

And then we have an Article 3 requirements go to their defense, but also other nations are watching. China's watching with an eye towards a possible invasion of Taiwan. So this is inherently destabilizing, and could lead to a broader conflict.

But it also undermines democracy. And we, as a champion of democracy around the world -- and we have got obviously our own problems here at home, but we have an obligation to live up to that legacy and come to the aid and support of our democratic allies like Ukraine.

CABRERA: So let's talk about the threat to democracy here at home, specifically, your investigation, being part of the January 6 Committee.

At the top of the show, we mentioned former Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short just testified with the committee. Can you broadly tell us what was covered and if he provided you with any new leads?

SCHIFF: You know, I can't confirm witness testimony. It's up to the witnesses if they want to confirm that.

But I can say that we have gotten a tremendous amount of cooperation from people throughout the states, throughout the former administration, in all, over 400 people that we have been able to interview and tens of thousands of documents.

So we're getting a lot of cooperation. We're filling in a lot of the pieces. And the puzzle, as we fill it in, shows multiple, multiple lines of effort overturn the election. It wasn't just a violent attack, as heinous as that was, on January 6, but the potential of seizing voting machines, of sending fake slates of electors to the Archives, of trying to get the Justice Department to discourage states from sending any slate of electors and delay the process.

So there were multiple lines of effort, all of which we're investigating. And we're getting a lot of cooperation.

CABRERA: So, given all that cooperation you have received, all the information you already have, do you need testimony from Mike Pence himself?

SCHIFF: I think Mike Pence would have very relevant testimony for our committee, things that he may alone be privy to, or alone among those who would be willing to testify, any conversations that he had with people in an effort to coerce him to overturn the election, to ignore his constitutional duty, that pressure campaign on him, and other issues that he may be aware of.

So I think he's a very pertinent witness. I think he could have a lot of insights to share with us. I hope, as our chairman has said, that he will decide voluntarily to come in.

But I will have to leave it there.

CABRERA: Has he been asked voluntarily to come in?

SCHIFF: I don't know whether the formal request has been made.

I know our chairman has publicly invited him to testify or expressed his interest in the vice president testifying. But I don't know if that has been memorialized in writing at this point.

CABRERA: What are you waiting for?

SCHIFF: Well, it'll be a decision for the committee when the time is right.

We are trying to sequence our interviews, so that we -- before we get to central figures like Mike Pence, we interview all those around that person who may have relevant information, so that we can inform the questions we ask of those other witnesses.

It's a pretty standard investigative practice...

CABRERA: Yes.

SCHIFF: ... and one that I think we have been using very successfully.

CABRERA: And you would know it well, as a former federal prosecutor yourself.

Let's move to these draft orders to seize voting machines. As we have reported, one plan would have used the Pentagon, the other Homeland Security. And "The New York Times" reports and then-President Trump actually directed Rudy Giuliani to put out feelers with Homeland Security about potentially seizing voting machines from some key swing states.

Can you confirm this? Do you have information showing a direct line to Trump on this?

[13:25:01]

SCHIFF: Our committee is not confirming the public reporting. So I can't confirm it at this point.

But I can say that, if the public reporting is accurate, this wasn't just some intangible idea. It appears that there were some concrete steps being taken or instructions being given by the former president to potentially operationalize this.

And that really ought to take our breath away, the idea of a U.S. president who -- contemplating -- when they lose an election, contemplating seizing the voting machines, using the machinery of the federal government to seize state voting machines and local voting machines. It's Third World kind of stuff, not what you would expect in the United States of America, of an established democracy.

And so it's pretty startling, if these public reports are accurate.

CABRERA: And, quickly, I do want to get your comments and thoughts on this reporting that we have and been confirmed by the National Archives that some of Trump's White House documents were ripped up and had to be taped back together by the National Archives, and these were documents handed over to your committee, after the judicial process said he could not exert executive privilege over these.

What were these torn-up documents?

SCHIFF: You know, I -- unfortunately, I can't comment on that.

There has been public reporting of the president having a practice of tearing things up. But whether that's the case here, I'm not able to confirm. But we are getting hundreds of records from the Archives. They're coming to us from the Archives in whatever form the Archives have them.

And, of course, we are scrutinizing them carefully and expect to get a lot more over time from the National Archives as well.

CABRERA: And I know that, eventually, you're going to make some of these findings, if not all of them, public through public hearings and other presentations.

How soon until there's that first or next public hearing?

SCHIFF: You know, I think fairly soon.

I think the chairman has said, in the spring, we intend to begin those public hearings. So that's not too far away. We want to sequence them in a way that makes sense for the public watching, so that they can see the whole narrative of these multiple lines of effort to overturn the election, when they began, and where they began, and who was involved.

So we're trying to make sure that we do the investigative work first, so that anything we disclose in the public hearings doesn't impede some of the other investigative work that's still ongoing.

CABRERA: Sure. I understand that. Obviously, there is a timeline here, though, with the midterm elections also around the corner.

Congressman Adam Schiff, really appreciate all of your time. Thank you very much.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

CABRERA: Well, it's official. After 22 NFL seasons and seven Super Bowl wins, legendary Tampa Bay quarterback Tom Brady is retiring, but there was something noticeably absent from his retirement announcement.

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)