Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Russia and China Meet; RNC Votes to Censure Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney; Olympics Begin; January Jobs Reports Shatters Expectations. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired February 04, 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]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Right.

And Congresswoman Luria saying today she thinks a month or two away from the public hearings and the public reports, some of the transcripts of those interviews, so the fascinating days still ahead, even as they deal with these big questions about big witnesses.

Appreciate everybody coming in on a Friday.

Appreciate your time on this Friday as well. Thanks for joining INSIDE POLITICS. Have a fantastic weekend. See you back here on Monday.

Ana Cabrera picks up right now.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello, and happy Friday. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

And we began with America's economic recovery getting a massive and very unexpected boost in the face of a winter Omicron surge. The U.S. economy added 467,000 jobs in January, shattering most economists' expectations. Added to that, December's job gains were revised up by more than 300,000.

You have heard the old adage prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Well, that strategy may have paid off for the Biden administration. The White House was bracing for a brutal economic report today. You heard them even preparing you, the viewer, on our air multiple days this week.

Well, the president's planned rebuttal this morning turned into a victory lap.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to speak to you this morning about the extraordinary resilience and grit of the American people and American capitalism.

Our country is taking everything that COVID has to throw at us, and we have come back stronger. I'm pleased to report this morning what many of you already know, that America's job machine is going stronger than ever, fueling a strong recovery and opportunity for hardworking women and men all across this great country.

America is back to work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: And with hiring up and wages up, even as millions were out of work because of Omicron, you may be wondering, why is the market mixed right now? And that's because today's report provided more clues that inflation isn't cooling off, so Wall Street's a little skittish about looming action now from the Fed.

Let's discuss with business journalist Marc Stewart.

Marc, good to see you.

Starting with the jobs report, how did forecasters get this so wrong? And what is your bigger takeaway here?

MARC STEWART, BUSINESS JOURNALIST: Hey there, Ana. It's really good to be here.

I asked that very question to an economist this morning. He called it the $1 million question.

And I think the simple explanation is this. It is very difficult to gather economic data in real time. We have to keep in mind people have been moving around during the pandemic. Every single day is uncharted. And some of the methods to collect and analyze data from the past may not be working so well in this current state of the pandemic.

But, indeed, there are some important takeaways, first of all, the job growth. It shows that, during something as challenging as the Omicron variant, we can be nimble and we can thrive and we can hire people. Yet, at the same time, it also shows that Omicron is a threat to contend with, because people worked fewer hours per week.

Perhaps they were staying at home because they were sick, they were in quarantine, or they were taking care of others. And one final point, Ana. Despite this good news, big companies, small businesses are still having a very tough time hiring people. Things are improving. But there's still a lot of disparity.

In fact, if you look at this most recent data dump, as they say, women and black workers SAW little or no change in the jobless rate compared to the month before. So, as far as some watershed moment of sudden improvement, don't count on that, at least just yet.

CABRERA: Does today's report give us any better indication of where inflation is headed? We know gas prices are back to $3.42 a gallon. That matches that seven-year record high we saw last fall. What should we expect?

STEWART: Well, I just was at an economic briefing last week. And a lot of economists feel that inflation, unfortunately, is going to be part of our lives for the next 11 months. But as far as that gas question is concerned, it's very relevant.

We're all thinking about summer vacation. I checked in with AAA this morning. And they feel that because Omicron is subsiding, and eventually people are going to want to hit the road again, gas prices likely will remain elevated, because the sheer fact that there is so much demand.

We should also keep in mind as to what's happening around the world right now, as you have reported, the tension between Ukraine and Russia. Russia is a big stakeholder, a big player in OPEC. If Russia isn't so happy with sanctions or potential sanctions, it could have a say in oil output.

And if output is reduced, we're all going to pay more at the pump.

CABRERA: I also want to ask you about the company formerly known as Facebook.

Meta just took a major hit, losing nearly $240 billion in market valuation yesterday. That's more than Starbucks, Boeing and Domino's pizza are worth combined.

So, is this a one-off, or does this spell trouble for Meta and Mark Zuckerberg?

[13:05:04]

STEWART: No, it's certainly jaw-dropping.

I think the thing which we have to remember about the tech sector is that it's extremely fickle. There are new products, there are new entrants all the time, not to mention this constant threat of regulation from the government.

I think the thing to keep in mind is this. When investors hear on an earnings call that there is perhaps some concern about the future, about the outlook, they may want to pull back. And that's what happened yesterday. But Facebook or Meta is not necessarily alone.

When Peloton, when Netflix indicated that it's seen a decline in subscriber base and has some hesitation about the future, it too saw its stock decline and saw a bit of a sell-off. Obviously, Facebook, Meta is a big name. And when something like this happens, it draws a lot of headlines.

But, remember, over the past 24-plus months of the pandemic, we have seen tremendous swings in the tech sector. So I think, at this point, it's part in line as to what's been happening. I wouldn't write off Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, at least just yet, Ana.

CABRERA: Marc Stewart, good to see you. Thank you so much.

STEWART: Take care.

CABRERA: Let the Games begin. This morning's Opening Ceremony officially kicks off the Winter

Olympics in Beijing, and the traditional glitz and sparkle all there under the cloud, though, of a COVID lockdown and diplomatic boycotts by the U.S. and other countries as well.

But Chinese President Xi Jinping was very happy to welcome a special guest today, Russian leader Vladimir Putin. And, together, they issued a call for NATO to halt further expansion. Their unified demand adds to the international fears that Russia will invade Ukraine with its troops still massed at the border.

First, let's focus on the Olympics.

And CNN's Selina Wang is there with a closer look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SELINA WANG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Beijing Winter Olympics have officially kicked off with the Opening Ceremony. It was a visually stunning spectacle, with the use of elaborate technology. But it was a simpler, more subdued event that the 2008 Opening Ceremony.

They used 3,000 performers this time around vs. 15,000 back then, because, in 2008, there was this immense pressure on China to pull off this extravagant ceremony to cement China's role as an emerging global superpower. This time around, China's not trying to prove anything to the world. It is a more confident nation.

And, in fact, this Opening Ceremony was a moment for Beijing to show off a wealthy and powerful China and one that's -- under Xi Jinping is more authoritarian and increasingly at odds with the West.

That is as the United States, as well as some of its allies, the U.K., Australia and Canada, are staging a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics, as a statement against allegations of genocide in China's Xinjiang region, allegations that China strongly denies, a big contrast to 2008, when George W. Bush was in the stands shoulder to shoulder to Chinese leaders.

This time around, a very different guest of honor, Vladimir Putin. Along with Putin, there were other autocratic and strongmen leaders, including Crown Prince, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the leaders of Egypt, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. China's surrounding itself with a very different set of friends.

Selina Wang in Beijing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Our thanks to Selina.

President Putin never left the sidelines, but he very much had a starring role after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. They not only announced their united opposition to NATO expansion, but also said that their deepening strategic partnership has -- quote -- "no limits." Joining us now to discuss, Robin Wright, columnist for "The New Yorker" and a distinguished fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, a CNN military analyst who was the commanding general of Europe and the Seventh Army.

Always great to talk to both of you. You know this realm so well.

Robin, what do you make of this show of unity by Putin and Xi? Does a Putin-Xi partnership pose a big threat to the U.S.?

ROBIN WRIGHT, "THE NEW YORKER": It does.

For 30 years, since the end of the Cold War, the world has witnessed a kind of tripolar world, where you had Russia, China, and the United States and to different degrees dominating the international landscape.

Now, you find that, in this sweeping 5,000-word statement, China and Russia, led by the two most influential, powerful autocrats in the world, backing each other up, not just on the immediate issues of pushing back against NATO expansion in Europe or the one China policy that would basically endorse China's absorption of Taiwan.

This deals with a myriad issues of the future. It deals with security of nations. It deals with spheres of influence, the political model for the future. It very pointedly said there is no one model that works for the world when it comes to democracy.

[13:10:08]

There was a lot of kind of hypocritical language in terms of democracy and human rights, and so forth. But this was a profound signal to the United States specifically, to the West in general, and to the idea of democracy broadly, that these two nations are going to team up.

Now, it's an unnatural alliance in many ways, but they can wreck havoc if they really push forward on these -- on this agenda.

CABRERA: Just a quick follow on that, because China seems to be a much bigger world power than Russia, right? And one would think Putin needs Xi more than the other way around.

And so when you look at the immediate threat and the situation at the Ukrainian and Russian border, would Putin dare launch an invasion during the Olympics and risk taking the spotlight away from China?

WRIGHT: No.

And the pattern of the past, actually in 2008 and 2014, it was that Putin waited until after the Olympics. So I think everyone's looking at those dates afterwards.

I mean, Putin needs Xi more than Xi needs Putin right now, and I think down the road, but they are, in some ways, because of their kind of autocratic approach to government, their hunger for power, and their quest to be lifelong leaders, they have much in common. CABRERA: General Hertling, Putin and Xi released this joint statement saying they both oppose the expansion of NATO.

Why is the NATO alliance such a threat to them?

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes, finish off that statement, though, Ana, I think, because Robin is spot on.

She gave the gross generalization of the entire document. But you started with the first line. I have the rest of it. "The parties oppose the further expansion of NATO, call on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon their ideological approach to the Cold War, respect the sovereignty, security and interest of other countries, the diversity of their civilizational and cultural historical patterns, and treat the peaceful development of other states objectively and fairly."

Xi and Putin saying that, where one is holding an Olympics where he's being boycotted by at least seven countries diplomatically because of his treatment of the Uyghurs, and Putin on the verge of attempting to bully and influence and potentially even invade again Ukraine.

So you talk about the hypocrisy of those two things. And I'd also like to comment on what Robin said, because I think she's spot on. When she said they have each other's back, that's probably the best way to view their relationship. It isn't a partnership, a side-by-side partnership.

I would almost say that they're back to back looking at different opportunities around the world to expand their horizons and their territory. Both of them have stated that they want to expand their own countries, China into Taiwan and the South China Seas to some of the islands, Putin saying he wants to go back to Cold War -- Cold War -- excuse me -- with nations in his security sphere.

So it just really is interesting from that standpoint. One of the things I comment on, I had a chance to spend a couple of weeks in China when I was still in the military, and talk to their war college students and some of their soldiers.

In 1998, they had a 20-year plan. And at the time, when I saw that plan, I kind of said, ooh, they're being a little bit froggy and a bit ambitious. But, truthfully, in the last 20 years, they have hit every marker in terms of expanding not only their economy and the military.

So China is certainly a force to be reckoned with, Putin not so much.

CABRERA: That's scary to think about, looking back 20 years ago and see where they have or haven't met their benchmarks and to know that they have actually been meeting them.

Robin, the Biden administration says that they have intel to suggest that Russians are plotting a false flag operation with fake, graphic videos made to look like Ukrainians launched a violent and bloody attack against Russians. And that would be the pretext for Russia to invade Ukraine. The administration was pressed to provide evidence. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NED PRICE, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Matt, this is derived from information known to the U.S. government, intelligence information that we have declassified. I think you know...

QUESTION: OK, well, where is it? Where is this information?

PRICE: It is intelligence information that we have declassified.

QUESTION: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information?

PRICE: I just delivered it.

QUESTION: No, you made a series of allegations and statements...

PRICE: Would you like us to print out the topper? Because you will see a transcript of this briefing that you can print out for yourself.

QUESTION: But that's not evidence, Ned. That's you saying it. That's not evidence. I'm sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Robin, you could understand that there are national security risks involved and laying all the cards on the table. But is it important that the administration show some evidence?

WRIGHT: Well, the United States has a very rocky record when it comes to making claims about nations' intentions.

[13:15:05]

We saw that over the issue of weapons of mass destruction...

CABRERA: Right.

WRIGHT: ... to justify the war in Iraq. So I think there will be a lot of questions.

The problem now is, how does the United States deal with Putin's plan when Putin makes a series of allegations, no, no, he has no intention of going into Ukraine and so forth, and yet, militarily, he is -- continues day by day to deploy more forces, more warplanes, more tanks.

And so I think the United States is trying to invoke intelligence. There will be -- there will be natural skepticism. But the problem is, how does the United States counter it and put Russia on notice that we understand what they're doing or we understand how they're gaming this crisis.

It's kind of a no-win position for the United States right now. But there aren't many options. And they will be held to account if it's proven yet again the United States actually didn't have the intelligence or that's not what Russia was planning.

CABRERA: Got to leave it there today, guys. I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion, Robin Wright and Mark Hertling, General Mark Hertling. Good to see you both. Thanks.

This just in to CNN: The Republican National Committee has voted to punish two of their own for investigating the January 6 insurrection. What this means for Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. That's ahead.

Plus: the father and son duo convicted in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery now set to go on federal trial for federal hate crimes, after officially withdrawing their guilty pleas just this morning.

And the CDC just unveiled a new weapon in tracking the pandemic, human waste. We will explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:03]

CABRERA: As the January 6 Committee zeros in on the former president's inner circle, the GOP plots retribution for the two Republicans on the panel.

And just moments ago, the Republican National Committee voted to censure Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Congressman Adam Kinzinger. The initial plan went even further. It would have kicked them out of the House Republican Conference.

Republican Senator Mitt Romney's slammed the move in a tweet this morning, writing: "Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth, even when doing so comes at great personal cost."

I want to bring in chief political analyst Gloria Borger and former White House ethics czar and CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen.

So, I will start with you, Gloria.

This is kind of unreal, the RNC punishing members of their own party for seeking the truth. Now, they softened the punishment, but what's your read?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, they couldn't -- they probably couldn't have gotten something stronger through. They did it on a voice vote, so they could sort of say it was unanimous.

But let me just read you one sentence, the first sentence of this resolution: "Whereas the primary mission of the Republican Party is to elect Republicans who support the United States Constitution and share our values," and then it goes on about centering these two people.

What are these two people doing? Supporting the Constitution. What's their crime? Trying to figure out exactly what occurred on January 6. And I will say that Mitt Romney is not alone. We just saw a tweet from Larry Hogan. Mitch McConnell's trying to get him to run for Senate. He's the Republican governor of Maryland, who said: "It's a sad day for my party and the country when you're punished just for expressing your beliefs, standing on principle, and refusing to tell blatant lies."

So I doubt that it was unanimous in that room. But it is proof that the Republican National Committee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Donald Trump. And they will go on to endorse Liz Cheney's opponent in a primary, which is pretty much unheard of.

And that's what these two are up against.

CABRERA: And yet, Norm, we know Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger will not be intimidated, and they will not back down.

They are moving forward with the work of the committee. And we have learned the committee interviewed Jeffrey Clark. He is the former DOJ official who pushed the election reversal scheme. And we're told he pleaded the Fifth over 100 times.

But one committee member tells us they might have a way to make him talk. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): One of the options that the committee needs to look at is whether we provide use immunity to Mr. Clark. What that means is that the testimony you give to the committee could not be used in the criminal case. If the Justice Department finds out about it some other way, they're not precluded from proceeding.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Norm, do you think it's worth offering immunity to Clark or anyone else?

NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do think that statutory immunity should be considered so we can get to the truth of what Mr. Clark has to say, as one of the inside coup lawyers, perhaps the leading one inside the government, pushing for the overthrow of the legitimate election.

Ana, the reason that this statutory provision exists, most necessary when somebody asserts the Fifth Amendment, and Clark does have a legitimate reason to be concerned about prosecution, because there is evidence of a possible conspiracy to obstruct Congress, possible state charges, as well of soliciting election fraud that he may or may not have been a part of. We need to see how that develops.

[13:25:11]

So I think it is important to get the truth from him. And this approach where Congress authorizes and then a court grants an order of use immunity, it can be used, is for that purpose. Remember, they do have to keep it close-hold, or it can taint any

possible prosecution of Clark outside of Congress. That's what happened with Ollie North, most famously. So, yes, I think it should be considered.

CABRERA: And, Gloria, several aides to former Vice President Mike Pence have been talking to the committee, but we're learning they're not answering questions about direct conversations with Trump.

Is this about executive privilege, do you think? Or is there a political calculation involved?

BORGER: I think it's probably about both.

I think that they made it very clear to Donald Trump, to Donald Trump's attorneys that if the attorneys thought certain conversations were privileged, then they would honor that. And I think that's the way they approached it when they were interviewed by the committee.

But I was told that the interviews were not contentious. So what this means to me is that the committee lawyers knew that this was going to be an issue and found ways to get around it or to not ask certain questions that they knew would be privileged, or ask them in a different way.

And so I don't think there were a lot of arguments about it. They testified for hours. And so they were able to give their information without seeming to be in conflict with the former president.

CABRERA: But it just seems like then the former president is protected, whether he should be or not, Norm.

What actually happens if you're under oath, and you disclose something that may be covered by executive privilege?

EISEN: Well, it may constitute a waiver of the privilege if you do that.

But, Ana, I think it's important that -- there's a saying. Witnesses can sometimes lie. Documents don't. And this is why the committee went all the way to the Supreme Court in an extremely rapid fashion, just over three months, to get those 700-plus Trump administration documents, because even if these witnesses are refusing to talk, those documents will do the talking for them.

The whole executive privilege argument is baloney here, as the Supreme Court found. There's no real basis for them not to do this, but, unfortunately, no time to litigate it.

CABRERA: And the committee is having serious discussions now about whether they will issue subpoenas for specifically fellow lawmakers who aren't voluntarily cooperating.

The chairman of the committee saying it may come down to respect for the institution. Gloria, why the reluctance to take that step? Is it fear of GOP retribution after the midterms? I mean, isn't that the assumption Republicans will do that -- they will do that anyway?

BORGER: Well, it could be. And there's a lot of discussion inside the committee, and there isn't agreement on it.

I think that, when you issue a subpoena to a fellow member of Congress -- and, by the way, they're perfectly allowed to do that -- you have to be ready to follow up on it. So, if you issue a subpoena to -- say they were to issue a subpoena to Jim Jordan, and he doesn't want to cooperate -- his initial letter to them didn't make it seem like he was really excited about going before the committee.

So, say he doesn't cooperate. Do you hold him in contempt of Congress, then? So you have to be willing to take this all the way down the road. And that could really gum up the works. It could set a precedent that perhaps they don't want, as you pointed out. So it's a very complex matter for them.

And I don't think they have sort of gotten to a point where they can say, yes, we're going to do this for one or all of these people.

CABRERA: Gloria Borger, Norm Eisen, thank you both.

BORGER: Sure.

CABRERA: Minneapolis police are under scrutiny once again after a no- knock search warrant led to a black man's death.

Details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)