Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Russia to Leave Belarus after Joint Drills; Biden Vows to Stop Pipeline; Supreme Court Allows Alabama GOP Map; Fulton County DA Casts Doubt on Trump's Argument; More States End Mask Mandates. Aired 9- 9:30a ET

Aired February 08, 2022 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:12]

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 are following two major stories at this hour.

First, a diplomatic back and forth. Some confusion this morning about Russia's next steps as the Kremlin denies reports that President Putin committed to no new military initiatives in eastern Europe. We'll break it all down for you.

SCIUTTO: Yes, the news moving very quickly there.

Plus, the NATO secretary-general on CNN this morning says it is too early to tell if Russia is making any noticeable moves towards de- escalation. At the same time, vowing a united western response if Putin does decide to invade Ukraine further than it already has. We're going to have more on that in a moment.

GOLODRYGA: And back here in the U.S., the Supreme Court allowing Alabama's new Republican drawn congressional map, accused of discriminating against black voters, to remain in place. So will other steps follow that playbook, and how soon?

SCIUTTO: CNN correspondent Melissa Bell is in Ukraine, international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson in Moscow, correspondent Jeremy Diamond at the White House this morning.

Let's begin in Ukraine with Melissa. Macron, the French president, in Ukraine today, meeting with President

Zelensky. Not clear what Macron achieved from meeting with Putin yesterday. What is he saying to the Ukrainians? Are they welcoming his visit? Do they see any progress?

MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They did seem to see some progress, Jim, although there was a slight clarification, you're quite right, about the -- in terms of the language around what Emmanuel Macron believes he achieved when he met with the Russian president yesterday in Moscow.

Now, we had been hearing from Elysee sources that he had got an assurance that Russia would not continue its military buildup, rather he explained that what he had obtained from Moscow, and he said this just now in the press conference, was a guarantee that Putin would not be behind any further escalation. That is a slight nuance. And yet the French president at pains to explain the extent to which he believes this is progress. It is a step in the right direction. It is some kind of engagement on the part of Vladimir Putin. Two concessions that he spoke of quite clearly, first of all, that Vladimir Putin says he will not be behind any kind of further escalation. But also a promise that he will withdraw from Belarus when those joint military exercises come to an end.

So, Emmanuel Macron believes these are important concessions he believes, Jim, that the conversation can now continue on to the basis of two things. First of all, progress on the Normandy format talks on what's happening on the front line in the east of Ukraine, but perhaps more importantly, and this is where the French presidency feel they've really made some progress, the idea of a new conversation about a new security order with Russia regarding security guarantees for Europe going forward. And I think that is where some real progress was made. It's what Moscow has long been calling for.

The French president quite clear that this does not mean bringing into question NATO'S open door policy. But it does mean that further conversations can be had with Russia about what guarantees each might ask of the other, within Europe that is, about their respective security arrangements.

So, that is the progress on which he wants to continue. We know that the two men are due to have more conversations in the next few days to see what progress can be made from that basis.

Jim and Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: And Macron also admitted that this is a crisis that won't be resolved any time soon. He said it could take months, if that.

Let's go to Nic. Because, Nic, one would think after a five-hour meeting there wouldn't be this much confusion as to what they actually discussed and agreed upon.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: But there seems to be a discrepancy between what we're hearing from Macron and the Kremlin. The former seems to be much more optimistic about any hopes of de-escalation. But specifically with regards to Russian troops, what if anything are we learning from the Kremlin about their base in Belarus and how long they may stay there?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: The Kremlin is saying that it has not given any guarantees about no further escalation. They're saying that they have not committed to taking troops out on any timeline. The indication had been, the understanding that President Macron thought he'd got, was that Russia would remove its troops from these joint operations, the Zaphad (ph) military exercises with the Belarusians. And the Belarusians defense ministry, or the Belarus defense miliary had previously said these military exercises would run until about the 20th of February. The Kremlin is saying very clearly that there is no end date when they see for them to be removing their forces.

And that nuance understanding that President Macron has that Russia will not commit to a further increase. When there are so many forces around Russian forces around Ukraine, one wonders what a further increase would look like in that context.

[09:05:09]

The Kremlin here does not appear to have given any ground whatsoever on this point. And if you look at the fundamental of what President Macron said had come to Moscow to do yesterday, one of the fundamentals was to get a de-escalation of Russian forces around Ukraine. So categorically not getting that, and not even getting this commitment in the way that they thought they had it.

SCIUTTO: That is a remarkable contradiction. Macron planning progress, Jeremy Diamond, to Putin saying, we didn't promise anything. The White House watching this. Have they seen any sign of diplomatic progress from Macron's meeting with Putin? Where does the White House stand?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, look, this is a White House that has been consistent in their view that there could potentially be a diplomatic resolution. But at the same time warning that the prospects of a Russian military invasion remain very, very high. And they haven't -- they've tried to avoid getting any more specific than that. But there's certainly a sense that this is a White House that has tried to project this united front among NATO allies with Russia and has been struggling to do so lately, particularly yesterday after that meeting with the German chancellor. And we saw President Biden repeatedly saying that there's no need for Germany to win back trust, as he was responding to a question saying that there's complete trust between the United States and Germany, insisting that there's no daylight between the two. And yet, at the same time, we heard President Biden say very clearly that that Nord Stream 2 pipeline will not move forward if indeed there is a Russian invasion of Ukraine. While the German chancellor would not go that far. He wouldn't say specifically and directly that that pipeline wouldn't go forward despite repeated questioning.

Now, we did hear the NATO secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, speaking about this this morning on "NEW DAY." Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEN STOLTENBERG, NATO SECRETARY: I met Olaf Scholz, the chancellor of Germany, recently and in that meeting and also in the press conference after he made it clear that all options are on the table when it comes to sanctions.

(INAUDIBLE) realized that we need to diversify the supplies of energy and especially gas because we cannot be vulnerable, not be too dependent on one supplier, Russia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And there are indeed efforts underway to try and diversify Europe, and particularly Germany's supply of oil and gas to try and decrease their reliance on Russian gas. At the same time, though, we are still seeing that there are, you know, potential aspects of this unity here. The Ukrainian foreign -- the Ukrainian president was set to meet today with the German foreign minister. That meeting was apparently canceled. The official reasoning being a scheduling error. But a source told our colleague Jake Tapper that it was because of Germany's unwillingness to say specifically that that Nord Stream 2 pipeline would not move forward.

And why is this all so crucial? Because we know that Russia has been trying to exploit any potential signs of disunity within NATO. And, obviously, the fact that Germany will not be as explicit as the United Sates and other countries about the fate of this Nord Stream 2 pipeline is one potential area that Russia can exploit going forward.

Jim. Bianna.

SCIUTTO: Bianna, that was quite a moment of disunity to have the Russian chancellor next to the president, the president saying Nord Stream 2 ain't going to happen, and those words could not be elicited from the German chancellor's mouth, either at that press conference or later when he was on CNN.

GOLODRYGA: And not for lack of trying. Many people asked him that very question, and we know he'll actually be traveling to Russia and Ukraine next week as well meeting with Vladimir Putin and then with President Zelensky.

Melissa Bell, Nic Robertson, Jeremy Diamon, thank you, as always.

Well, now back to the U.S. and the Supreme Court allowing Alabama's Republican drawn congressional map to remain in place, despite a lower court ruling the map likely violates the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of black voters.

SCIUTTO: The court's order means the map will be used for the state's primary in May, will likely be in place for the entire election cycle while this legal challenge works its way through the courts.

CNN's Supreme Court reporter Arianna de Vogue joins us now with more.

And, Arianne, this is about Alabama and this election cycle. That's significant enough. But it's a bigger question here about where this conservative court goes on standards for gerrymandering.

ARIANNE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right. You know, this -- this is a big indication of where the court is going. And it's also the first 2022 election-related case the court has heard. So -- or has decided. So, what the court said is these maps, drawn by Republicans, are OK for now. They can stay in place.

But the thing is about that is that the lower court said that they violated the Voting Rights Act, and they're likely to dilute the power of African American voters. So, the Supreme Court took that into consideration and still said that these maps are OK.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

DE VOGUE: And their rational was here, was, look, this is too close to the election.

[09:10:02]

So we're not going to do anything now. It's too close to the election. But the court was 5-4. And Chief Justice John Roberts, he sided with the liberals here and he said, look, the lower court here followed our Supreme Court precedent to a t, so we shouldn't have blocked it.

And the liberals went farther. They said, first of all, there's plenty of time to redo maps and they said that if the court allowed Alabama's rational here, even now to allow these maps, it's going to hurt minority voters, but it's also going to inspire other states, right, across the country to draw similar types of maps.

Here's what Elena Kagan said for the minority here. She said, the court's opinion does a disservice to the district court, which meticulously applied this court's long-standing voting rights precedent and most of all it does a disservice to black Alabamians who under that precedent have had their electoral power diminished.

The big picture here is the future of a key section of the Voting Rights Act that is meant to protect minority voters could very well, as soon as next term, be cut back.

SCIUTTO: And, Bianna, it's interesting on this issue of precedent because I remember watching a lot of Supreme Court confirmation hearings where all of the nominees said precedent rules.

GOLODRYGA: Right.

SCIUTTO: And yet here's another case, it doesn't appear that it did.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, time after time we've been seeing that pattern now. And, Arianne, the Supreme Court we know will still hear the case, the full case, next fall. But given the role that elections played in the majority's decision here, what is the likelihood that the court then will reach a decision before the midterms?

DE VOGUE: It's not high. The court hasn't said exactly when it's going to hear oral arguments. But keep in mind, if the lower court opinion had been allowed to stand here, Democrats in the state would have gained another seat. Now, that's not going to happen in the House. And, of course, other states are drawing lines, other legal challenges are in play, and this decision yesterday by the Supreme Court is going to influence all of that.

GOLODRYGA: All right, Arianne de Vogue, we'll be watching. Thank you so much.

Well, now to a new CNN interview with the Atlanta area district attorney who is investigating former President Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Florida. Fani Willis is pushing back on the argument that Trump can't be prosecuted for potential crimes committed during his time in office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Have you given any thought to or seen his defenses in other cases that essentially what you do as president is protected because you're the president, doesn't amount to a crime?

FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Of course I've given thought to if that -- that that may be raised as a legal issue. I don't think that that protection will prevent a prosecution if that becomes necessary in this state case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: CNN legal analyst Paul Callan with us now.

And, Paul, this case, and one reason we've been focusing on it a lot, is this is the one that lawyers tend to say has the most potential, possibly, for criminal charges against the president, given allegations of his interference in the Georgia election here.

Where does it stand now? And what is your response to this legal argument, he can't be prosecuted for anything he did while in office?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, good morning, Jim.

I, in looking at this prosecution, potential prosecution, it's moving at a snail's pace, first of all. This prosecutor was elected in 2020 and has had a lot of time to empanel, or instance, a grand jury. The grand jury is just being empaneled now, which is kind of really the start of the ability to issue subpoenas and get really aggressive in the investigation. So, it's moving very, very slowly.

I do agree that the fact pattern, the statements made by the former president appear to be problematic for him when he was talking to the secretary of state, telling him that he wanted him to find enough votes to change the election. And that seems entirely consistent with a plan that was in place nationwide to elect false electors and to overturn the election itself. But it's moving very, very slowly and I don't have a lot of confidence that it's going to result in an indictment.

GOLODRYGA: We know that one of the claims, not based on any merit or evidence that we've seen from the former president, is that these prosecutors are racist, and biased, right? I want to play for you sound that the DA said in response to those accusations from the former president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This is a criminal investigation. We're not here playing a game. I plan to use the power of the law. We are all citizens. Mr. Trump, just as every other American citizen, is entitled to dignity. He's entitled to be treated fairly. He will be treated fairly in this jurisdiction. But I plan to do my job. And my job is to make sure that we get the evidence that gives us the truth. I'm not concerned at all about games to delay this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[09:15:00]

GOLODRYGA: So there you heard from the DA herself, but what role would an independent grand jury play in sort of dispelling the notion that there's bias here?

CALLAN: Well, I think the claim that there's potential racial discrimination going on is completely ridiculous. What Trump is -- they're looking at Trump because he's white. That's not why they're looking at Trump. They're looking at Trump because potentially he violated election laws.

Now, with the grand jury, yes, you will get citizens doing the investigation, citizens ordering -- 23 citizens of the grand jury ordering the investigation. So I think that will take away the claim that this is an individual DA out to get the former president.

And this claim, by the way, as questioned by Jim a couple of minutes ago, that he may have immunity because he was president at the time the crime allegedly occurred is ridiculous. The best example of that, by the way, is the Nixon impeachment.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CALLAN: Remember, Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford after he left office. Well, why would he have to be pardoned after he left office if he was immune from the Watergate crimes, which occurred when he was in office. The president is not immune after he leaves office. He can be prosecuted.

SCIUTTO: So, Paul, for myself as a layman and for people watching as a layman, a sitting president calls election officials in a state after he loses that state, says, he's on tape, find votes, find exactly the number of votes needed to overcome his vote deficit in that state. Does that not break the law?

CALLAN: Well, it looks really bad, Jim, but in criminal law proving criminal intent is a real tough thing. And the defense attorneys are going to come in and say, he didn't say find me 1,170 illegal votes. He just said find me the votes. He wanted only legal votes.

And Trump talks like a mob chieftain half the time ordering a hit. He always says obscure things. He'll say, do this, find this out for me, and the implication is clear that maybe he's suggesting wrongdoing. But it's not crystal clear. It's not criminal clear in the sense of establishing criminal intent.

SCIUTTO: Goodness. I mean, you're the lawyer. Sounded pretty clear to me, but I don't -- I don't know the law as well as you.

CALLAN: Well --

SCIUTTO: Paul Callan, thanks so much. Always good to have you on.

CALLAN: Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: A top science adviser to PRESIDENT BIDEN has now stepped down after reports that he bullied his staff. Eric Lander resigned yesterday after a White House investigation found he violated workplace policies.

GOLODRYGA: In his resignation letter to the president, Lander admitted that he had, at times, crossed the line at work and was, quote, disrespectful and demeaning to his subordinates. He was scheduled to testify today before the House subcommittee on health, but that appearance has now been canceled.

SCIUTTO: In last 24 hours, you may have noticed several states had laid out plans to lift mask mandates in schools, red states and blue states, as the White House comes under pressure to release a broader national road map. We're going to get perspective from a leader in pediatric medicine, next.

GOLODRYGA: Plus, police in Washington state have captured the suspect involved in a fatal shooting inside a grocery store. What we know about what happened straight ahead.

And, breaking this morning, the CEO of Peloton is out. The company is laying off 2,800 employees. Details on what's happening behind the scenes at the company.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:22:50]

SCIUTTO: A growing number of states, both blue and red, are rolling back Covid-19 restrictions, even as the White House continues to recommend CDC guidance on mask wearing. This week, Delaware, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Oregon all announced plans to end school or indoor mask mandates. Those are all blue states, in fact, those new ones. GOLODRYGA: Right. And these rollbacks come as cases and

hospitalizations in the U.S. drop significantly from the height of the omicron wave. But there's still concern because relatively few children ages five to 11 are fully vaccinated.

So joining us to discuss this Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. He's also a member of the FDA's Vaccine Advisory Committee.

So happy to have you on the show this morning to talk about this, Dr. Offit, because a lot of confusion out there, we're seeing states, blue states, red states, all lifting their mandates. We know that officially that the White House and the administration is still in support of mask mandates in schools. What does the science say about when it's safe for kids to take their masks off in schools?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, DIRECTOR OF VACCINE EDUCATION CENTER, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA: Well, we're getting there. I mean right now we have about 90 percent population immunity, meaning people who have either been naturally affected or immunized or both, that's good. We're moving into the warmer climates. That's good. This is really basically a heart (ph) of winter virus. The numbers are way down from where they had been. That's good. But you still had 150,000 cases yesterday and 1,000 deaths. That's still a lot of cases and deaths.

So, what I would say is independent of whether there is mandates or not, I think people should reasonably wear masks when they're indoors through the next few weeks until we're far -- much further down than where we are right now. We're almost there. If you could just hang in there for a few more weeks and wear a mask, I think you'll be better off.

SCIUTTO: The trouble is folks aren't, right? And you've got the politics involved here, and both red and blue state governors making decisions now that folks are just kind of fed up. So if we can focus on schools for just a moment here because there does seem to be some debate as to what benefit mask wearing in schools specifically have had in terms of reducing outbreaks. You look at the science every day, I imagine. What is your best assessment of what the science shows here?

[09:25:05]

OFFIT: Well, I think masks work. I mean they work to help prevent you and those with whom you come in contact. Remember, there are some people who can't be vaccinated because they're immune suppressed. They depend on those around them to protect them. So I think at least for the next few weeks it's reasonable to wear masks.

I understand we're all getting tired of this. I'm getting tired of this. But I think that we're almost there.

Also, you know, we have vaccines that have been available for the 12 to 15-year-olds since May and only about 55 percent are vaccinated. We've had vaccines available for the five to 11-year-olds since the beginning of November, that's more than three months, and only a little more than 20 percent have been vaccinated.

So when we have those options available to us, we should take them. If we really care about protecting our children, then vaccinate them.

GOLODRYGA: Right. So let's just put a button on this. Effective masks in children, in schools work in your opinion, because we're hearing now data that suggests perhaps they're not as effective for young children as they may be for adults.

OFFIT: Well, to some extent, and it depends on the community. I mean in communities where the virus is still circulating at a high level, I think masks clearly are of value. In communities where the virus is not circulating as well, where it's a highly vaccinated community, then the impact of masks will be less.

SCIUTTO: Huh. That's interesting, right, because it's sort of in effect the communities that have the lower vaccination rates with the higher spread tend to -- have often been the ones, at least earlier on, resisting some of these.

Let me ask you this then. So masks have a benefit here. Have we seen that benefit play out in terms of reducing outbreaks in schools specifically, therefore making it more likely that schools can stay open?

OFFIT: Yes. I think that's right. And, again, it has often to do with the amount of virus that's circulating in the community. So -- I mean it seems like we're always sort of focusing on people who are largely protected. I mean those who want to get a booster dose, for example, or those who will tend to wear a masks, as compared to those who are unvaccinated, who tend to not want to wear a mask, so you have these sort of divided America.

SCIUTTO: Yes, we do.

GOLODRYGA: Well, Dr. Paul Offit, we wanted to talk to you about vaccines as well. But, listen, a lot of questions and confusion about masks in schools. I think it's an important topic. So we'll have you back on to talk about an equally important topic, and that is making sure more Americans continue to get vaccinated.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Dr. Offit, always great to have you on. We appreciate it.

OFFIT: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: And still ahead, a manhunt for the gunman who opened fire in a Washington state grocery store ends more than 150 miles away. The latest in the investigation up next.

And we are just moments away from the opening bell on Wall Street where U.S. stock futures are mixed right now after a quiet Wall Street Monday. The Dow ended flat, the Nasdaq and S&P closed slightly lower, impacting some stocks. More than half of S&P 500 companies reporting their earnings and the majority are better than expected. Plus, this week, big inflation numbers out. January's consumer price

index scheduled for Thursday. It's expected to hit a fresh pandemic high.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)