Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Russia Readying To Invade Ukraine; Interview With Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA); Beijing Winter Games Ends; Wisconsin Versus Michigan Basketball Ends With A Brawl; The Imminent War Between Russia And Ukraine Impacting Wall Street; CNN Original Series "LBJ: Triumph And Tragedy." Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 20, 2022 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jim Acosta. We begin with breaking news. The U.S. has intelligence indicating orders have been sent to Russian commanders to proceed with an attack on Ukraine. That's according to two U.S. officials and another source familiar with that intelligence.

All of this comes as President Biden convened his National Security Council at the White House earlier today on the crisis. The U.S. continues to warn Moscow could strike Ukraine at any moment, but still holds out some hope diplomatic efforts will prevail.

Meanwhile, violence continues to escalate in Ukraine. Officials say more than 100 cease-fire violations in the eastern part of the country has been recorded just this weekend stoking even more fears that an invasion could happen soon.

Now, right now it's estimated as many as 190,000 Russian personnel are in and around Ukraine including the breakaway regions in Eastern Europe. CNN's Arlette Saenz is live for us at the White House following all of these the fast-moving developments.

The last hour I spoke with CNN anchor and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto who's in Ukraine about this new U.S. intelligence and here's what he told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: The latest U.S. intelligence assessment orders have been sent to tactical commanders to proceed with an invasion of Ukraine. This according to officials with direct knowledge of that intelligence reporting by myself and my colleague Natasha Bertrand.

Now, to be clear in this context, important when assessing intelligence like this, this is one of several indicators that U.S. officials, the U.S. military are watching for that would indicate to them that an invasion is in its final stages of preparation. This is one of them. Others that they're looking for, for instance, electronic jamming of

signals here in this country. Massive cyber-attacks have not yet been observed. We should also note that orders such as this that can be rescinded and throughout this conflict, disinformation has been part of the battle space and it's possible that intelligence like this could be deliberate, perhaps intended to mislead.

That said, it's important, because we have heard from the president, the Secretary of State, the Vice President, the Defense Secretary in recent days saying it is their view, it is the U.S. view, that Putin that Russia, has made the decision to invade. We've heard that first from President Biden on Friday.

Since then heard it echoed by Vice President Harris in Munich, Antony Blinken today. Antony Blinken saying in his words, that the Russian playbook, the invasion playbook is in his words, moving forward. So, again, the new intelligence that orders have been sent to tactical commanders to proceed with an invasion, is an important indicator, but other indicators the U.S. is still looking for that would indicate to with them this is set to happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That's Jim Sciutto for us in Lviv, Ukraine. Thank you, Jim. CNN's Arlette Saenz is at the White House for us. And Arlette, very busy day for the president on just this issue. Just wrapped up a phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron as these U.S. and Russia tensions -- Russia-Ukraine tensions continue to rise. Macron spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier today. What are you learning about what's been happening inside the White House?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil, there's clearly been some telephone diplomacy going on today and President Biden spent about 15 minutes on the phone with the French President Emmanuel Macron after he held those back-to-back calls with Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Zelensky as the U.S. is hoping that there is still some type of diplomatic path to avert an invasion of Ukraine.

Now, the president also this afternoon or this morning, I should say, and part of the afternoon, held a very rare meeting of the National Security Council in the Situation Room.

The White House released a photo where you can see top cabinet officials including the Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CIA director, director of National Intelligence, National Security Adviser all on hand for that meeting as well as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen who would play a very important role when it comes to implementing those sanctions that the U.S. has been crafting with allies should Putin move forward with an invasion.

Now, the U.S. has been facing some pressure from people including Ukrainian President Zelensky who want to see these sanctions outlined before an invasion takes place, but the U.S. top officials have defended the decision to wait on those sanctions. Take a listen what -- to what the Pentagon spokesperson, retired Navy Rear Admiral John Kirby had to say earlier today.

[17:05:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN JIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: He has not conducted another invasion in Ukraine yet, and we want to get -- we still think there's time to prevent that. So, it's supposed to be a deterrent, if you punish somebody for something they haven't done yet, then they might as well just go ahead and do it. So, we're holding that in abeyance and we're hoping that that could affect the calculus of Mr. Putin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now, even as the U.S. continues to warn that Russia could attack at any day, the White House still maintains that diplomacy may be an option. Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying that President Biden would be willing to speak with Putin at any time or format if it would avert an invasion of Ukraine, but they are fully aware that that diplomatic window is quickly closing. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Yes. It certainly seems to be. Arlette Saenz, great reporting. As always, from the White House, thank you so much.

And joining us now is David Sanger. He's a CNN political and national security analyst. He's also the White House national security correspondent for "The New York Times." David, today Secretary of State Antony Blinken doubled down on the administration's assertion that it believes President Putin has made the decision to invade Ukraine, but he notably didn't rule out diplomacy. No administration officials have. You had a chance to speak with him over the weekend. What was your big take away from that conversation?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Secretary Blinken was here at the Munich Security Conference, and as he was speaking at the conference, it was pretty clear that his enthusiasm for the diplomacy continues, but he doesn't seem to think very much of whether the Russians have engaged. I mean, when you think about it almost all of the engagement that has taken place so far by the Russians has happened while they have been steadily increasing all of their buildups in the region.

And so that has not worked out to leave any significant diplomacy. Now, the secretary did say publicly that he had invited Lavrov, the foreign minister in Russia, to meet him here in Europe next week, but there's a condition to it. And the condition is that no invasion can begin before that meeting takes place.

So, this is back, Phil, with the way they've been doing this so far, which is sort of treated as a hostage negotiation and keeping the person taking the hostages talking at all times in hopes that they can talk him out of it. I got the impression that Secretary Blinken would like to see that happen, but he's seen no evidence right now that they're really interested in loosening the grip.

MATTINGLY: You know, one of the things, when you talk to Republicans, there are not a lot of national security focused Republicans. They quibble with how the administration has handled this overall. Generally support them, generally align with them, except for on one issue and that's on when to trigger sanctions.

If the U.S., if this administration has intelligence or feels like it's a near certainty that Russia is going to invade, what's the rationale for not triggering that sanctions package beforehand if they feel like it's almost already a done deal?

SANGER: That's a really good question especially now with the reporting that you have and "The Washington Post" and we at "The Times" have reported that the intelligence strongly suggests the order has already gone out. There are three reasons at work here. First, even though an order has gone out it can be rescinded.

Remember that when the United States were about to send military forces, had them in the air to Haiti a number of years ago, President Clinton reversed them while it was in the air. The second is, that if you take the first action, you're the first mover by doing the sanctions, the Russians could say, well, we weren't going to invade, but since your sanctioning us which we regard as an act of war because you're trying to cut us off from the world financial system, we're going to go ahead with military action.

And the third reason is that the sanctions are intended as a deterrent that's why they're advertised in advance. So if you use them before the action takes place, Putin might conclude, well, they're sanctioning me whether I attack or not. I might as well attack. So, it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to go do the sanctions early in my view.

MATTINGLY: You know, something else that I think is actually tied into this. You've written a lot about this. The administration being so forward almost front running to some degree, President Putin, in terms of just in realtime releasing intelligence. And I think this was overlooked on Friday.

But when Anne Neuberger, one of the president's top national security officials focused on cyber, came out and attributed the cyberattack in Ukraine directly to the Russian government, directly to the GRU in a stunningly quick fashion.

[17:10:04]

I mean, we're talking days, which you never see in that.

SANGER: That's right.

MATTINGLY: And some of the questions about, well, has that been effective president Putin is still going to evade. And my sense from talking to officials is they might be missing the point there. I think you've picked up on this, too. I think you tweeted about it earlier. When you talk to officials, what's their rationale? Deterrence, yes, but there's other positions at play here for why they've been so forward. Why? SANGER: Well, the main reason that they have done this is to try to

disrupt the Russian operation. So, if you believe they're intelligence and the Russians have identified somebody who they're getting ready to place in as the new president of Ukraine as a puppet, once you outed that person's name, it's very hard for the Russians to go ahead and try to make it look like this person emerged as a natural leader.

If you expose, as Ms. Neuberger did, the cyber activity right away and attribute it right away and because this was a fairly familiar kind of attack, I don't think it took a whole lot to do the attribution, then you make it a little bit harder. You put everybody on alert about a certain type of code coming from a certain place. And you put the hackers who were doing this somewhat on the defensive. Not permanently, but temporarily.

So the whole idea here is to throw President Putin and his intelligence agencies off their game by exposing each thing. The down side to it, Phil is that if you expose a series of things in order to prevent them and then they don't happen, it enables the Russians to say, well, you said I was going to install somebody as president. I didn't. You said I was going to attack on Wednesday. I didn't. So, you can over time erode your own credibility.

MATTINGLY: But if that leads to them being wrong about an invasion, I think they'd probably take that. David Sanger, great --

SANGER: That's exactly, I think you heard Secretary Blinken say that at his U.N. speech. He said it again here in Munich. He said, I'm willing to take the criticism that I have revealed too much here and thrown them off, if it stops what would be perhaps one of the largest military conflicts on the European continent since 1945.

MATTINGLY: Yes. It's been a fascinating strategic effort over the course of the last couple of weeks. We'll obviously see how this plays out. David Sanger, thanks as always my friend. I appreciate it.

SANGER: Great to be with you, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Right now, as the world watches the escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine, here in the United States, Ukrainian communities are also on edge. CNN's Polo Sandoval is live in New York City. And Polo, part of Manhattan's east village used to be known as little Ukraine. It's been home to many people from the country. What is New York's Ukrainian community saying in this very tense moment?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Phil, some roughly 150,000 Ukrainian-Americans according to a leader in that community who spoke to me earlier today and obviously faith is certainly a big part of their life. And so what we saw today as many of them coming to places of worship including St. George Ukrainian Catholic Church you see behind me really turning to prayer and praying for the safety of well- being of so many loved ones, friends and family, they are still half a world away caught in this conflict that according to these latest round of reporting certainly seems to be intensifying this weekend.

But as you're about to hear from one of those community organizers, Andrij Dobriansky, basically explaining that they are going beyond just the power of prayer and actually taking real steps to make contact with those friends and family that are still holding out for hope in Ukraine right now hoping that things reach a peaceful and diplomatic end.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDRIJ DOBRIANSKY, DIRECTOR, UKRAINIAN CONGRESS COMMITTE: Now we are talking to family members to check if they have American passports or European passports that they can leave if they want to. If they have go bags. If they have all the contact information. We assume that cell phone communication will go down.

That's happened before during the initial war. So, if people have satellite phones even better, but we want to make sure that our friends are safe in Ukraine and we're also going to do what we can here for the most part, if you're just a local Ukrainian, you're going to be coming to church and we've had multiple prayer sessions for Ukraine.

(ENDE VIDEO CLIP)

SANDOVAL: And I have to tell you, when you actually speak to Ukrainian-Americans here in the United States, it really is an eye- opening experience because it just -- it's another dose of reality that they are taking these real steps preparing for a very real possibility of having to evacuate many of their friends and loved ones possibly here to the United States, if they can.

And that includes taking steps like these organizations that we heard from today, speaking to the U.S. Department of State to make sure that those Ukrainians would have the ability to actually enter the U.S. if needed. Then finally, really, this is just one of the many shows of support that you'll see throughout the country.

[17:14:53]

In fact, in Washington, D.C. where you are, Phil, we have seen obviously large crowds gathering peacefully there in the nation's capital in support of Ukraine as well and it is something that we're not just seeing in the nation's capital, but really throughout the country as that threat of a Russian invasion continues to grow even louder and louder this weekend.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And it often feels likes a geopolitical chess match. It's a great reporting, Polo, there. Very real people, very implications here. Polo Sandoval for us in New York. Thank so much.

And still to come, a federal judge laying out how former President Trump could be held accountable for inciting the capitol riot. What does that mean for the January 6th investigation? A member of the select committee looking into the insurrection joins me coming up next.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Welcome back. Yet another judge has left open the possibility that former President Trump could be held accountable for the events of January 6th. Friday's key ruling means civil lawsuits seeking to hold the former president liable for the capitol attack can proceed.

[17:19:58]

The argument hinges on Trump's speech from the ellipse that preceded the riot, which the judge says "Can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action and amounted to the essence of a civil conspiracy." Let's bring in a member of the House Select Committee investigating January 6th. Democratic Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California.

And Congresswoman, look, I fully understand this is not what you guys are focusing. You're not involved in the courts. You're not a judge here, but one of the questions, how closely are you watching as some of these kind of parallel legal tracks play out and you see comments from defendants who might be directly pointing the finger at the former president? How does that play into the committee's work?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Well, we pay attention to everything, obviously. You're right. This is a civil lawsuit. We're not involved in that. However, I do expect that there will be discovery in that lawsuit. That discovery could be of value to the January 6th Select Committee as we pursue our legislative investigation.

MATTINGLY: From where you're sitting especially given all of the interviews and documents so many of which we've not seen or heard about up to this point, does it go beyond the former president's rhetoric? Behind the scenes he was hands-on with so many of these schemes to overturn the election. Is that kind of your view of things?

LOFGREN: Well, you know, we can't get into that at this point. The investigation is still ongoing, but let me just say that it is I think a very wide plot that was underway to overthrow the election and it didn't begin on January 6th. That's for sure.

MATTINGLY: I want to talk a little about some of the legal fights that your committee is wrapped up in. You know, some 20 people whose phone records you're seeking are fighting it in court including pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. Now, I think it's important for clarity here because alarm bells might go off for many Americans when they think of government trying to secure phone records or pry away phone records. Why do you feel like these are necessary and why is this not over reach in terms of the committee's jurisdiction?

LOFGREN: Well, we have to find out everything about the events leading up to January 6th, and this lawyer was a key figure in the plot. And we've received information, testimony, about her activities, but we'd also -- the phone records are not the content. It's just what number was called and how long did that call take.

So, it's not the content, but it does help us identify the web of the conspiracy and that's why we would like to get these records. You know, her answer was that we did not have a legislative purpose as a committee. Numerous courts have already ruled on that and ruled that that is just false. We are a legislative committee, properly constituted, doing the work that has been assigned to us.

MATTINGLY: One thing I want to ask you about that's been kind of rocketing around D.C. in the last 24 hours. This kind of stunning play-by-play of former Vice President Mike Pence's actions ahead of January 6. To give a summary for those might not pe paying attention inside the belt way.

On January 4th of last year, Pence's lawyer contacted a retired federal judge basically to help the former vice president debunk John Eastman's claim that the vice president could reject the election results. That retired federal judge was Eeastman's former boss, Michael Luttig.

The next day, January 5th, Luttig posted his argument on Twitter. And on January 6th, Pence quoted that thread in his statement explaining why he would not overturn the election. On the seventh, Pence called Luttig to thank him. I guess my first question is, has the committee reached out to Michael Luttig to get his perspective on what happened?

LOFGREN: Well, we're not going to get into that, but I think it's been publicly reported and the former vice president has said publicly that there was no constitutional basis for what the former president was insisting that he do.

I think the former vice president has publicly indicated he did get the advice of former Vice President Dan Quayle, who he knew obviously from -- they're both from Indiana, and that -- so there's no basis for this. There's no discretion on the part of the vice president. He just opens the envelopes and then the tellers, I was one of them, read them aloud.

I saw the newspaper article. Obviously, this judge is known to be very, very conservative, and I imagine for conservatives, when this very conservative judge said, there's no basis for this. It's just unconstitutional, probably had a meaningful impact on people of a conservative bent.

MATTINGLY: Yes. No, there's no question about it. That's what he cited in the letter. Congressman Zoe Lofgren, as always, thanks so much for your time.

LOFGREN: You bet.

[17:24:56]

MATTINGLY: All right, coming up next, the 2022 Olympics are officially in the history books. As usual, we witnessed exhilaration from medalist and agony from those who fell short. But these games may best be remembered for scandal and controversy. We'll tell you more about that coming up. You're live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTINGLY: The 2022 Beijing Olympic Games are officially in the history books. Fireworks marked the end of the closing ceremony earlier today. U.S. athletes brought home 25 medals, eight of them gold. But the games weren't without major controversy especially the doping scandal surrounding the 15-year-old Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva who tested positive for a banned substance.

[17:30:04]

"USA Today" sports columnist and CNN sports analyst Christine Brennan, also noted Ottawa Hills High School Green Bear like by myself, joins me now from Beijing. And look, when the story broke I started chuckling because I knew you were probably behind the breaking of it and we're going to have another busy couple of weeks at the Olympics, but medals for the team skating event are still in question. The investigation continues. How does this scandal reflect how seriously the Olympics actually takes doping?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: Phil, it's great to be with you and go Green Bears indeed. Yes. The problem has been, as you know, that Russia has been doing state-sponsored doping now since the Sochi Olympics eight years ago. And the International Olympic Committee just kicked the can down the road.

They have not fully punished the Russians for their cheating. And it's not just an athlete or two. It's not like Lance Armstrong of the United States. It is the state-sponsored doping and it is hundreds of athletes. And so it blew up here. It was almost predictable that there would be a moment where this would all come back and turn on the International Olympic Committee and turn on the Olympics.

And this is a story, of course, of the -- a very sad story. You can you have sympathy for Kamila Valieva, the 15-year-old, and also wish that she were not doping and wish she had not competed. And it all just came crashing down on her with her terrible performance in the long program and fourth-place finish.

Hopefully this is the big one, Phil. Hopefully this is the one that gets everyone's attention and says enough is enough. It is time to really do something about doping and what would that be? Kick the Russians out of Paris in 2024 and Milan in 2026. And I think we need to hear from sponsors of the Olympic movement if they're really serious about getting this done and having clean sport.

MATTINGLY: Do you think it's actually possible, though?

BRENNAN: You know, I covered this a long time as you know, Phil. I would probably be surprised if I see it. I do think sponsors are the key. We saw it with the Washington football team that it took the sponsors. It took FedEx and Nike to finally say this name has to change. So people that write checks. So, we'll see how that goes.

MATTINGLY: You know, you wrote at the kind of kicker of your column, very good column today, kind of wrapping everybody up. Said this Olympics, nothing was quite right. Everything seemed a bit off. One big cautionary tale. You know, you've heard that from U.S. athletes too, including those who won medals about just kind of no one feels really that great coming out of this. Great for performances but not the experience itself.

How does this reflect on China? They're obviously on the world stage facing human rights allegations, genocide, all sorts of things surrounding them at this moment in time, a diplomatic boycott. How does this frame China in this moment?

BRENNAN: Phil, the Chinese are thrilled with the Olympics. They had their pair of figure skaters, won one of the last gold medals. They're happy, but around the world and the way we look at China from that world view, I think it was a terrible Olympic experience overall. Of course, there were great moments. Of course, people enjoyed watching the sports.

But the fact that this was a walled off fortress because of COVID. There was no gathering. There was no interacting with anyone. Those wonderful scenes you see of an Olympic Games, of people in the streets and the big TV screens, there could be none of that. And that was COVID.

Also the human rights issue never went away. Peng Shuai, obviously Uighurs, all those things seem to be put on the back burner by the Chinese, but we as journalists kept bringing them up. A I think these games will be forever linked with controversy not only with the Russian doping, but also the human rights abuses and history will judge it that way and I think not in a good way.

MATTINGLY: So I do have to ask. On a positive note, since you've been to more Olympics than I can count on two hands, what was your favorite moment from these winter games?

BRENNAN: From the sports aspect, and there were many and I think that's important to say. These athletes with their own Super Bowls, right? Getting the chance to have these moments. Nathan Chen finally winning his Olympic gold medal. A story of redemption four years ago having a terrible Olympic games, coming back winning that gold.

And you know what, Phil, you know this because you love sports so much, to have the greatest moment of your life at the most important moment of your life, to nail it. That's what Nathan Chen did. He did it in the team competition where the U.S. won the silver that might turn to gold someday and then also winning that gold medal with this fantastic performances in the men's short and the long program.

He's going back to Yale to finish his studies. Whether he'll keep skating or not is -- and competing, is an open question but at 22 years old, Nathan Chen on top of the world.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Such a great story. And Chris, I got to be honest. This is pretty cool. Chris Brennan was the first person I called when my collegiate baseball career fell very far short to figure out how to become a journalist. And she's picked up the phone every time I've called then and since. Pretty cool to be on TV with you, pal. Thanks so much for doing it.

BRENNAN: Same here, Phil and so proud of you. Take care.

[17:35:01]

MATTINGLY: Thank you. All right, coming up next. The shocking brawl at the end of the Michigan/Wisconsin men's basketball game. Hear what led to this moment when Michigan head coach strikes the Wisconsin assistant coach. That's coming up next on the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Welcome back for we have more breaking news. Mayhem at the end of the Michigan/Wisconsin basketball game this afternoon. It appeared to start with an argument in the handshake line between the two head coaches, Juwan Howard of Michigan and Greg Gard of Wisconsin. The two were in each other's faces as more players and personnel surround them. Michigan players seems to try and get Howard to back away and then you just saw it.

Howard reaches out striking a Badgers' assistant coach on the top of head and face. Then more mayhem as players and personnel start shoving and punching. Jeff Goodman, Stadium College Basketball Insider joins me now. And Jeff, I'm an Ohio state alum so I'm biting my tongue and playing this as straight as humanly possible. But I do kind of, from a, someone who is passively watching the game, what happened? How did this end up transpiring?

JEFF GOODMAN, STADIUM COLLEGE BASKETBALL INSIDER: Well, the big thing was Juwan Howard felt disrespected because Wisconsin up 15 points with 15 seconds left called a time-out. So they go through the handshake line which to me is still one of those things that probably needs to be completely eliminated, especially in COVID times because it brings out things like this.

So Juwan Howard goes through the handshake line and tries kind of do a blow by. That's what we call it in college basketball or basketball altogether. And Greg Gard was having nothing of it. So he put his arms out. He stopped Juwan Howard. They get into a little bit of a verbal exchange there.

And ultimately that's when Juwan starts pointing at Gard, then an assistant coach, Joe Krabbenhoft from Wisconsin comes over and that's when things got physical. Juwan Howard throws, I don't think it was -- he swings, and whether it was a punch, whether it was a slap, whatever it was, Phil, it really escalated and ignited the situation.

Then it was mayhem, as you said. Players, Michigan freshmen Moussa Diabate, he starts swinging, and then, again, all hell breaks loose. And it's going to be interesting to see what happens to Juwan Howard. Remember, longtime NBA player. Longtime NBA assistant coach. He's in his third year with Michigan.

The question is, what happens now? I spoke to one commissioner of a conference just now, just got off the phone with him. He said if it were him, he would hit Juwan Howard with suspension for the rest of the regular season and the Big Ten Tournament. MATTINGLY: You know, one of the things -- look, I follow big ten

basketball incredibly close. Juwan Howard, obviously, a member of Michigan's famed fab five team in the '90s. As you know, he had been a head coach in Michigan since 2019.

Again, as an Ohio State alumni, I was terrified. He can recruit. He brings a lot of attention to the program. Players seem to love him or be drawn to him especially in the beginning. But this isn't the first time he's been involved with an incident with another coach. He's had some fiery press conferences. Can you give people some idea of his history particularly what it seemed to be a pretty difficult season for them?

GOODMAN: Yes. A year ago he got into it with Mark Turgeon, the former Maryland head coach and they were screaming at each other. Juwan kind of charged towards him, and it's still unclear the exact words he yelled at Turgeon, but they kind of went at it. I've talked to other coaches within the league. They say he's not the most well-liked because Juwan Howard, they feel like, again, this is a guy who, you know, didn't come in like they did. He didn't come through the college coaching circles.

He's different. He made 100-plus million dollars. Listen, I just did something last week, Phil, about former NBA players who are coaches in college. Former and -- like 50 of them. Juwan Howard is fared as well as any of them. Most have been disasters. You look at Patrick Ewing right now. Penny Hardaway is struggling. Chris Mullin failed. Juwan Howard has done a heck of a job in his, you know, two-plus seasons so far in college basketball at his alma mater at Michigan.

Again, I do not think he'll get fired for this, but I think certainly talking to enough people, they feel as though he will get a suspension here because, again, as a head coach of a college program, you can't swing at another coach and escalate the situation like he did.

MATTINGLY: Yes. There's no question about that. Jeff Goodman, big fan. Thanks for coming on. I appreciate it.

And now, here's CNN Alison Kosik with this week's "Before the Bell" report.

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Phil. From the Russia- Ukraine crisis to rising inflation and Fed rate hikes, there are plenty of issues roiling markets. Stocks have come under pressure especially as geopolitical concerns take center stage on Wall Street. But analysts say investors should take the long view.

(BEGIN VDIEO CLIP)

RYAN DETRICK, CHIEF NARKET STRATEGIST, LPL FINANCIAL: When we look back at all of these major geopolitical events that our country has had really since World War II, what we found was somewhat surprising. You have about a 5 percent correction, and it takes about three or four weeks or so to kind of make up for those losses. So we're not minimizing geopolitical events and what's going on between Russia and Ukraine. What we are saying is this. Any near-term, short-term volatility could actually probably be more of a buying opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOSIK: This week, reports on consumer confidence as well as personal income and spending could move markets. Home Depot also reports quarterly results.

[17:45:01]

It was the Dow's best performing stock last year, but shares have cooled off as investors worry about rate hikes and a possible housing slowdown. Keep in mind it is a short week on Wall Street. Financial markets are closed tomorrow for President's Day. In New York, I'm Alison Kosik.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

MATTINGLY: Lyndon B. Johnson entered the White House during a national crisis, yet, despite that, he used the office to enact historic expansion of civil rights and social safety net programs. His accomplishments, however, are often overshadowed by his escalation of one of America's most controversial and deadly wars.

Now, the new CNN Original Series "LBJ: Triumph and Tragedy" provides a captivating look at one of the most consequential presidents in U.S. history. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LYNDON B. JOHNSON, FORMER PRSIDENT OF THE UNITDED STATES OF AMERICA: This administration declares unconditional war on poverty in America.

UNKNOWN: It's on the one hand incredibly bold to declare war on anything let alone poverty, which is a complicated, intractable kind of a problem that, quite importantly, social scientists in 1964, don't really understand all that well.

JOHNSON: Our chief weapons in a more pinpointed attack will be better school and better health and better homes and better training and better job opportunities. All of these increased opportunities must be open to Americans of every color. As far as the writ of federal law will run we must abolish not some but all racial discrimination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Joining us now is CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali. And Tim, LBJ had so many wins on the domestic policy front but it was his mishandling of the Vietnam War that really kind of overshadowed everything he was able to accomplish.

I think what's interesting from a historical perspective is presidents don't get to choose the crisis that they end up facing or crises that they end up facing. Obviously right now the current president, President Biden, is dealing with a crisis in Ukraine. But I think my biggest question is how likely is it that foreign policy ends up sucking out kind of all of the air in the room and the president needs to focus on or wants to focus in this case, on domestic issues primarily?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, Phil, I mean, I think when you look at Vietnam and you keep in mind the extent to which the American people turned against the war you see an example where a foreign policy decision can undermine a president's credibility at home. If the American people see the war that we are fighting as a war that was thrust upon us, they will rally around the president.

If they see the war as a war of choice and the basis for that choice is unclear to them, as was the case after we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the American people pull away and the war itself divides us.

So I think it depends on the nature of the war. Vietnam was a war many Americans didn't understand. Americans did not wish to fight. Men and women did not want to lose their boys. And so a war that LBJ thought he had no choice but to fight turned out to undermine his presidency and undermine his successes on the domestic front.

MATTINGLY: And, to be very clear, the U.S. has made it very clear they're not sending troops into Ukraine. I don't want to try and draw an apples to apples comparison. I think the one biggest question I have is, you know, there were the LBJ comparisons when President Biden took office and laid out his domestic agenda, very different dynamics in terms of majorities on Capitol Hill. Did the White House err in setting the ambitions so high as the president took office?

NAFTALI: Yes, I believe that the White House oversold the possibility of transformative social legislation in 2021 and 2022. LBJ took advantage of a unique moment in our history. Only Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a moment like that, and it didn't come at the beginning of his first term.

LBJ had this opportunity to pull together a governing majority of Republicans as well as Democrats. It's often forgotten that Medicare and the Voting Rights Act passed because of Republican votes as much as Democratic votes -- 112 Republicans in the House voted for the Voting Rights Act, 60 Republicans in the House voted for Medicare.

So the challenge for LBJ was he had southern Democrats who were not going to support him certainly on civil rights, but he could pull over Republicans to pull -- to make a governing majority. President Biden, when he's differed with the progressive caucus, which has about 95 votes in Speaker Pelosi's caucus, he doesn't have the luxury of getting Republicans to help him get over the line.

So this is a big difference. The majorities are too narrow, unfortunately, for President Biden to achieve the kind of transformational legislative change that LBJ was able to achieve. Now keep in mind, LBJ played an important role but he also enjoyed a very different and much more positive political moment.

[17:55:02] MATTINGLY: Yes. There's no question about it. A 50/50 Senate is very different that one where you have 17 or 18 vote margins. Tim Naftali, as always, grateful for everything you bring to the table. I really appreciate it.

NAFTALI: Thank you, Phil.

MATTINGLY: And be sure to tune in the all-new CNN Original Series "LBJ: Triumph and Tragedy" premieres with back-to-back episodes tonight at 9:00 p.m. only on CNN. I'm Phil Mattingly in Washington. Thanks so much for joining me this weekend. Jim Acosta will be back next Saturday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. My good pal, Pamela Brown, takes over the CNN NEWSROOM live after a quick break. Have a great weekend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:59:59]