Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Latest January 6 Committee Hearing Fallout; Inflation Surging. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired July 13, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:15]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Victor Blackwell. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: And I'm Alisyn Camerota.

We're following several big stories this hour.

First, inflation is at a new 40-year high.

Then, in Uvalde,there's new outrage after a long-anticipated video of the mass shooting and the lack of police response was released before families got to screen it.

But we begin with the fallout from Tuesday's January 6 Committee hearing. Yesterday's blistering testimony tied President Trump to inciting the insurrection.

BLACKWELL: A convicted rioter testified that he believed he had Trump's blessing when he broke into the Capitol. And for the first time, White House counsel Pat Cipollone was heard publicly describing how he kept informing Trump there was no evidence of election fraud at the scale that could overturn the results, and that he should concede.

Now, the committee also showed evidence that Trump's call on his supporters to march to the Capitol was not at all spontaneous. In fact, it was planned.

CAMEROTA: CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider joins us from Washington.

So, Jessica, what have you learned about whether the January 6 Committee is sharing their findings with the Justice Department?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, interestingly, Alisyn, Chairman Bennie Thompson actually just talked about this to my colleagues Ryan Nobles and Manu Raju.

So he says the committee has finally handed over some materials to the DOJ. But it's mostly pertaining to the fake electors scheme. So all of that information from the hundreds of interviews they have conducted, they have now handed over to DOJ. This has long been a point of contention between DOJ and the

committee, how much the committee would share. Now it seems like those records, at least as it pertains to the fake electors scheme and the interviews they have done related to that, those are finally being shared, possibly with more to come.

But even more significant here is Vice Chair Liz Cheney's claims of possible witness tampering. She's brought it up twice now. And this most recent time yesterday, she says the committee alerted DOJ that Trump tried to contact a witness. Cheney says the witness alerted their attorney, who in turn then told the committee that this phone call came from Trump, that this witness never picked up.

Now, so far, there's no comment from the DOJ. But we know the committee has really been ramping up pressure on the Justice Department to expand their criminal probe beyond just the rioters and to focus directly on the former president.

And it's a sentiment that committee member Jamie Raskin reiterated this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I certainly think that the Justice Department has more than enough evidence to begin an investigation involving the former president.

And whether they will ultimately believe they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I think it's too early to say. But I certainly believe there's evidence now that would be hard for the department to ignore pertaining to the former president's conduct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: And that was obviously Adam Schiff, not Jamie Raskin.

But the DOJ has been significantly ramping up its criminal probe, particularly with the fake elector plot that unfolded in several battleground states. So we know that the committee has shared some of their information that might be pertinent to that criminal investigation with DOJ.

But, Alisyn and Victor, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, he has refused, despite all of this pressure coming from the committee and other Democrats, refused any comment about any indication if Trump may, in fact, be a focus of any investigation. The DOJ just won't go there, at least not yet.

BLACKWELL: And, obviously, that has frustrated a lot of Democratic members in Congress and beyond the Democrats in Congress.

We got a bit of a hint from the vice chair, Liz Cheney, about what's next for the next hearing. What is left for this committee to tie together?

SCHNEIDER: Well, they really want to pinpoint Trump's movements, Trump's actions in that crucial time period where the public just didn't hear from him.

So the committee's next hearing, we're expecting it to be on -- next Thursday. We're going to hear a lot then. And we're sure to hear a lot more from the tape deposition of Trump's White House counsel, Pat Cipollone.

We heard some clips from it yesterday, about a dozen clips. But since the committee's next hearing will focus on those 187 minutes when the public heard nothing from Trump as rioters stormed the Capitol, we will see if Pat Cipollone sheds any new light about what exactly Trump was doing.

Vice Chair Liz Cheney said yesterday the committee will detail perhaps in more detail than we have heard before how Trump never ordered his administration to help, he never stepped in front of the cameras, how he also never called in the military -- that was something the vice president, Mike Pence, eventually did -- and how just really not a lot is known about his actions or whereabouts in that time period.

So those are all things the committee will look to answer at what will be their next and even possibly their final hearing of this. We had their seventh hearing this week and possibly eighth and final next week -- guys.

BLACKWELL: Jessica Schneider from Washington.

Jessica, thank you very much.

John Avlon is CNN senior political analyst. Alyssa Farah Griffin served as White House communications director under Trump and is now a CNN political commentator. And CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams is a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general.

[14:05:08]

Welcome to all of you to the conversation.

Elliot, let me start with you with the legal question.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BLACKWELL: Drawing the direct line from the former president, from the administration to those responsible for the physical violence there at the Capitol, did the 1/6 Committee do it, from the DOJ perspective?

WILLIAMS: From the DOJ perspective, I would say no, because drawing that direct line means he's getting the information himself, not through intermediaries, and so on.

But it's important to step back and think about all of the other things they have laid out, namely, possibly witness tampering, obstruction of Congress, destruction of government property, obstruction of official proceedings, and on down.

And so it's not -- Victor, I'm just going to be very careful to note that only linking the president to the acts of violence would be the only crime that either he or others in the White House around him could potentially be subject to criminal exposure for. But that direct link is going to be very, very challenging to prove for the president.

But that doesn't mean that nobody's getting charged with a crime.

BLACKWELL: Sure.

CAMEROTA: Alyssa, in terms of the witnesses being pressured not to speak, we know that you're close with Cassidy Hutchinson. She had talked about her experience with that. And then last week -- or earlier this week, we heard about another witness, Sarah Matthews, who was a deputy press secretary.

Do you have any idea if she's being pressured from anyone in Trump world?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, Cassidy Hutchinson, which I have shared before, had told me prior to her testimony that she did feel pressure and that she felt like she wasn't empowered under her previous representation to share all the information that she knew.

And she got that new counsel. And that's how we got her groundbreaking testimony.

From Sarah Matthews -- we spoke yesterday -- she has not told me that she's feeling pressure. I'm very curious who this figure is that Liz Cheney referred to. But one thing I want to say is, regardless of who it is, I believe strongly that this pressure and this sort of intimidation is more widespread than even the committee knows it to be.

It is the playbook of Trump world to intimidate, to say, we know he's going to be watching, and using someone like Cassidy as an example, the smear campaign that they have engaged in, the way that they have gone after her, attacked her credibility, talked about even like finances, her family, her background, like, that nothing is off- limits.

And that's another form, not in a legal sense, but of intimidation to keep people from coming forward.

BLACKWELL: So, John, in that context, your thoughts on what the DOJ is doing and is not doing? I mean, this is an investigation that is continuing. Obviously, these hearings are about what they found thus far, the final report not out.

But, as we mentioned, there are some who are very critical of what is not happening from the DOJ, as they're continuing to, as Liz Cheney suggested, intimidate potential witnesses.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: As far as we know.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

AVLON: And I think that's the critical phrase here.

The Department of Justice has been handling things quietly, discreetly, in part because Merrick Garland, I think appropriately, is incredibly concerned about the appearance of politicizing an investigation into a previous administration. That's appropriate.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

AVLON: Now, it does seem that the January 6 commission has been frankly doing a lot of DOJ's work for them, at least in public, been elevating issues that are hard to ignore.

And then you can look at the fact and say, look, this is an unprecedented circumstance, and that's why we should be cautious. Yes. But it's an unprecedented circumstance to have an ex-president try to overturn an election with this broad array of assaults on our democracy, some of which Elliot delineated, but there are others as well, right, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, all that.

That's getting ahead of ourselves. But what's clear is, laws exist for a reason. And there also needs to be accountability when it comes to the an attempt to destroy -- to shred our Constitution and overturn an election.

FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, and I think the goal by the way of the committee has always been twofold. Part of it is to be able to tee up for the Department of Justice the best investigation they can to say, we're going to let you ultimately decide legally what you could do.

But the other equally important goal, in my opinion, is swaying the American public. We know that tens of millions of Americans are viewing these hearings and are watching them. And I believe it's swaying people. I believe the fact that the vast majority of the witnesses are Republicans -- Cassidy Hutchinson liked Donald Trump. She wanted to work for him.

Sarah Matthews believed in Donald Trump. She wanted to work for him. So hearing from those women I think is incredibly important because it shows they were lied too, as was the public.

CAMEROTA: But, just to be clear, when you say you think it is swaying the public, meaning Donald Trump will not run again, he will not be -- he will not be in a position where he's supported to run again?

FARAH GRIFFIN: I think he will still probably run, but I think he's diminished.

And I actually am -- frankly, 2024, other potential Republican candidates are keeping a close eye on these hearings. Ron DeSantis knows that Donald Trump is the most weakened he's been in quite some time. The other potential campaigns are paying attention to it, because this is a bad place for him to be.

It is as clear as day what he did and that he lied to people. And I think that resonates with the public. BLACKWELL: Elliot, on the question of potential witness intimidation,

what we heard from Vice Chair Cheney was that the former president tried to contact a witness through a lawyer.

[14:10:05]

what's the legal culpability there if he didn't get through to that person or through that attorney?

WILLIAMS: Well, that's the thing. We need more information, Victor.

I mean, number one, you need to find out who the person is. Number two, what was the call that was made? And, number three, what else can we learn about the purpose of the call?

Now, look, as Alyssa had noted before, this is sort of a pattern of conduct of trying to lean on witnesses. And we saw a lot of this in the testimony of Michael Cohen along -- maybe two years ago, talking about how President Trump had a pattern of trying to lean on and intimidate witnesses.

But, really, what's going to happen is, was there an attempt to delay, persuade, alter, or change their testimony in some way? That may not be that hard to prove, particularly if you can have some other person or some other e-mail or communication or phone call that validates what the president had said and was trying to do. But we just need more information now.

But it's a serious crime, very serious, striking, frankly, at the very core of our criminal justice system. And I think we will just find out more about it.

CAMEROTA: John, it was so interesting to hear the various extremists, the various leaders who were there on January 6 say, yes, they thought that President Trump's tweet about come to the Capitol on January 6, be there, will be wild, was a call to arms, a call to arms.

And that's how they heard it.

AVLON: It was very clear. And it was laid out from interviews, from statements on their various web shows, I mean, Ali Alexander out that URL almost immediately. They understood it as a call to arms.

And the fact that, yesterday, it came out very clearly that it was not a spontaneous march to the Capitol, that this had been something that was at the very least loosely coordinated with people in the Trump orbit, as well as the heads of these extremist groups, I think that was, in many ways, the most damning aspect of yesterday, that these folks took that very clearly as a message to, we're going to storm the Capitol with violent intent to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes.

FARAH GRIFFIN: And the witness even said, had a tweet gone out sooner, we would have left.

And so that raises the question. I remember I tweeted that day, I said Donald Trump, you have to condemn this, they will only listen to you.

That's why everyone both in the Capitol and outside people like myself were thinking, could lives have been spared? Could Ashli Babbitt's life? Could have police officers? Could have fewer injuries happened?

But he let it go on for 187 minutes. And it's terrible.

AVLON: And not only that. And we will find out more about what his -- what he was doing during those 187 minutes.

We also found out yesterday that he inserted back the threat to Mike Pence in his written remarks, after the White House counsel had taken it out, with an order to have it be reinserted. So I think that's a very damning detail as well.

BLACKWELL: It's interesting that Stephen Ayres was following the president's, former president's directives so closely, is that, when that video was tweeted, he said that was his cue to leave.

He came there because he said that he had been called by the former president. When the former president finally sent out that video, he said, all right, now we can go.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

Alyssa, John, Elliot, thank you all.

OK, so sticker shock is sticking around. A new report shows inflation hitting a 40-year high in June. What the White House is doing about it next.

BLACKWELL: And in Texas, leaked surveillance footage shows police retreating after shots were fired inside Robb Elementary School. More on the community reaction. We have that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:17:41]

CAMEROTA: Inflation in June surged to 9.1 percent. That marks the biggest year-over-year jump in consumer prices in more than 40 years. This is according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Rising gas prices, food and housing costs were major factors in the report. President Biden said inflation is -- quote -- "unacceptably high," but the White House also says the numbers are -- quote -- "out of date" with gas prices already ticking down.

BLACKWELL: CNN business correspondent Rahel Solomon is with us. Also with us, Dylan Ratigan, financial analyst. He covers politics and money in a newsletter published on Substack.

First, welcome to both of you.

Rahel, let me start with you. The estimate, the expectation, 8.8 percent was bad, 9.1 percent worse. Put it into context. RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, 8.8 percent was the

expectation, which, by the way, was higher than the top-line number last month, so we were already expecting an acceleration.

This came in even hotter than that. It was eye-popping, to say the least. So when you look at sort of some of the gains, some of the biggest contributors, gasoline, which we talk about a lot, nearly 60 percent higher than a year ago, food prices 10.4 percent and shelter 5.6 percent.

So we talk a lot about gas, understandably. That said, the report, it was broad-based. We saw inflation pretty much across the board. And so this is a huge problem for the Fed. We were hoping that maybe the last few months we had peaked. You see a report like this, numbers like this, and it doesn't appear so.

CAMEROTA: Dylan, help us understand the White House's reaction. President Biden had said that core inflation has come down for the third month in a row. So they think that's a good sign. And then he also said: "While today's headline inflation reading is unacceptably high, it's also out of date."

Do you understand? What's the interpretation?

DYLAN RATIGAN, BUSINESS ANALYST: Yes, so I mean, the issue with markets and economies and politicians of all stripes is, there is no issue where they are more misaligned, because politicians of any stripe always want to do -- they don't want to take the actions that are necessary to actually deal with inflation.

And no one can blame them, because who wants to take gas prices to $10 and interest rates to 10. And I think no one will ever do that. So, it becomes this ritual of words like the president's today and, at the same time, privately, alarming meetings, to the point about the 9 percent number and the sort of shocking nature of the headline, which really just introduces -- people really wanted to think that maybe the Fed will raise rates one more time, and then they will be done, as opposed to having to go all through next year and all this.

[14:20:17]

And so every time you get a piece of significant data, like the one that we received today, it reduces the probability that the Federal Reserve stops moving early. And that is not what the president or any politician wants to hear.

So the president is trying to almost jawbone the Fed, in a sense, where he's saying, well, yes, it's a bad headline, but the core inputs are not that bad, and it's a trailing indicator, and you don't have to raise rates that much more. Like, that's kind of the unspoken piece of that, Alisyn.

BLACKWELL: Dylan, the markets are down. Dow is down, what, about 200 points. If we have the Big Board, let's put it up.

How much of this is baked in? I mean, that's -- yes, down, 181. (CROSSTALK)

RATIGAN: Yes.

Well, since this started, we have lost $14 trillion, in many cases, 30 or 40 percent of all global asset values, since -- over the last six months.

So, to answer your question, Victor, it's almost all priced in. Like, the financial markets, the bond market and equity markets have already repriced for the expectations of an economic slowdown. Call it a recession. Call it not. We will see what however the numbers behave. But the slowdown is a sure thing. It's nice to have oil coming off a little bit.

But there was a little bit of hope developing, maybe not even with strong basis -- sorry -- I touched the laptop -- with strong basis, that the Fed would not have to continue to be aggressive. But in order for that hope or that fantasy or that wish, whether you're a trader or an investor or a politician, to even have a chance to be true, you need numbers like the CPI to come in below expectations, not like they did today.

So, Victor, that's why you get a little sell-off today, because you're like, well, so much for the Fed stopping soon. But at the same time, the market has already been destroyed because of the adjustment in the asset side -- on the asset side.

And it hasn't even started to play out, as it's going to do over the next few years, in terms of so many things.

SOLOMON: And, guys, I mean, the Fed and Chairman Powell have been very clear that they are looking for monthly core inflation.

I'm sure they would like to see all of the numbers come down, but certainly monthly core inflation starts to decline. And we're not seeing that just yet. This last month, we saw prices increase roughly about seven-tenths of a percent. So this is problematic for the Fed.

And the reason why it creates a lot of concern is because it now means that the Fed will have to do more, rather than less, to try to tame inflation. And a more aggressive Fed means the likelihood of overdoing it, of overshooting it, of triggering a recession also goes up. And that's the concern.

CAMEROTA: I mean, and let's just pull up what food prices that everybody can relate to. Dylan, hold on one second. So, in the past year, food is up 12.2 percent. But if you break it down, cereal and bread 13.8, dairy 13.5, eggs 33.1.

And, Dylan, I mean, obviously the voters in public polling are holding President Biden responsible for that. What is he supposed to do about those?

RATIGAN: Well, I mean, the blunt answer to that question is you have to -- you have to adjust the sanctions. This is not an inflation issue.

Everything related -- not everything. Most -- so, you have three things. You have a preexisting reality. For a decade, America and the world had free money. It's shocking inflation took this long. Like, we have been on free money since 2009. But it didn't. Preexisting free money.

Then you have supply chain pinches, which has been covered ad nauseam, and you guys know a lot about. And then the final thing you have is the Ukraine invasion, which in and of itself is disruptive to oil and grain. And then you have the additional political strategic decision to use economic sanctions in an effort to try to stop Russia.

And the cost of doing that, specifically to Europe in the United States, is higher fuel and fertilizer costs, which are the most acutely felt by farmers, which is why they have stopped growing food in Europe this summer, because they no longer have a profit margin because of food and fuel costs.

And it's why Americans are not happy with their president, because the cost of a gallon of gas, and I'm sure the farmers in this country are not happy by that cost. And so if you want to be -- you want realpolitik, I guess they call it, they have to adjust.

These sanctions are extremely expensive politically and financially on NATO and the United States. And thus far, they have made Russia stronger. The ruble is at the highest level it's been in five years and Russia's participation in the global markets -- oil markets is higher than it was before the war, which I would say -- and they're still in Ukraine.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

RATIGAN: So I just think that you have to think about this question after all this time, especially as it relates to fuel and fertilizer, which is not just inflation. Those sanctions are direct. That is the direct cost of those sanctions.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

I mean, I appreciate you laying out all the unintended consequences, because they are mind-blowing, when you understand that.

[14:25:03]

Rahel Solomon...

RATIGAN: Well, I think the risk, Alisyn...

CAMEROTA: Yes, quickly.

RATIGAN: I think the risk, Alisyn, is people think that the gas or whatever is inflation.

But it's not. It's not adding -- there's a different variable there. That's my point. CAMEROTA: Yes, that's really helpful.

Dylan Ratigan, great to see you. Thank you.

RATIGAN: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: All right, leaked surveillance footage gives us a fresh look at what police were doing and were not doing while a gunman was opening fire on children and teachers.

What the video shows and how the victims' families are responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:00]