Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Americans in Favor of Stricter Gun Laws?; President Biden to Lay Out Climate Plans; January 6 Committee Set For Prime-Time Hearing Tomorrow; Missing Secret Service Text Messages. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired July 20, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:29]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: I'm Victor Blackwell.

We are covering several major stories. A short time from now, President Biden will lay out how his administration plans to respond to the climate crisis, as millions across the country are coping with some of the hottest temperatures on record.

And we are also following new developments on the investigation into the Capitol attack ahead of tomorrow night's high-stakes hearing. The January 6 Committee still cannot get what it requested from the Secret Service.

CAMEROTA: The Secret Service reportedly handed over one single text to the committee, despite a request for all of the text messages from two dozen Secret Service personnel concerning the four-week period around the Capitol attack.

And Steve Bannon is back in court for day three of his criminal contempt trial. We will tell you what witnesses are saying.

BLACKWELL: All right, we have all these angles covered.

We're beginning with Whitney Wild in Washington.

A single text, that's all the Secret Service provided to the DHS inspector general. What happened here?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's what they're working to figure out.

So what the Secret Service says now is that they are still going back through just to make sure that nothing was the collateral damage of a very we know now was an ill-timed data migration that wiped phones for several members of the Secret Service.

So what we know is that they have already handed over to the House Select Committee, per subpoena, more than 10,000 documents. The Secret Service, though, says they only have just one text message from these crucial dates, January 5 and January 6.

And this text message is between the former chief of the Uniformed Division for the Secret Service, Thomas Sullivan, and the former chief of the Capitol Police Department, Steve Sund, and they were trying to figure out how to get resources from the Secret Service over to the Capitol.

Here is the exact quote from a cover letter that went to with these documents from the Secret Service to the House Select Committee, in which they said, look, we are here to help you. We will do whatever you need to do -- we need to do to get this information to you.

So here's the quote: "The Secret Service continues to engage in extensive efforts to further assess whether any relevant text messages sent or received by 24 individuals identified by the DHS were lost due to the Intune migration." So that's this e-mail migration -- excuse me -- this -- it's not e-mail.

It is a data migration for cell phones. Sorry about that.

"And, if so, whether such texts are recoverable. Further, this includes efforts to pull any of the available metadata to determine what, if any texts were sent or received on devices of the identified officials."

So here's the issue. It is not clear that there were text messages that would have been substantive that would have been -- had to be handed over to the I.G. in the first place, Victor and Alisyn. So that's what they're trying to figure out. Certainly more to come on this -- back to you.

CAMEROTA: OK, Whitney Wild, thank you very much for all that.

Let's go now to CNN's Jessica Schneider.

So, Jessica, what is the January 6 Committee's reaction to getting one single text exchange?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's been days worth of dissatisfaction from these committee members. They have been expressing it now for days.

And they're really questioning here, Alisyn and Victor, why these texts were never prioritized to be saved and backed up in the first place, especially because we have learned that this preservation request that went to the entire Department of Homeland Security in the wake of January 6, and the committee believes that request to preserve also applied to the Secret Service, that was made in mid-January.

It was about 10 days before this whole migration, this phone replacement program even got under way. And now, with only one text being handed over at this point, committee member Zoe Lofgren in particular has been outspoken that more needs to be done. Here she is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): In their letter, they gave no indication that they have secured the phones in question and done some forensic work with them. That's something we want to know.

Yes, obviously, this doesn't look good. And so coincidences can happen. But we really need to get to the bottom of this and get a lot more information than we have currently.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: So just dissatisfaction there.

Now, Zoe Lofgren did acknowledge that the committee has received thousands of pages of records that includes radio traffic and e-mails. And the Secret Service here, Alisyn and Victor, they say they're not finished searching.

[14:05:03]

They say that it plans to try to recover any texts that might have been sent. They're searching through this metadata as well. So maybe, at some point, it'll placate the committee members. But, for now, they're still saying it's not enough -- guys.

BLACKWELL: Not enough.

Jess, thank you.

Now to Steve Bannon's federal trial in D.C., the former Trump adviser facing contempt of Congress charges for failing to comply with the subpoenas from the January 6 Committee.

BLACKWELL: CNN's Sara Murray is at the federal courthouse.

So what are you hearing that's happening inside that courtroom?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, at the start of the day today, the judge made it very clear he did not want this trial to be a political circus or some kind of arena for partisan politics.

So that's how the judge set the tone this morning. All throughout the morning and into this afternoon, they have been questioning this witness, Kristin Amerling. She's a staffer for the House Select Committee.

The prosecution was pretty clear what they were trying to lay out in their questions to her. They laid out that Bannon never questioned the date -- never asked to delay the date of his subpoena. He never seemed confused about how to reply to this subpoena, so sort of saying this is a person who should have complied.

During the cross-examination, the defense doesn't have that many arguments to put forward, as we previously discussed. They made it clear in their openings yesterday that they're going to try to argue that the subpoena date was negotiable, that there were still conversations going on between the lawyers for both sides. So they were sort of asking this staffer, is your investigation

ongoing, how long do you expect it to continue to sort of set it out that this is going to be a continuing matter.

I think the big question is, how far do they get today? We know that the prosecution has at least one other witness that they want to call. So we will see if we get through the prosecution's whole case today, guys.

CAMEROTA: OK, so Sara, also tell us about this New York judge ordering Rudy Giuliani to testify before the Georgia grand jury that's investigating Donald Trump's attempts to steal the 2020 election. What now?

MURRAY: Yes, a tough blow for Giuliani in this ruling.

Because it's a Georgia grand jury and Giuliani lives in New York, the summons for the grand jury gets moved there. And a judge there set a hearing basically saying, look, if you want to come and try to challenge the subpoena, here's the day, here's the time. Well, he didn't show up.

So the New York judge then ordered, Rudy Giuliani has to testify before this Georgia grand jury in August. We will see how this plays out from there. Obviously, Giuliani has some privileges he could still try to claim when it comes to talking about the former president, including attorney-client privilege, in his discussions with Donald Trump.

We have reached out to his attorney to see if he wants to comment. We are waiting to hear back.

CAMEROTA: OK, Sara Murray, thank you very much for the reporting.

Joining us now, we have CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem. She served as assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Homeland Security Department under President Obama. And she wrote the book "The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disasters."

Juliette, great to see you.

You tweeted something really interesting, I thought, today. You basically said that the Secret Service is not only tasked with protecting the president, which is how many of us think of it, but it has another instrumental function that we don't talk about much that plays right into these text messages. So what is that?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Right.

They are an investigating agency, much like the FBI. And their docket, because they had come out of the Treasury secretary -- the Secret Service had been part of the Treasury Department. They were looking and they investigate currency, technology, cyber crimes related to currency. In other words, they are experts in texts and in technology. And that's what they should be. So, my point is, if they were investigating an institution that came up with these excuses or these explanations, it just happens to be at the moment that we want this information or the texts that we want from this information that they're all purged, and we can't find them or any evidence of them, and isn't that a horrible coincidence, they wouldn't buy it, right?

They would be as skeptical as you and I are about this explanation. And even giving them the benefit of the doubt, one thing as an investigator you look at is, what's past conduct in this regard regarding January 6?

And I would say that the Secret Service has a lot of explaining to do, not just the texts, about their agents, and what did the agents know? And why are they throwing other witnesses under the bus and never testifying to apparently counternarratives that they have?

I mean, this is part of a larger issue, which is, parts of the Secret Service view themselves as protecting the former president, rather than protecting the peaceful transition of power, which is what the Constitution should guarantee.

BLACKWELL: Juliette, with all that context, are you at a point now, knowing what we know about this exchange and the lack of text messages handed over, are you prepared to go beyond skepticism and say that you believe something nefarious is going on or went on around the time of the insurrection?

[14:10:05]

KAYYEM: So here's what I would say.

I would say the present explanations seems implausible. So if there is a more plausible explanation, they better start giving details. And that includes, as Sara was saying, as the previous reporters were saying, what is the data telling us? Who is texting whom?

Because to purge is an active action. In other words, to purge the history of what those communications are isn't merely, I lost my iPhone, because we can get that data. It's an affirmative action, and the failure of them to protect those documents after they're under a subpoena or after they know that they're under investigation is just incredulous.

So I will put it that way. And I wouldn't trust our democracy on that explanation right at this stage, right? And the Secret Service has a huge, important function in the transfer of power and in protecting President Biden, and I'm not buying it right now.

BLACKWELL: Yes. Representative Lofgren says it does not look good.

KAYYEM: Can I say one more thing that is interesting?

BLACKWELL: Quick. Yes, go ahead.

KAYYEM: Yes. Can I say one more thing that's interesting? I have been in D.C. long enough, or I have been around and in D.C. long enough. One of the things that's interesting to me is the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, which oversee the Secret Service, have been pretty silent on these explanations.

So, when I look at it, from knowing how bureaucracies work, I would say there might be healthy skepticism from above as well. And that's good. We they have -- they have got -- they need to get new leadership in. They need to get someone from the outside. They cannot pick within that agency.

And they need -- let's talk about purge. They need to purge some of these Trump guys who still have leadership positions. You cannot go work for a president in a political position and return back to the Secret Service. It ruins everything about what we need to adhere to in terms of protecting the presidency.

BLACKWELL: Some important points there.

Juliette Kayyem, thank you very much.

Former Vice President Mike Pence met with some conservative lawmakers, who thanked him for his actions on January 6. During a conservative caucus meeting, GOP House members also encouraged him to run for president in 2024.

Joining us now, CNN political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin. She served as White House communications director under President Trump.

Alyssa, welcome back.

Listen, if these Republicans are willing to praise Pence only in private and condemn Trump only in private, does it matter what they say if they don't come out and do this publicly?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this kind of underscores just this dynamic that's existed for the last five years within the Republican Party, where privately the vast majority of elected Republicans want Donald Trump to go away.

But they can't publicly say that. And I would know. The Republican Study Committee, which my former boss Mike Pence was a former chairman of, many of the members president themselves did not vote to certify the election, yet they're praising his bravery for doing just that.

So there's this inconsistency within the Republican Party that they continue to grapple with. But I would say this. The fact that he did get a standing ovation, and that he's meeting with these party officials, I think shows that the former president is weakened and that the party is recognizing it's in their best interest to encourage others to run, whether that is a Mike Pence, a Pompeo, a DeSantis or whoever it may be.

CAMEROTA: But I think this is interesting, because the Republican Study Committee is a big group. I mean, it's, I think, 150 members. And so the fact that they are

praising Mike Pence in private and encouraging him to run, does that mean that they would publicly support him if he would run? In other words, does Mike Pence stand a chance in 2024?

FARAH GRIFFIN: So I have been bullish for some time that he actually does have a pathway. It's narrow, but I think that he does.

And I would say this. Vice President Pence is coming out looking better than anyone from the January 6 hearings, just having showed political courage in doing the right thing and putting his country ahead of his party.

But he's also -- I would keep an eye on his actions in the midterms. So he's already committed to backing incumbent Republicans, whereas the former president, as we know, has gone against Governor Kemp in Georgia and other incumbents like Governor Little in Idaho.

Vice President Pence is going to be on the campaign -- former Vice President Pence is going to be on the campaign trail trying to back these incumbents. And that's where you build goodwill within the party that I think could propel him to a good place in 2024.

BLACKWELL: Yes, we know he's on the opposite side of Trump's endorsement in this Arizona governor's race. They will both be rallying in Arizona for those primary candidates.

Let's turn toward the prime-time hearing tomorrow night focusing on the 187 minutes that the president did nothing to stop the attack at the Capitol. We know that Matthew -- we know that Matt Pottinger, Sarah Matthews will be testifying.

You know Sarah Matthews, friend of yours. What should we expect?

FARAH GRIFFIN: So, I think this is going to be in a very important sort of, at least for now, final hearing, where they're going to hit on the 187 minutes that the Capitol was under siege and the former president did nothing to stop it.

[14:15:10]

This will kind of be a culmination of everything we have learned up until this point. Now, the pairing of Matt Pottinger and Sarah Matthews, both of whom I have worked with -- Sarah is a personal friend -- is very interesting.

So Sarah Matthews is a consummate Republican. She was on the Trump campaign, handpicked by Kayleigh McEnany to come work in the White House, has worked for Republican lawmakers. So they're not going to be able to -- MAGA world isn't going to be able to attack her as a never- Trumper or as a RINO.

On the other side, you have got Matt Pottinger, who's got enormous credibility on both sides of the aisle as a national security professional. And he was the senior-most NSC official in the White House on January 6, so two very strong witnesses who are going to be able to talk about that critical day and what the former president was and was not willing to do and say, what the threat assessments were that were presented to him.

And I think it's going to shed a lot of light. And the one other thing I would know, I'd expect to hear a lot more of Pat Cipollone's testimony, we only got a little bit of that in the previous hearing. There's still hours of tape from that deposition that I think we will see in tomorrow's hearing.

CAMEROTA: So many Americans want to know what the president, the commander in chief, was doing during those 187 minutes, when the violent mob was trying to kill police officers and the vice president.

What are you -- what's the missing piece for you, Alyssa? What are you listening for?

FARAH GRIFFIN: I'm listening for what he was willing and unwilling to say during that period, what he was briefed on.

For me, I had left the White House about a month prior to January 6, but I was in real time reaching out to White House officials, saying, he has to condemn this. He has to. I know my friend Sarah Matthews was actively saying to the former press secretary, to the chief of staff, he's got to condemn this.

And we now know from previous testimony that even people who stormed the Capitol said they would have left had he condemned it earlier. So, I think this is going to be really the exclamation point of how he not only incited the mob, but he allowed them to continue to attack the Capitol and encouraged it, when he could have stopped it and no one else could have.

CAMEROTA: OK, Alyssa Farah Griffin, thank you very much for your perspective.

And, everyone, be sure to watch CNN's live special coverage on Thursday, as the January 6 Committee turns to those 187 minutes of inaction during the Capitol attack. It all begins tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. Eastern.

BLACKWELL: The fate of embattled Uvalde school police Chief Pete Arredondo now is in the hands of school district leaders. We have an update on just how soon a decision about his future in that job could be made and what the shooter's mother is now saying to the families of victims.

CAMEROTA: And we have brand-new CNN polling showing how Americans feel about gun laws -- those findings next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:22:12]

CAMEROTA: New video captures family members of Amerie Jo Garza, a student killed in the Uvalde school shooting, confronting the gunman's mother and demanding an explanation from her son. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know my son was a coward. You don't think I don't know that? I know. You don't think I'm carrying all that with me? You don't think I don't know? I know.

And I'm sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Wow. CNN is reaching out to the mother for comment.

And the Uvalde school superintendent has recommended the district police chief, Pete Arredondo, be fired. A meeting will be held on Saturday to decide his fate.

BLACKWELL: CNN was first to report that Arredondo had been informed of this upcoming hearing in which the board is expected to vote him out.

Arredondo was placed on administrative leave last month for his actions during the massacre.

And now there's a new CNN poll taken after Uvalde, Buffalo and other mass shootings that shows a solid majority of Americans support stricter gun control laws.

CAMEROTA: CNN political director David Chalian joins us now with the new findings.

So, David, tell us how the American people are feeling today.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, hey, guys.

This is a substantial majority that feel that they are in favor of stricter gun control laws after these massacres, 66 percent in favor, 33 percent oppose. We don't usually see that kind of agreement on any sort of political issue. Look at it by party.

Obviously, it will not surprise you that 92 percent of Democrats say they favor stricter gun control laws, 65 percent of independents, but four in 10 Republicans also favor stricter gun controls -- gun control laws now.

Compare those numbers to where we were in 2018 after the Parkland shooting, and, actually, the Republican support has gone down since that time, and look more broadly over time after previous incidents. This 66 percent mark that we're at now, it's near an all-time high. It's close to the 70 percent we saw agreement among the American people after Parkland in 2018.

But other than that, this moment in time, we are seeing more agreement about the need for stricter gun control laws than we have normally seen.

BLACKWELL: So what does the polls say about what people think can actually be accomplished?

CHALIAN: Yes, that's a good question, Victor.

So one of the questions we asked to get at this, do you believe stricter gun controls law laws would reduce gun-related deaths?; 58 percent of voters in this poll say, yes, we do believe that the stricter laws would actually reduce gun-related deaths. That's a high water mark.

It's about where it was after the Parkland shooting in 2018. But as you can see here through other incidents, this is numerically a high water mark. What I think is also interesting is a different slice of this.

[14:25:00]

Beyond just gun control laws, we asked, can government and society take actions to prevent another mass shooting, so a broader question; 69 percent of voters in this poll say, yes, government and society can take actions. And look at that number over time. That also is a high water mark in terms of us asking whether or not people believe there is action that both government and society can take to prevent this from happening again.

The one thing we do see is that that new bipartisan gun control law we saw come out of Congress and signed by President Biden, a plurality, 45 percent, says that doesn't go far enough; 39 percent says it does the right amount; 16 percent says it goes too far.

And, of course, if you take a look at that by party, 70 percent of Democrats did not think that that gun control law, that bipartisan law, went far enough; 25 percent said it was the right amount.

And on the Republican side, a slim majority, 52 percent of Republicans, said it was the right amount; 21 percent said it didn't go far enough. And about a quarter of Republicans said that it went too far.

CAMEROTA: OK, well, this just in also, David Chalian.

Happy birthday.

(LAUGHTER)

CHALIAN: Thanks, Alisyn. There's a -- there's breaking news right there. I appreciate it.

BLACKWELL: Happy birthday, David.

CHALIAN: Thanks, Victor.

CAMEROTA: And we know you would like to do nothing more than crunch numbers for us, so thank you very much for that birthday present.

(LAUGHTER)

CHALIAN: That is right.

Thanks.

BLACKWELL: All right.

CAMEROTA: The scorching temperatures.

BLACKWELL: It's hot!

CAMEROTA: We need to talk about that.

BLACKWELL: Hot.

CAMEROTA: It's sweeping the globe.

Over 100 million Americans are under excessive heat alerts, with New York City bracing for its longest stretch of 90-degree days in a decade.

BLACKWELL: I feel it.

And, in just minutes, President Biden will announce his steps to combat this extreme heat. We will bring you those live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:00]