Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Hearing to Lay out 187 Minutes on January 6th; Senators Propose Legislation to Change Election Law; Rep. Katherine Clark is Interviewed about Abortion. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired July 21, 2022 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:48]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Thursday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow. We're glad you're with us.

It is expected to be potentially the most significant hearing yet. Tonight, the January 6th committee says it will present compelling evidence and testimony that shows former President Trump refused to act as the January 6th attack on the Capitol unfolded in what could be the final hearing for this committee. The panel will detail what Trump was doing for 187 minutes, from the moment he urged the crowd to march to the Capitol, to when he finally called off the mob.

SCIUTTO: Tonight will also feature never before seen outtakes from this video message that the former president recorded for his supporters the day after the attack.

We will also hear live testimony for the first time from two key Trump White House aides. Senior ones. Former Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger and former Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews. Both of them resigned in the immediate aftermath of January 6th.

We begin this morning with CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider.

So, Jessica, this is quite a moment for the January 6th committee. Break down for us what we should expect to hear this evening.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you heard it, outtakes, but also this crucial testimony. Matthew Pottinger, Sarah Matthews, they will provide key firsthand testimony of what was unfolding inside the White House, and particularly with then President Trump, during those 187 minutes where Trump refused to act as the Capitol was being attacked. And it's interesting because their stories follow parallel tracks. They both resigned in the days after January 6th. They cited Trump's inaction as the reason they resigned. And they have both pinpointed Trump's tweet around 2:24 p.m. that day as the turning point. That's the tweet where Trump accused Mike Pence of lacking the courage to overturn the election. Pottinger, in fact, has said that that was his red line, where he knew

he would resign. Sarah Matthews talked about, when she spoke to the committee, about how really a tremble ran through the press room when that tweet went out because that's right when the rioters were breaking into the Capitol, and she said it just added fuel to the fire.

So they'll be - really be able to delve more into Trump's mindset, what was going on inside the White House. Plus, we know that Pottinger had already told the committee that he went to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on January 6th and alerted him that the National Guard still had not arrived at the Capitol. So he can talk about Trump's maybe refusal to call in the military.

Plus, then they had the outtakes. We learned yesterday that they had those outtakes from a video that Trump made on January 7th where he really struggled to denounce the rioters and he refused to say the election was over.

Here's more of what we should expect.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): The president displayed extreme difficulty in completing his remarks.

Of course, it's extremely revealing how exactly he went about making those statements. And we're going to let everybody see parts of that.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): It will be significant in terms of what the president was willing to say and what he wasn't willing to say.

You'll hear the terrible lack of a response from the president. And you'll hear more about how he was ultimately prevailed upon to say something, and what he was willing to say and what he wasn't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHNEIDER: And so you can see here, the committee really focusing this hearing on what they say was Trump's dereliction of duty. They'll continue to present evidence that Trump did nothing to stop the violence, maybe even arguing that instead he enflamed the anger and the attack. And, you know, Poppy and Jim, this could be the committee's final hearing, but they have left open that possibility that if more pressing evidence pops up, as it has in the past, they will have more.

Guys.

SCIUTTO: Lots to look for this evening,

Jessica Schneider, thanks so much.

So, joining us now for analysis of what to expect tonight, the significance, Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent for NPR News, and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Elliot Williams, who is also a CNN legal analyst.

Elliot, if I could begin with you.

It strikes me that the case the committee is making, and has been making for weeks, is both what the former president did, they argue, to incite this riot, this insurrection, but also what he didn't do to pull them back as the violence was unfolding on the Capitol.

[09:05:11]

From a legal perspective, the case you've seen so far, what does that add up to in terms of the president's potential criminal exposure?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Look, well, I think what we'll see tonight is - or what we should be looking for tonight is anything that speaks to the president knowing about a direct or specific threat and acting on it, number one.

Number two, encouraging or supporting individuals who were engaged in acts of violence.

Now, look, we never cease to be amazed by what we find out here. And anything is certainly possible. But who knows what information comes out. At a minimum, the information will be -- should be disqualifying for someone for running for future office, even if something can't be criminally chargeable.

HARLOW: Domenico, you guys have some really interesting new numbers, new polling out this morning, that shows that, yes, actually, people are watching. A majority of Americans are watching these hearings. But at the same time, a majority do not think that former President Trump will be prosecuted. The way that S.E. Cupp put it this morning on our air was awful but lawful. And that's a - that's a big question.

I just wonder what strikes you most in these numbers?

DOMENICO MONTANARO, SENIOR POLITICAL EDITOR AND CORRESPONDENT, NPR NEWS: Well, you know, I think it's a little different than awful but lawful because I think that's a determination for, obviously, the Justice Department to make.

HARLOW: Right. She wasn't making a determination, to be clear.

MONTANARO: Yes.

HARLOW: But just talking about how the public may see it.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MONTANARO: Well, so what we've seen is that about six in ten people say that they are paying some attention at the very least. But what you're seeing in those numbers is a huge partisan divide. More than - it's about double Democrats who are watching it as compared to Republicans. About 80 percent of Democrats, 44 percent of Republicans. So, the number of people who can be budged here is not a huge percentage. Now, what we did see is that we had an increase from about 43 percent

to 52 percent among independents who said that they believe now that this is an insurrection and a threat to democracy, which is a little bit different than we'd seen previously.

HARLOW: Yes.

MONTANARO: Right, 57 percent of people overall say that they blame the president for what happened on January 6th. But, like you mentioned, 61 percent think that he likely won't face charges.

Of course, Merrick Garland, yesterday, at the Department of Justice, trying to push back against some of that, not necessarily saying that they're going to go after Trump, but that nobody is off the table and that there's a big difference between how the Justice Department conducts their investigations, which are behind the scenes and closed door, compared to what we're seeing in public, and very interestingly in public, especially tonight from the January 6th committee.

SCIUTTO: You know, I wonder, looking at those numbers, given the way our politics are now, Domenico, you really have immoveable parts of the population, in both parties on certain issues. And that the movement really happens where it does, whether you're talking about party preference or candidate preference, but even on an issue like this, in the middle, among independents.

SO, is there -- is the news there that the hearings have moved that middle to some degree to show that 57 percent of independents hold the former president responsible now?

MONTANARO: Well, I think it is marginal movement, right. And I think that that's what we see within the country generally speaking because, you know, there's such a shrinking share of potential swing voters out there.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

MONTANARO: And, overall, that's what we're seeing.

Now, also within our same poll, though, you see President Biden's approval numbers really at the lowest that they've been in the NPR/PBS "Newshour"/ Marist poll. He's just at 36 percent. And among independents, only 28 percent approving of the job that he's doing.

So, really, whether it's Trump or whether it's Biden, right now you have independents who are not happy and they're most concerned about inflation, which is the top issue, overwhelmingly, for independents and Republicans, it's only fifth on the list for Democrats, who are saying that abortion rights is their top motivating issue for this midterm election.

HARLOW: Well, that's really interesting too.

Elliot, let's play the sound that Domenico reminds us of. And this was Merrick Garland, the attorney general, just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL: No person is above the law in this country. Nothing stops us --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even a former president?

GARLAND: No -- I don't know how to - let me just say that again. No person is above the law in this country. I can't say it any more clearly than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Clearly, he felt the need to not only say it clearly, but say it publicly in this moment. Significant?

WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes and no. Look, to some extent, with all due respect to the attorney general, that's a little bit of a prosecutorial platitude. Like, we all agree and believe and ought to believe that no person is above the law.

I think part of what's going on here is that the public sort of has a hunger for a level of information that the Justice Department just doesn't provide to the public.

[09:10:05]

And that's just the way it works.

Look, I was there for, what, more than six years. I was a deputy assistant attorney general at the end. And baked deeply into the Justice Department is that you don't talk about open investigations for risk of throwing them off, number one. And, number two, you don't want to give the impression that the investigation is politically reactive and that the attorney - that the Justice Department's only investigating someone because of their political affiliation. So, they want to stay out of it and stay quiet.

The public just sees the world differently, particularly now in the age of the Internet. And that's why he had to get out there and make those comments.

HARLOW: All right, Elliot Williams, thank you.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HARLOW: Domenico Montanaro, thanks.

Great to have you both.

Well, also, some bright spots. Bipartisan shift.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: A group of bipartisan senators have reached a deal on legislation that would make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election. SCIUTTO: You know, you can't miss things like this because it's

bipartisan.

HARLOW: Right.

SCIUTTO: It is progress. It's the most significant response by Congress so far to former President Trump's pressure campaign to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, including by pressuring his then vice president, Mike Pence, to decertify the results.

CNN Capitol Hill reporter Melanie Zanona is following this.

So, Melanie, walk us through exactly what this proposal will do, because there were a whole host of potential proposals on the table. What is in this, I don't want to say final package, but this package that seems to be moving forward?

MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Yes, no, this is a big breakthrough. Negotiators have been working behind the scenes for months on a deal here. And the agreement that they reached to, if passed, would mark not only the first, but the most significant election reforms since January 6th.

Some of the provisions that they agreed to include clarifying that the role of the vice president is purely ceremonial when it comes to overseeing the election results. Trump and his allies, of course, tried to make their pressure campaign on former Vice President Mike Pence a centerpiece of their plot to overturn the election. So it addressed that issue.

They also agreed to set a higher threshold for what it takes for members of Congress to lodge objections to the election results. And they also agreed to reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission.

Now, as far as timing, we are not expecting to see action in this until after the midterms. And they still need to work to make sure that they get ten Republicans on board with both of these bills. But it is still a big development, and it comes right before potentially the last primetime hearing from the January 6th Select Committee where we are expecting to learn much more about Trump's conduct on the day of the attack.

And it also is coming as we're get some new polling here at CNN that shows 48 percent of Americans see -- think it is at least somewhat likely that U.S. Officials, elected officials, would overturn the results of an election just because their party lost. And so you see why negotiators made these reforms such a top priority.

Jim. Poppy.

HARLOW: It's such a stunning number, that 48 percent. And you've got to think, you know, before January 6th, and before those efforts, you know, to overturn the election, I bet a fraction of folks would have worried about that.

Melanie, thanks very much for the reporting from the nation's capital.

Also a reminder for tonight, our special coverage right here on CNN of the January 6th hearing, it begins tonight at 7:00 Eastern.

Well, still ahead, Georgia's criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the election plows head. Details on Rudy Giuliani now being forced to testify before this grand jury.

Also, the assistant speaker of the House, Katherine Clark, joins me live to talk about her recent arrest at this abortion rights protest. Also, what she wants the White House to do now on abortion access.

SCIUTTO: Also ahead, the director of the CIA made news here at the Aspen Security Forum. Hear how he responded to rumors that Vladimir Putin's health is failing. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:02]

HARLOW: A federal appeals court has ruled that Georgia's six-week abortion ban can take effect immediately. The panel vacated a lower court order that prevented the law from taking effect back in 2020 so now it can take effect and it bans abortion once a heartbeat is detected. It includes some exceptions for medical emergencies. It does also include exceptions for rape or incest, but only in the first 20 weeks of a pregnancy if a police report was filed.

Well, joining me now is congresswoman and assistant speaker Katherine Clark. Again, she is the assistant speaker and member of the Pro- choice Caucus. She was one of 17 House Democrats arrested at an abortion rights protest outside of the Supreme Court Tuesday.

Appreciate you being with me this morning.

And I'd like to begin with your thoughts on this, former Republican Congresswoman Mia Love, who will be speaking with us next hour, tweeted this yesterday, quote, members of Congress should spend more time cooperating on policy priorities and less time making publicity stunts.

I wonder what your response is to critics who would point to this and say, was this a publicity stunt, and ask, what did it accomplish?

REP. KATHERINE CLARK (D-MA): Well, here's what I would say. When our Constitutional rights are being rolled back, when 10-year-old rape victims are being told they're not entitled to medical care in their states, when women are being sent home to wait for lethal infections to turn into sepsis because they can't access the care they need, that is something to call any of this a publicity stunt.

Everything is on the line for women in this country and for our freedom. Freedom to make medical decisions. Freedom to practice our faith. Freedom to make decisions with our doctors, with our families.

So, we're going to do everything we can, including legislate and peacefully protest because we're in this together with the people of this country.

[09:20:05]

HARLOW: And so to your - to your point about we're going to do everything we can and to legislate, I mean many of those avenues have been cut off obviously by the Supreme Court's decision. And I wonder what you think your legislative options are at this point that would be most effective. I mean in part were you protesting because there are very few legislative routes you can take at this point.

CLARK: Well, we certainly can codify the protections for abortion in this country here in Congress. And that is exactly what House Democrats are doing.

We looked at the Dobbs decision. We saw that they're not done with abortion. They are going after all sorts of fundamental rights for families across this country. So, we have voted already to protect abortion care. We have voted to protect state travel.

And let me make a chilling observation here. 205 Republicans voted against the ability of Americans to travel safely state to state. And we went on. Today we'll do birth control. Last week we did -- earlier in the week we did marriage equality and protecting interracial marriage.

HARLOW: And I want to get to that specific last bill that you mentioned in just a moment because that's significant.

But to your point about essentially trying to codify Roe, to codify the right to travel, et cetera, on that point, you're a lawyer, another esteemed legal professor, Victoria Norris at Georgetown, wrote this about Democratic efforts and talking points about codifying Roe. She said, drafters of any federal Roe protection must not be starry eyed. First off people should stop using the term "codify Roe." The phrase is misleading. IT means to enact a statutory right, which is possible, but the term "Roe" refers to a Supreme Court ruling and Congress has no power to reverse a particular Supreme Court ruling.

Legally, isn't she right?

CLARK: This is where we are. We have the power in Congress to legislate, to protect rights. And we are going to do whatever we can to do that. That includes passing legislation, like the Women's Health Reproductive Act that protects that right and makes it federal law. We can't sit back and dither about procedure or specific status of cases. This is about people's lives. And so we are going to put Republicans on record, whose side are you on? Democrats are on the side of families. We're on the side of justice. We believe that everyone in this country is entitled to the medical care that they need. And with each vote we are taking, we are showing the choice. We have the leadership of the Republicans in the House, not voting for marriage equality, not saying to interracial couples, we are willing to protect your marriage. That is a terrifying and dystopian message that they are sending. HARLOW: So, let's move on to marriage equality. Her point is that

given, you know, cases in the last 20 years, by this court, this would likely end up right back in the court and they would say Congress does not have the power to overturn in that way. But I'll let the legal analysts continue to hash that out.

Let me ask you about the bill you brought up, and that is this bipartisan House bill passed to codify, enshrine, same-sex marriage rights and interracial marriage protections in a federal law. It's sort of stunning that that has to be done at this point in this country.

CLARK: It certainly is.

HARLOW: But you had 47 Republicans on board in the House. You've got four Republican senator indicating they would get on board, and many others who may, who have not answered definitively yet.

Why do you think that you're able to get a bipartisan majority on this in the House and not other pressing issues, like abortion, like further gun reform? What is it about this bill?

CLARK: Well, let me tell you, I don't have any faith that the Republican Party is going to support this fundamental right either. We have Marco Rubio, just yesterday, saying, this is a stupid waste of time. A stupid waste of time when people's rights, people's families, their marriages, their medical care, all of this is on the line? We cannot under -

HARLOW: Are you saying you don't think this will make it through the Senate? Is that your projection?

CLARK: That is my projection because that is what they are telling us. We had 80 percent of House Republicans vote against this. And I am glad that 47 did the right thing.

But House leadership, who they all voted for, are not behind this.

[09:25:03]

And this is not going to get to that magic number in the Senate.

I would love to be wrong on this, but they are writing down exactly how they view our rights as American people, and our freedoms. And they are hellbent on taking them away.

HARLOW: We will see, as our reporters on Capitol Hill have been asking every Republican in the Senate for their thoughts on how they're going to vote on this. We'll see what happens.

Congresswoman and Assistant Speaker Katherine Clark, we appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

CLARK: Thank you, Poppy.

SCIUTTO: Important conversation. Just in, the January 6th committee released its first clip of what we

will see at tonight's hearing. We'll show you that next.

And we're moments away from the opening bell on Wall Street. Stock futures mixed this morning as companies report mixed corporate earnings results. U.S. stocks ended the day higher on Wednesday, fueled largely by a tech stock rally. All three major averages hit their highest levels in more than a month.

And some good news as well, gas prices are down again for the 37th straight day. Now at $4.40 a gallon on average. Easing some pressure at the pump for millions of Americans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:00]