Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Steve Bannon Sentenced to Prison Time; Interview With Former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Christopher Krebs. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 21, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Also includes Berlusconi bragging about being -- quote -- "the first of Putin's five true friends" and criticizing Ukraine's president. Berlusconi insists that the recordings were taken out of context.

And thank you again for joining INSIDE POLITICS.

Ana Cabrera picks up our coverage right now.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Thanks for being with us on this busy Friday.

Steve Bannon sentenced to go behind bars. A judge ruling today the ex- adviser to former President Donald Trump must spend four months in prison for contempt of Congress and pay a $6,500 fine. Bannon was convicted of contempt on two counts this summer, one for refusing to testify in the House is January 6 probe and the other for failing to turn over documents investigators demanded. Bannon is now vowing to appeal.

Let's bring in CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz.

Katelyn, first, the judge says Bannon will not have to serve until after this appeals process plays out. So tell us more about the decision, how it was reached and what happens next.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right.

So this was a long sentencing hearing today. We heard a lot of arguments over the respect for Congress vs. the respect for the executive branch. And, at the end of the day, the judge said there were some things Steve Bannon did to try and talk to Congress. He never turned over any documents. He never sat for any testimony. He was convicted by a jury in this court.

But he was listening to his attorneys' advice. That was something his attorneys argued and the judge did seem to agree with. But at the end of the day, the judge said Bannon really didn't show any remorse for his actions here, for failing to participate in a valid exercise by the House Select Committee to investigate the attack on the Capitol in January of 2021. The quote from the judge as he delivered this sentence of four months

in jail and a $6,500 fine, he said -- Judge Carl Nichols says: "There can be more culpable ways to be in contempt of Congress, but I do believe Mr. Bannon has some culpability."

Bannon had very little reaction to this today, though, when the judge did say to him in court, I'm going to not have you serve the sentence if you file an appeal, Bannon seemed to smirk a little bit, and then he exited with his attorneys outside the court. His attorney did say they believe an appeal is bulletproof.

And we do expect them to try and appeal on the law around subpoenas from Congress.

CABRERA: OK, Katelyn Polantz, thank you for that update.

Let's discuss now with Andrew McCabe, former deputy FBI director, and Norm Eisen. He was the special counsel for the House Judiciary Committee in President Trump's first impeachment trial.

Norm, first, your overall reaction to the sentence and its potential broader impact.

NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Ana, it's a reminder that, in the United States, no one is above the law. Mr. Bannon received a lawful subpoena. He refused to comply. He was contemptuous. He's getting a prison sentence.

And contrary to what his attorneys say, it is far from -- his appeal is far from bulletproof. I think that he will lose on appeal. And it's important because it comes in the context of a subpoena to Donald Trump himself that lies ahead. So it matters.

CABRERA: And I want to ask you about that second part in a moment. But, first, you say it shows that this is not something that you can do. It doesn't give other people access to just ignoring a subpoena from Congress.

But how long could the appeals process take? Because I think Bannon is saying today, this is not over yet.

EISEN: Well, the appeal will move at a reasonable pace. It's not going to take years. And I don't believe he has valid grounds on appeal. This was a perfectly lawful subpoena. He defied it. He made no effort, Ana, to cooperate whatsoever.

He's not like Mr. Meadows, who DOJ declined to charge with contempt, who engaged in some negotiation. So he will be serving this prison time, in my opinion.

CABRERA: Andrew, as Norm mentioned, a subpoena for former President Trump could come any moment now from the January 6 Committee. This is a committee that has interviewed hundreds of people, received thousands of documents.

Just how important is it to hear from Trump himself? ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Oh, I think it's

crucial.

And I think, as a threshold matter, Ana, it's important that the committee is giving the former president the opportunity to be heard. Had they not issued this subpoena, you would, I'm sure, have heard complaints from Trump and his supporters for time immemorial about the whole process was rigged and they never had equal access and an opportunity to speak.

[13:05:08]

Well, that's clear. Those lines of complaint are -- will be shut down with the issuance of the subpoena. Now, whether or not he takes advantage of the opportunity, I know he said he wants to talk. I think it's highly unlikely that his attorneys will advise him to do that.

So, we will have to see. But it'll be interesting to get that ball rolling.

CABRERA: Andy, even if this subpoena goes nowhere, what do you think is gain in at least issuing one to him? Anything?

MCCABE: Sure. Yes, I think it puts the committee in a position to be able to say, as our last step, as the final kind of very top of this pyramid we have been building with witnesses and evidence and testimony and hearings over the past year or more, we have gone to the person himself, the person who they argue is at the center of all of these conspiracies and all of the wrongdoing that led up to January 6.

So they're giving that person, the former president, the opportunity to come in and speak his piece. Again, I don't think he will. But I think it's an important last step, kind of a crowning moment for the committee. And that's likely what we will see today.

CABRERA: Guys, stay with me because there is some stunning new reporting from "The Washington Post" that I want to get to. It's about some of the classified documents that were recovered by the FBI at Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.

"The Washington Post" is reporting U.S. secrets about Iran and China were among the records. Now, a source familiar to this investigation telling "The Post" at least one document contained information describing Iran's missile program.

Andrew, what's your reaction to this reporting?

MCCABE: You know, it's stunning on it, and it drives home the seriousness of this investigation.

I worry sometimes that people perceive this entire investigation of the documents at Mar-a-Lago as some sort of a bureaucratic dispute or somehow retaliatory by the current Justice Department against the former president. That is not the case.

The sort of documents that we're hearing described in "The Washington Post" story cut to the very heart of the most sensitive national security matters. That's the kind of information that, if it's exposed, human sources can get killed, technical access to this essential information can get exposed and shut down, and it makes America less safe.

So, it's -- it really -- for those of us from the community, the intelligence community, it really sets you back and you just shake your head at the idea that information floating around a golf club.

CABRERA: Norm, we're working to confirm this reporting. If it's true, how can Trump justify having these documents?

EISEN: Well, Ana, he can't.

And there's a long history of very senior government officials who have mishandled classified information, national security information of a much lesser volume than we have here with the former president who have been investigated, who have faced criminal charges, who've been forced to plead.

And the volume here, the nature of this most sensitive information about adversaries like Iran and China jeopardizing our national security, jeopardizing, as Andy says, the humans who stand behind this intelligence is unconscionable. And there has been a finding of probable cause of crime already. It just makes it seem that, if we're to have one legal system in the United States, that President Trump may very likely be facing charges as a result of this, holding this kind of information.

CABRERA: Andrew, as an expert in the intel field, why would Trump want to keep this material?

MCCABE: That is a great question, Ana.

And I don't know that it's one that anyone can answer, except former President Trump himself. There is absolutely no reason to maintain physical access to those sorts of documents.

You know, whether it was because he felt like it would be important for him to have that information later to somehow use that information in one way or another, we don't know, or whether it was just out of spite, using -- standing on his old privilege, his old access to that sort of information, and unwilling to give it up. We have no idea.

I would be the last person to try to go inside Trump's mind. But the fact is having that stuff where he kept it was unbelievably reckless, irresponsible and put American national security at risk.

CABRERA: Norm, there haven't been any indictments related to the Mar- a-Lago documents at this point, but how could this news impact any potential prosecution?

EISEN: Well, Ana, whenever you're looking at violations and the DOJ is making determinations, it wants to assess both how serious the potential crime was -- again, there has been a finding of probable cause of crime here -- but also how grave the damage.

[13:10:02]

So, I think, as we hear more and more reporting about what may be in these documents and the harm that they cause, the potential risk to the United States, to our intelligence personnel, to our allies who help us gather this kind of information, it just makes the likelihood of prosecution go up.

And I do think there's a material risk of Donald Trump being charged. And, of course, there's a lot more evidence besides this that we have heard about of his personal involvement with this document mishandling.

CABRERA: Andrew, Trump has tried to argue that materials at Mar-a- Lago were declassified. He claims, as president, he could declassify something just by thinking about it. We know that's not how it works.

But in what world would a president declassify this kind of highly sensitive information?

MCCABE: It's really hard to imagine that, Ana.

I will say that most presidents in the course of the establishment of their presidential libraries, after their administrations are over, request access to government documents. They submit those requests into the National Archives. And, through that process, the National Archives and a sitting president could actually declassify some records that are important and no longer sensitive for one reason or another.

That would then become a part of the presidential library. There's absolutely no indication that any of that took place here. And, as you have said, there's a huge difference between having the authority to declassify anything, which the president, the sitting president does, and executing that authority effectively.

So, this "I thought it was declassified," that just -- that's not going to work for him.

CABRERA: Just real quick, Andy, what do you think Iran and China are thinking right now?

MCCABE: Iran and China are very, very interested in exactly what those documents might have said.

And we don't know. As Norm said, they may already know. Part of this investigation is the damage assessment, so the communities going back and looking at all of this information and trying to divine whether or not there are any indicators that the existence of this information has reached the hands of our adversaries.

That is very -- the heart of the grave damage that could escalate these charges. But -- so I'm sure they're watching this very closely, if they're not aware of it already. And they're very interested to try to uncover the sources of that intelligence and that information. CABRERA: Andy McCabe, Norm Eisen, gentlemen, thank you both so much.

Voters are already flocking to the polls in massive numbers ahead of the midterms, but so are bad actors harassing people casting ballots and election workers in key states. What's being done to stop this?

Plus, more surprisingly good news from the IRS, the agency rolling out another change to the tax code to help Americans fight inflation. How it could help you keep more of your money.

And it hasn't been this bad in years, pediatric hospital beds running out as a brutal respiratory illness rages nationwide. Details coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:32]

CABRERA: Early voting surging across the country right now.

Nearly six million ballots have been cast so far, on pace with the 2018 elections, which had the highest midterm turnout in recent history. At the same time, we're seeing a broad assault on the country's democratic process playing out, ranging from alleged harassment and intimidation to cybersecurity breaches targeting all levels of the system, including voters.

In Arizona for example, a voter dropping off an early ballot says they were filmed, photographed, tailed and accused of being a mule by a group of people. State officials spoke to that person and have now referred the matter to the Justice Department.

Election workers in Arizona have also been photographed and harassed, according to a top Republican official in Maricopa County. And then you have Texas, where the allegation is it is the state doing the intimidating by sending inspectors to perform randomized checks on election records in Texas' largest county.

State officials say this is just routine, but Harris County officials want the DOJ to send in civil rights monitors. Elsewhere, some election deniers are tasked with actually administering elections. In states like Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, and Georgia, election officials have spread conspiracies and even enabled security breaches.

Some have been stripped of their duties as a result, and that, of course, is contributing to a whole other problem, understaffed elections offices.

Here to discuss this and more, former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security Chris Krebs. Now, as a reminder, he's the Trump era official who said that, from a cybersecurity angle, the 2020 election was the most secure in U.S. history.

Thanks so much for joining us, Chris.

When you see these different examples we laid out and what's happening leading up to this year's elections, what worries you the most?

CHRISTOPHER KREBS, FORMER DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY: Well, it's certainly a much more dynamic and complex threat environment than what I had to deal with working with state and local election officials in 2020.

And I think the -- what we didn't necessarily have too much concern about in 2020 was the insider threat, combined with political violence and threats against workers. But, of course, as you have just pointed out, that is -- that's everywhere across the country right now.

And so what we're seeing is a -- we're seeing election workers leave the work force. They're not actually volunteering, because why would you put up with that? But we're also seeing election officials themselves, as you pointed out, in addition to other places, in Coffee County, Georgia, and Mesa County, Colorado, where they're actually inside the system, and they're not using the established escalation practices and procedures that one would use, going to the secretary of state or law enforcement if you have a concern with the system.

[13:20:18]

Instead, they're bringing unqualified, unknown outsiders into what is a very sensitive chain of custody.

CABRERA: Let's focus more on that issue, the call coming from inside the house.

KREBS: Right.

CABRERA: These election officials themselves tainting the whole process. How do you combat this?

(CROSSTALK)

KREBS: Yes, well, as I mentioned, there are established processes that secretaries of state and state election directors have for escalation of concerns.

And that is, you notify the -- up the chain. You notify the state. You notify the election director. If that doesn't work, then you notify the cognizant law enforcement official. In the case of Georgia, it could be the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

But you certainly do not go to the outside. You certainly do not go to conspiracy theorists to check your concerns. There are other controls in place, including a two-person rule. You don't have a single person in a sensitive point of access. You make sure that it's a bipartisan or, ideally, nonpartisan set of folks that can come in and monitor the process, rather than let, again, a single person at a very sensitive point in the election process.

CABRERA: Are foreign actors still the biggest threat to election security?

KREBS: Well, look, I don't think they have to do too much these days, right? I mean, the way that the political discourse domestically is degrading, it actually gives them a lot of opportunity space, gives them areas to amplify concerns.

I would suspect that they are jumping on every little claim, every little aberration or anomaly in the system and boosting it, alongside domestic actors. But I certainly don't think that they're manufacturing any organic content. I think they're just jumping in on what's already being promoted by domestic actors that's -- that are really continuing to echo claims that the 2020 election was not legitimate that have all been debunked thoroughly, multiple times, over and over and over again.

And yet they still persist because we have a grifter community that is incentivized to continue it.

CABRERA: But I thought that social media, for example, was supposed to crack down on this sort of misinformation.

And yet a new report finds Facebook and TikTok are approving ads in English and in Spanish with blatant misinformation about voting, like falsely stating voting days would be extended, or that social media accounts could be used as a means of voter verification.

What's your reaction to this?

KREBS: Well, I just saw this reporting. And it's a little incomplete, I will admit, because the ads actually did not run.

And there are a set of tools and detections that actually take place or are deployed across the system once ads are live to catch those live ads. But it is troubling that they would not have filters or monitors in place up front. And even if it is a very small set of ads, you still would hope that the detection capabilities in place would detect this stuff, would reject it, rather than just rubber-stamping or green-lighting it through the system.

But, again I do think that there probably other tools or capabilities that would catch them if they run -- ran live and would limit engagement. But you really do want to make a shift left as much as possible to keep it from running live.

CABRERA: Look, we're now two years into the election conspiracy movement that was really sparked by Trump's baseless election fraud claims. And it's flourishing.

According to an analysis by CNN, more than half of the Republican nominees for Senate have challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 election. They join at least 11 GOP nominees for secretary of state and at least 22 Republican nominees for governor who are also election deniers.

Where could this be headed?

KREBS: Well, why is this happening, I think, is a question everyone needs to ask. And I think, ultimately, the answer is that the incentive structures

in place reward people for claiming that the 2020 election was stolen and that the system, in and of itself, doesn't -- it doesn't have the integrity that you would hope for. And that's because they're fund- raising off of it. They're actually in positions of potential power in elected office.

And so the incentive structures, due to the former president's failure to accept his defeat and move on with his life, like every other president in American history -- and, again, it creates a power structure, an influence structure and a fund-raising structure that only brings more people in.

That's I think, one of the areas that we really need to think hard about. One of the few mechanisms we can use to hold these people accountable is at the ballot box. So, I'm a single-issue voter right now. If you purport or push these election denial claims, you're not getting my vote.

[13:25:05]

And if you support these people -- and this goes to some of the governors and others out there -- you too should be under significant scrutiny.

CABRERA: It appears you are in the minority, because the most recent polls show the majority of Americans do believe democracy is at risk, but most say it is not the most important problem facing the country.

And there are a lot of Americans that are willing to vote for candidates who are election deniers, even if the voter themselves doesn't believe the election was stolen. What do those numbers tell you? Do they suggest that election denialism is just now baked into our politics going forward, that there's been a normalization of this?

KREBS: Well, and I think that ultimately was, if not the intentional strategy, an unintentional strategy from 2020, where, by pushing these claims, and even if there was no specific claim that was intended to influence you, it's the overwhelming crush of election-related lies, where you actually don't know what's up or down anymore, what's true.

And it's just to exhaust people. And so, people, I think, are just -- ultimately, they're tired of this. They don't want to hear about it anymore. They just want to move on. But what we're doing is shifting the permission structure in the meantime, and we're allowing for things like political violence, the political discourse decline, of threats against election workers, of claims of a stolen election.

These are now acceptable and -- or, at least in some circles of the political discourse, acceptable. And that, to me, is -- it's -- there really aren't words, I think, to really strongly enough discourage and denigrate these claims.

CABRERA: And, clearly, it's a complex problem to solve at this point, because it's all such a tangled-up mess at the moment.

Chris Krebs, thank you very much for having this conversation today. Appreciate it.

KREBS: Thank you.

CABRERA: We're not even at the height of flu season, but finding an empty hospital bed for a child suffering from a brutal respiratory illness is getting nearly impossible.

We're live at a hospital in Connecticut that has no empty beds, none.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)