Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Biden Weighs in on Trump's Impeachment; Also Says "There is No Need" for Trump to get Intel Briefings, Cites "His Erratic Behavior"; Biden Weighs in on Whether He would Vote to Convict Trump; Trump Impeachment Atty Claims Trial Results will be Illegitimate; Biden: $15 Min. Wage Likely Won't Make it into Final Relief Bill; Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Mocks Congress Less Than 24 Hours After She Was Stripped of Committee Assignments; Biden Admin Sends Mixed Messages on Reopening Schools; Fox Biz Abruptly Cancels "Lou Dobbs Tonight", Its Top-Rated Show. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired February 05, 2021 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:00]

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She's in custody. Prosecutors say she also called instructions to riders, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Brian Todd reporting for us. Thank you very much, Brian. Important programming note to our viewers, on Monday, the Secretary of State Tony Blinken will give his first CNN interview to me here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Erin Burnett OUTFRONT starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next breaking news, Joe Biden speaking out tonight about whether he would vote to convict Trump and why he believes Trump should no longer receive intelligence briefings.

Plus, the White House defending its $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. As a top economist, Larry Summers, says the plan is too big. Larry Summers worked for Obama. Tonight, he's OUTFRONT.

And breaking news, Lou Dobbs tonight, the most watched show on Fox Business canceled. Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett and we begin with the breaking news.

OUTFRONT tonight, President Biden weighing in on Donald Trump's impeachment tonight in an interview just airing moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS EVENING NEWS ANCHOR: Let's turn to the impeachment trial, President Trump's impeachment trial. If you were still a senator, would you vote to convict him?

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, I ran like hell to defeat him because I thought he was unfit to be president. I've watched what everybody else watched. What happened when that that crew invaded the United States Congress. But I'm not in the Senate now. I'll let the Senate make that decision.

O'DONNELL: Well, let me ask you then something that you do have oversight of as President, should former President Trump still receive intelligence briefings?

BIDEN: I think not.

O'DONNELL: Why not?

BIDEN: Because of his erratic behavior unrelated to the insurrection.

O'DONNELL: I mean, you've called him an existential threat. You've called him dangerous. You've called him reckless.

BIDEN: Yes, and I believe it.

O'DONNELL: What's your worst fear if he continues to get these intelligence briefings?

BIDEN: I'd rather not speculate out loud. I just think that there is no need for him to have that intelligence briefing. What value is giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact does he have at all other than the fact he might slip and say something?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Strong words from the current president about his predecessor. This as the impeachment trial is taking shape. We are learning that House Democrats now, as they've got everything in place, they say they have enough evidence to make their case in Trump's impeachment trial, even without the former president's testimony.

That evidence, of course, includes Trump's own words, his own tweets, leading up to and on the day of the insurrection. In fact, they plan to argue that his refusal to testify underscores his guilt. Trump's team has called that request a publicity stunt and in response to the charge of inciting insurrection, they argue and let me just quote from them, they argue, "It is denied that the phrase 'if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' had anything to do with the action at the Capitol."

Those, of course, are the President's words. And, of course, by the way he said those words many times in many ways over many months and those comments are the reason that that riot and rally even happened to begin with. By the way, here are Trump's supporters responding to his call just before the right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: A fight they did, five people died that day. And just tonight, the Acting Capitol Police Chief says 125 officers were assaulted and over 70 injured, 70 officers, police officers injured by 'insurrectionists'. She said officers were engaged in hand-to-hand combat and were assaulted with pipes, bats, bricks and American flagpoles, talk about desecration.

And we've heard rioters admit again and again that they were there because of Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are listening to Trump, your boss.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were invited by the President of the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Trump requested that we be in D.C. on the 6th, so this was our way of going and stopping the steal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: So, Trump's team also arguing quote, "It is denied that President Trump intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral votes." It's a pretty stunning thing to say, because before the rally, Trump himself tweeted, "If Vice President Mike Pence comes through for us, we will win the presidency." As in by interfering with the Electoral College votes on that day when he was on Capitol Hill.

And then at the rally, as the Electoral College counting was just about to take place, there was this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to the Capitol. We're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So, let's walk down Pennsylvania Ave.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[19:05:03]

BURNETT: When you look at Trump's own words and the words of the rioters, Trump's defense doesn't add up. Because the fact is the attack would not have happened if it were not for him. This is just a fact. He is the one who told people the election was rigged, fraudulent and stolen. There are 10,000 ways to make this case, so here's just one example of what he said again, and again and again over months up to the riot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have to win the election. We can't play games. Get out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure - because the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: The only way we're going to lose this election is if this election is rigged. And he said it and he said it again, and again, and again and people believed him. And if he had never said that, this would have never happened. This is a fact. It is a black and white fact and there are 10,000 ways to make that case, because the facts are the facts.

There is no arguing Trump is not responsible for January 6th, which may be why he is not even playing his usual game of saying he'll testify on his own behalf. At his last impeachment trial, when Democrats offered him the chance to defend himself he replied, "Even though I did nothing wrong, and don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea and will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it."

This time he's not even saying he'll consider it, because he knows as well as everyone else that he did many terribly wrong things.

Let's get to Jeff Zeleny near the White House. And Jeff, President Biden strong words as he tries to walk a fine line on Trump's impeachment trial. I find it fascinating that he did not want to directly say how he would vote.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORREPONDENT: Erin, he's really always shied away from saying that. We've known for weeks that he has not had the appetite for this impeachment trial. The fact of the matter is that former President Trump is going to essentially take all the oxygen not out of Washington next week, but also out of the legislative process, which President Biden is trying to work through to get his COVID bill passed.

So, we know that President Biden is not thrilled about this, but he didn't have a choice. I mean, had he spoken out against it, there would have been massive turmoil inside the Democratic Party. House Democrats were sitting in the Capitol on January 6th. They experienced all this. They wanted to do something. They wanted to punish the former president.

So, President Biden has watched all this, quite frankly as a bystander. He's very comfortable to be a bystander here. Yes, it affects everything he does. It's going to derail his week next week, but I'm not surprised at all that he did not weigh in. That's what he has been saying since the very beginning.

Look, he does not believe that he deserved to be in office. It's why he ran against him, as he said. But his answer on this has been consistent. The reality is, though, he wants him out of the way. But that's not going to happen until the impeachment trial begins next week. And they hope it just takes a week, but it could take longer than that.

What's at stake here though the clock is ticking and running on his presidency for those first 100 days when he's trying to get some action here and next week is going to hold it up.

BURNETT: All right. Jeff Zeleny, Thank you very much.

And I want to go now to Matthew Dowd, Chief Strategist for the Bush- Cheney presidential campaign of '04 and John Dean who served as Nixon's White House Counsel. So, let me just start with you, Matthew, when we heard Joe Biden speaking on that interview. The President talking about intelligence briefings as well and saying that he does not think that Donald Trump should get intelligence briefings, which a foreign president would be entitled to ask for and to get.

He said, "No, because of his erratic behavior unrelated to the insurrection." How unusual is a moment like this?

MATTHEW DOWD, CHIEF STRATEGIEST FOR THE BUSH-CHENEY 2004 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Well, first, I thought you're going to play Edelweiss (ph) as we came on the air. It's in an honor of Christopher Plummer and Baron Von Trapp (ph), but since we're not there who passed away today.

BURNETT: Yes.

DOWD: It's a highly unusual, but Donald Trump's been a highly unusual president. And it seems logical to me that if you believe Donald Trump is a danger and unfit to our country, why would he get some of the most important briefings that any person in the world would possibly get. And so it seems very, very logical that President Biden would sort of put his hand down and say, listen, he shouldn't get them.

And my guess is, at some point, a decision will be made internally that he doesn't get them. But there is no reason for Donald Trump to get them. He's not going to add any value and the big question is, is he could actually be a negative influence on the world stage if he gets those briefings.

BURNETT: I mean, and I know there's been former National Security, Sue Gordon, had written that op-ed saying she thought he was especially prime for manipulation, because of what he does now. As all of this is happening, John, we have the impeachment trial and the big questions here, you heard Jeff Zeleny that Joe Biden, obviously has been playing the same line on this, not Talking about how he'd vote, because he just wants it to finish and then be done.

[19:10:04]

But how long do you think that this will go? We're hearing it could go long every day. We don't know, even though obviously the facts have been in front of us for quite some time.

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Erin, it's kind of stunning just days before the trial that the Senate has established no rules for the trial, that apparently Schumer and McConnell can't get together and agree upon how long this trial should run. I think the House managers would like to know.

I would suspect it could run a minimum of 10 days, trial days.

BURNETT: Wow.

DEAN: But maybe more.

BURNETT: I mean, that's a long time. Now Matt, let me just ask you in that context here. Again, I guess the goal is what they're trying to accomplish. Right now, they don't have the Republican votes for this to go through. But they may know that and still want to make a certain point to everyone in the country.

The facts have been in front of us and in front of everyone in this country for quite some time. What would they use all that time for? Do you think they're going to call witnesses?

DEAN: Is that me, Erin, that question?

DOWD: Well, Erin, I think it's important for all of us and anybody that wants to make improvements in the world and fight for justice. And all of the things that are important to us is many times you fight battles you know you're going to lose. If all we did was fight battles that we knew we were going to win, we would never achieve anything.

And so, I think the primary goal for the Democrats and as a proxy for our country is to get to the truth and have some accountability. Punishment is the least important thing of this, whether or not he gets convicted in my mind is the least likely to occur and the least important in this. It's really important that we establish some level of what the truth is, who's accountable, the President in this, who helped him in the process that we may or may not know of today.

And so as long as that takes to do, I think the country benefits. And the majority of the country right now wants us to go through, wants former President Trump to be held accountable. And one other point I'll make is the scopes monkey trial was a trial between fundamentalism and ignorance versus science and evolution.

Science and evolution lost in that battle, but in the end, science and evolution won in the long battle to educate our children. So just because you think you might lose doesn't mean you should not fight the battle and expose the truth to the American public.

BURNETT: I like the analogy. I like the analogy. And obviously, yes, I mean, that's a powerful analogy. So John, the Trump's legal team has argued and I quote and I just read it at the intro to our program, "It is denied the President Trump intended to interfere with accounting of Electoral votes." What's the purpose of that, John? I mean, we all know that that's just false. He tried to interfere with the accounting again and again. He tried to overturn it. He called the Georgia Secretary of State. He tweeted that afternoon that Mike Pence needed to go in there and stop it from happening. How can they even put something like that on paper?

DEAN: Well, that's one of the reasons I think that the House managers wanted to call Trump as a witness, because that very issue is at stake in this trial. He obviously did, as you say, try to interfere with the counting process and he tried repeatedly. He tried on levels we might not even know at this point.

So I think that the brief that was filed by the Trump team is very thin. They're relying totally on that vote of 45 senators who wanted to table the issue on constitutionality and pick that up later and make that the thrust of the trial. The thrust of their brief is not constitutional. So they don't really want to get into these facts and try to address them when they know they can't win on the facts.

BURNETT: Matthew, a quick, final word. What kinds of witnesses do you think they should call? I mean, if this is on the longer side and by the way what John's suggesting would be three times longer than the Russia trial itself for impeachment for Trump. Who should they call?

DOWD: Well, I'm a big advocate of call witnesses and don't just show video. One, it's more authentic. And two, it makes it less of a show. Call as many witnesses as you need the public to hear about what the facts of the case are and what the truth of this is. And so call witnesses, call people from that were insurrectionist that are willing to testify that says, yes, I came up to the Capitol and yes I broke into the Capitol and yes I beat up cops, because I was doing what the president wanted me to do.

So the more you can connect the dots in my view with real witnesses, the better for the American public to make a judgment on this about what the facts are.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you both very much.

And next, the breaking news, President Biden conceding tonight but he will not be able to raise the minimum wage to $15 through his stimulus bill because of how they're doing the legislation. This is a top economist under President Obama and Clinton says the stimulus bill is too big and that the price we might pay as a country would be stunningly high. That economist, Larry Summers, is OUTFRONT.

Plus, Marjorie Taylor Greene says the Republican Party is now the party of Trump. Is she right?

[19:15:04]

And a dating coach in New York City facing charges for his alleged role in the insurrection. Allegedly saying, "Seeing cops literally run was the coolest thing I've ever seen in my life."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:18:52]

BURNETT: Breaking news, President Biden admitting tonight that he does not think his $15 minimum wage increase will make it into the final COVID relief bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'DONNELL: You also want to raise the minimum wage to $15. Is that something you would be willing to negotiate on in order to get Republican support?

BIDEN: Well, apparently that's not going to occur because of the rules of the United States Senate.

O'DONNELL: So you're saying the minimum wage won't be in this?

BIDEN: My guess is it will not be in it. But I do think that we should have a minimum wage stand by itself $15 now and work your way up to the 15th - it doesn't have to be boom. And all the economic show if you do that, the whole economy rises.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: OK. So this comes up to the White House today defended the cost of its $1.9 trillion stimulus plan after a top economists who served Clinton and Obama came out and said the plan is too big. Larry Summers warning that a large stimulus and I quote from his op-ed, "On a scale on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation."

[19:20:00]

And yes that it will be essential to carefully consider how the choices we make now may constrain what we are able to achieve in the future. These are very, very significant statements to make.

Now, White House Council of Economic Advisers' member Jared Bernstein then pushed back on Summers in a big way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JARED BERNSTEIN, MEMBER, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: I think he's wrong. I think he is wrong in a pretty profound way. We have consistently said the risks of going too small are much greater than the risks of doing too much.

Now that doesn't mean there are no risks engaged in the kind of work that we're doing, because that's always the case in our economy. What Larry is worrying about here is inflation overheating and right now we have inflation that's been below the Fed's target rate of 2 percent for well over a decade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Larry Summers, the former Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama and the former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

So, Secretary Jared Bernstein says you are wrong in a profound way. What do you say to him and to this White House?

LARRY SUMMERS, FMR. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, I think Jared and his colleagues are being as thoughtful as they can and trying to make complicated judgments in a very, very difficult environment. Jared is right that we should be better to overshoot than undershoot when it comes to stimulus, but that's not an argument that justifies stimulus plans of unlimited scale. And I think we've got to think very carefully about the magnitude of

what we do and the composition of what we do. And when I look at our current economy where CBOs predicting that will be pretty close to potential at the end of the year and I see a stimulus that in total will be 14 percent of GDP ...

BURNETT: Wow.

SUMMERS: ... relative to the size of the problem, the gap five, six times as large as was the case during the Obama years, I worry about that setting off inflation pressures. Of course, we haven't had inflation pressures for the last two decades. That's why I've been worrying about secular stagnation.

But that doesn't mean we can afford to do things on an unlimited scale and especially doesn't mean we can afford to do things without even beginning the process that the President spoke so eloquently about during his campaign of building back better.

So look, I'd like to see major stimulus, I want us to err on the side of doing too much rather than too little, but I think as this program moves towards legislation, we need to think about the scale (inaudible) ...

BURNETT: So are they two times too big?

SUMMERS: ... all going to be this year.

BURNETT: What's your sense of where we should be? They're talking about $2 trillion, $1.9 trillion, you're saying we haven't seen anything like that since World War II, 14 percent of the economy, those are pretty terrifying ways of looking at it. But if you had to put a number, what would your number be that would be appropriate depending on how you look at them.

SUMMERS: I think that number is fine. Yes, I think the $2 trillion number, $1.9 trillion number would be fine if it included substantial public investment that was spread out over a number of years, (inaudible) ...

BURNETT: So you're still concerned about the individual checks pumping through the economy?

SUMMERS: I'm sorry.

BURNETT: You're still concerned about sort of the just the cash payments that are going to become all of a sudden to people.

SUMMERS: If it's all transfer payments this year that I think is potentially going to be a problem. Now, maybe they'll have a way of fitting it all together in some picture that I haven't seen yet and it hasn't been fully exposed publicly. But right now, it looks like very large transfers, very oriented to this year, perhaps setting a precedent for future transfers and not really including much in the way of public investment. And so I'd like to see large-scale fiscal stimulus, but when President

Obama had a large fiscal stimulus program in 2008, it wasn't nearly as large but it included clean energy, it included health information technology, it included substantial infrastructure.

But to go much, much larger than that and not to include the investments in our future and to do that at a time when we might be having a rapidly growing economy because of the progress we're making in COVID vaccination seems to me to run risks that we ought to be very explicitly considering and debating.

[19:25:15]

But look, the White House is in a complicated political position and this is an opening bid in a negotiation. So I think we need to see where it all comes out. But I do think that the concern about inflation, about overheating the economy and the concern about crowding out public investment need to figure prominently in the debates.

And as I hope as moderates get involved in this in Congress that they will figure prominently.

BURNETT: All right. Well, I appreciate your time. Secretary Summers, as always, thank you.

SUMMERS: Thank you.

BURNETT: All right. Explaining exactly what he's saying there with - men's pushback from Democrats against his editorial today.

And next, the defiant Marjorie Taylor Greene making a mockery of the very system she now is a part of.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENE: I'm fine with being kicked off of my committees, because it'd be a waste of my time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: Plus, Fox Business canceling its most watched program, Lou Dobbs, a man who has been a staunch defender of Trump, his conspiracy theories and some of his outright lies.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:30:28]

BURNETT: Tonight, Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene making a mockery of the Congress in which she serves.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I've been freed. I'm fine with being kicked off of my committees because it'd be a waste of my time. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: She was elected to Congress and the whole point is to serve on committees and do things for your district. Being kicked off her committees takes away a lot of that power, but hey, you know, I guess you don't want to do the job. She was kicked off in committees because of her embrace of fringe conspiracy theories and support for violence against politicians.

Now, 199 of her Republican colleagues, though, did stand with her. Only 11 of them went against her on the issue of serving on the committees. She went onto say this about the party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENE: A record number of Americans voted for President Trump. Republican voters support him still. The party is his. It doesn't belong to anybody else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Dana Bash, co-anchor of CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION" and our chief political correspondent, along with Dan Eberhart, longtime Republican donor.

So, Dan, Greene says it is the party of Trump and it is nobody else's. Is she right?

DAN EBERHART, REPUBLICAN DONOR: She's right in the short-term. But I think it's going to look awful in a different way, you know, come two years from now, or four years from now, and even forcing the Republicans to have a vote on this which the Democrats did really is going to create a lot of problems. Her stance is, her abusive and ridiculous rhetoric is really causing just giant problems for probably 20 to 30 house members that really don't want to be primaried by a well-funded Trump, really don't want have to defend these actions.

And she's really tied Kevin McCarthy in a pretzel here and the best way out and I think it's horrible for her district to have a Congress person not on committees that makes them less effective. So this is big problem for the Republican Party all the way around.

BURNETT: Right, and to your point on that she says it will be a waste of her time. One can only hope that her voters for a real issue with that if nothing else. Because you serve on committees that's why you go to Congress to make a difference and help your district. You're in committees, you have no power, you can't help your district, right?

So, just on the face of it, forget anything else, that's bad that she thinks that and would say that. Dana, you know, to the point Dan just raised about Kevin McCarthy, right, the House Republican leader, you know, we've been hearing -- I know you've been hearing that he's emerged with a tighter grip than ever before.

You know, he's been under siege, right, factions supporting Congresswoman Greene or Congresswoman Liz Cheney. And he's now stronger than ever in his control because he didn't take a firm stand on either of them. Is it actually working?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean so far. It was a tough week and toughest week that certainly he's ever had as leader. And I contributed to a story that was largely reported by Michael Warren and Manu Raju and Kristen Holmes which is going to come out very soon which has extensive reporting about exactly what you just said, Erin, about the fact he didn't take the stand on either -- in a way he took a stand on both because he took a stand on Liz Cheney by saying he supported her. And he took a stand on Marjorie Taylor Greene by not removing her from the committee and letting Democrats do it.

So, in that sense, he did, but in another way to look at it is that he went into the week with a goal, and that goal was no blood. And from his perspective, he came out achieving that goal. The long-term effects of the Republican Party, particularly on the notion of not taking a stand not so much against Marjorie Taylor Greene but against in a more clear way all of the lies that she has told and espoused along with President Trump and cheerily saying QAnon it has no place in our party, you know, that is very much to be determined.

BURNETT: So, Dan --

EBERHART: I have a couple of quick --

BURNETT: Yeah, go ahead, Dan.

EBERHART: So, first of all, I think these 199 house GOP votes for Marjorie Taylor Greene to stay on the committees, those aren't votes for her. Let's be frank, those are votes for Leader Kevin McCarthy and support for him. That's what those are.

My second point is that you saw Mitch McConnell basically speak out this week and say, look, hey I think McCarthy should have made a different decision and really step up and try to say, hey, look, maybe I should be the leader of the Republican Party.

[19:35:04]

It'd be extremely, extremely rare for McConnell to step out of his lane and either advise the president or House minority leaders what to do. I think that could be something to watch, and it could be developing.

And my third point is, the fact Speaker Pelosi felt the need to basically override McCarthy's internal decision and hold this House vote which has never been done before, usually this is done by the caucus and done by the party in charge, the fact the speaker felt she needed to have this vote speaks extreme volumes about the lack of respect for her actions, lack of respect for her -- her lack of respect for the chamber and her lack of respect for her constituents. It's really been an astounding situation.

BURNETT: Dana, you know, you've seen, though, to this point about what's happening in the Republican Party, Republican Senator Ben Sasse now facing censure in Nebraska and he's come out and responded to that. Here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BEN SASSE (R-NE): The anger in the state party has never been about me violating principle or abandoning conservative policy. I'm one of the most conservative voters in the Senate. The anger has always been simply about me not bending the knee to one guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: He's right about that, Dana. But right now, and I know Dan says this may change, but right now, he's not on the winning side.

BASH: No, he's not. What you played earlier in the segment, Erin, of Marjorie Taylor Greene saying flatly that it is Donald Trump's Republican Party that at a high level, that is the debate right now, and you're absolutely right. That the people who are expressing fealty to Trump even now, even now that he's a former president, even now that he, you know, helped to perpetuate these lies that ended up in a riot in a deadly riot on the building where these members serve is pretty remarkable.

Ben Sasse is trying to kind of hold firm as are a few other high profile Republicans.

BURNETT: Yeah.

BASH: But there aren't that many of them, and that is -- there's a reason for that.

BURNETT: That's incredible.

All right. Thank you very much. Dan and Dana, I appreciate your time tonight.

And next, a dating coach faces charges for his alleged role in the riot. Here's his chilling message allegedly just after the attack including, quote, people died but it's just F-ing great.

And he's one of Fox Business' most watched anchors, but tonight he's off the air, canceled, gone. Lou Dobbs. How come?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:31:28]

BURNETT: Tonight, more than 180 people now facing charges related to the insurrection at the U.S. capitol, including this man. His name is Samuel Fisher. He's a dating coach in New York City whose online history gave gives at look at his extremist views and also why he was drawn to former president Trump.

Alex Marquardt is OUTFRONT.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the violent mob that stormed the capitol building on January 6th, the FBI says was Samuel Fisher from New York, a self- described dating coach that goes by the name Brad Holiday with a website that offers a misogynistic and darkly conspiratorial mix of countless posts ranging from wild political rants to supposed health tips on fitness, sex, fashion and more.

SAMUEL FISHER, ALLEGED INSURRECTIONIST: You should be able to, you know, learn, you know, various black magic, hypnosis skills.

MARQUARDT: His tirades and views of women indicated deep-seated resentment of the political system and of the opposite sex. Grievances on full display while presenting a macho chauvinist front seen in many of the insurrectionists that day.

Court documents show photos from Fisher's Facebook page, including one that the FBI believes was taken on the steps of the Capitol. On his Facebook account, the FBI says Fisher wrote about January 6.

It was dangerous and violent, people died he wrote, but it was F-ing great if you ask me. Seeing cops literally run was the coolest thing I've ever seen in my life.

Another photo from court document shows Fisher in front of a Trump flag with different weapons, and the menacing caption, can't wait to bring a liberal back to this freedom palace.

On January 6th, Fisher had according to the FBI written got to make a stand, not going to be intimidated, and then posted this picture of a rifle and pistol. He wrote that he expected Trump to play an ace card with the deep state arrested and hanged on the White House lawn.

Or, he writes, if Biden takes over, patriots show up in the millions with guns. They execute all treasonous members of government.

Fisher now faces two federal charges -- unlawful entry of and disorderly conduct on restricted grounds.

On his website, Fisher was trying to sell what he calls an attraction accelerator, a throve of digital tutorials on workouts, boosting testosterone, beauty products, handling guns, and seducing women, with among other things a hypnotic gaze and so-called porn star sex games.

At the same time, he calls women the least trustworthy people on the whole I have ever met in my life.

FISHER: If a girl's so hot you can't tell her to shut (EXPLETIVE DELETED) when she's talking nonsense, you have a real problem, dude.

MARQUARDT: Over in the political section, Fisher posted twisted, baseless conspiracy theories and wrote on January 6th that he expected to be betrayed by Congress, that it would be the most historically important day of our lives.

After the insurrection, he posted this video about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

FISHER: Some dude sat behind your desk, oh, I'm so sorry. That sounds really tough.

MARQUARDT: "The New York Times" reports Fisher grew up in New Jersey and said he was estranged from his family born Jewish but was said to post anti-Semitic articles and videos. People who know Fisher told "The Times" that he said he was bullied as a child and that three years ago after reportedly posting online about the mother of his child leaving him, Fisher started drifting toward conspiracy theories.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BURNETT: I mean, it's disturbing there could be such a long track record of this. What are Fisher's lawyers saying to you, Alex?

MARQUARDT: Well, not much. We did reach out to Fisher's lawyer today. We did not hear back.

[19:45:01]

Fisher was arrested two weeks ago. He has had a court appearance in which his lawyer said that he would not be pleading guilty but so far, Erin, Samuel Fisher has not entered a plea -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Alex.

And next, Biden determined to reopen most schools within his first 100 days but still doesn't have a plan to do it. So what's happening? An associate professor at Harvard School of Public Health who's been talking about this for months saying how to do it safely is OUTFRONT.

Plus, Fox Business suddenly canceling its highest rated show. Lou Dobbs is out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BURNETT: Tonight, the White House which pledged to reopen most schools in 100 days says it's not ready to release its official guidance on how to do that. It's expected next week now. But it came after the CDC indicated schools could open now. Never mind in another 100 days.

Here's the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, DIRECTOR, CDC: There's increasing data to suggest schools can safely reopen and that that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated in order to reopen safely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURNETT: So the White House then tried to walk that back saying Dr. Walensky was speaking in, quote, her personal capacity even though what she says is backed up by all the data out there.

It comes as President Biden is under increasing pressure to stand up to teacher unions who are saying things like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY JORDAN, PRESIDENT OF PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: We believe that the buildings are not safe for children and for staff, and so that is correct. It won't be safe.

JESSE SHARKEY, PRESIDENT OF CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: Right now, what they're telling us and what they're telling the world is they're not going to return back from the buildings that are in agreement that we believe protects our safety.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[19:50:03]

BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Joseph Allen. He's associate professor at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and has been saying for months students could return to school safely.

You know, you've been on, Professor, with me laying this out since the beginning of the school year of how this could be done.

So, do you think what CDC Director Walensky said is right, that schools can reopen safely and she also added that it could be done even if teachers are not yet vaccinated.

JOSEPH ALLEN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, HARVARD T.H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: Yeah, thanks for having me back on, Erin. I do agree with the Dr. Walensky. First, let me see personally, I would like to see teachers prioritized for the vaccine.

BURNETT: Right.

ALLEN: And at the same time, consistent position that an agreement with the doctor this is not a necessary precondition to getting schools reopened. What is necessary are the strict infection control measures we've been talking about, actually since I was on your show several times back in July. We know the playbook what it takes to keep people safe in schools, kids and adults. And it's the basics, good masks, good hand hygiene, good building controls, good ventilation and good filtration.

I think a misunderstanding though that this has to be expensive. These building level fixes don't require millions of dollars and aren't going to take many months. Some of the things and tools we produced for schools show we can do this with simple actions that can be done right now. In fact, schools, I hope, have not squandered past the eighth months and started doing some of these things already.

BURNETT: Well, I mean, here's the thing. Yet -- this -- it's been a year. You know, one town in New Jersey, a very wealthy town with plenty of money when you say money isn't the issue but then they still didn't go back to school.

We are seeing a standoff, as you know, professor. Chicago teachers threatening to go on strike. The mayor says the city's last and best offer is on the table to go back to school. The teachers union in Philadelphia tells members not to go back to school on Monday. The city of San Francisco is now suing its school district to try to get them to restart classes.

What do you say to the unions who are still fighting to keep schools closed in so many places?

ALLEN: Yeah. Well, first, I'd say I understand everyone's concern. I think we all want to get back to school and want kids back. So, how do we do this safety? One of the things we can talk about, what does the science say? We've seen a lot of good science that schools are not promoting transmission going back to last year, really.

But let's look at four new studies that should aid -- that should give us more information or confidence that it's okay to go back to school. First, thinking about kids. "New England Journal Medicine" study showing that the risk of kids dying is literally 1 in a million. We have a study in Sweden, 2 million kids followed in school, zero deaths. A hundred thousand teachers followed, lower risk than other occupations and surprisingly, they were not even wearing masks in school -- surprisingly and irresponsible.

Three, right back in the U.S., we have a study out of Duke University. Nine schools, almost 100,000 kids followed, nine weeks of in school classes. The authors conclude that in-school transmission was, quote, extremely rare. And maybe most importantly, most shockingly, they found zero, zero times where kid transmitted to an adult, zero times.

Fourth, the study by the CDC that just came out looking in a community with high levels of community spread found that in-school transmission was 30 percent lower than in the community.

So, this is why the CDC says with confidence there is little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to community transmission.

BURNETT: Well, hopefully, some of these, you know, calm recitation of the facts and data will bring some calm to this conversation. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time, Professor, as always.

ALLEN: Thanks for having me.

BURNETT: And next, Fox Business cancels its highest rated show after a multibillion-dollar lawsuit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:57:48]

BURNETT: Breaking news, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" which happens to be the highest rated show on the network Fox Business is suddenly cancelled. Dobbs who peddled and encouraged false theories of election fraud all the way through this saga has also been named with other fox hosts in a $2.7 billion election lawsuit this week.

Our chief media correspondent Brian Stelter joins me now.

Brian, can you remember a network cancelling its highest rated show?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: This is exceedingly rare, Erin. The closest thing to it is when Fox News fired Bill O'Reilly when his secret history of sexual harassment is revealed.

There's no sign with that with Dobbs. Instead, it's Dobbs' extreme content that is the issue and weakness with the advertisers. Of course, he was a sycophant for President Trump, one of Trump's biggest boosters on TV. And now, there's less use for that.

Trump issuing a statement tonight praising Dobbs, saying he is and was a great, he had a large and loyal following that will be watching closely for his next move and that following includes me.

But you know what, Dobbs, isn't going to be seen anywhere any time soon. Fox is sitting him on the bench. They're going to pay him to stay off TV for the time being.

BURNETT: Which is incredible. I mentioned there were other Fox News hosts we know included in this Smartmatic voting machine lawsuit, including Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo. Any sense of whether this is related to that, what their fate?

STELTER: That's definitely the next big question. I hear no imminent indication that Pirro or Bartiromo are next. But that's the clear issue within Fox. This is one of those cases, Erin, two plus two equals four. There is a massive lawsuit breathing down Fox's neck, another possible lawsuit imminent, and the next day they fire Lou Dobbs.

This is two plus two equals four but it's also five, six and seven. Dobbs was a troublemaker for Fox even before spreading the lie about the election. Advertisers didn't want to be anywhere near him. So, his show actually wasn't profitable, according to a source to the network.

So, there's a lot of factors here, but the biggest factor is the obvious one. The big lie about the election actually has consequences, maybe not for President Trump. Maybe he'll get off on the impeachment trial but at least for some of the people who peddled his lies, they are now being held accountable.

BURNETT: That's just incredible to think that they may be, but he may not. Thank you so much, Brian Stelter.

And finally, tonight, it is national wear red day. That's why I'm wearing it, and the goal is to raise awareness about heart disease and strokes in women, because heart disease is the number one killer of women. So, to learn more about the risk factors, please, go to wearredday.org and read more about it.

Thanks so much.

Anderson starts now.