Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

RNC Censure Language Leads To GOP Divide Ahead Of Midterms; Atlanta-Area DA Investigating Trump's Election Interference: Subpoenas Will Start In May; Supreme Court Allows AL Congressional Map To Remain In Place; CA, OR, NJ, DE, CT Lifting Mask Mandates Indoors Or In School. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired February 08, 2022 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Hello, and welcome to "Inside Politics." I'm John King in Washington. Thank you for sharing your day with us. Supreme Court sides with Alabama Republicans on the state's congressional map. The map will stay in place, even though a lower court found it diminished the power of black voters. Will tell you what it means for the voting rights act and the midterms.

Plus, a big COVID shift. More blue states rollback mask mandates indoors and for schools. We have some new numbers on COVID infections and kids. And as American soldiers arrive in Poland, President Biden draws a line, Vladimir Putin will lose a critical pipeline. The president says if Russia invades Ukraine.

But we begin the hour today, with a split in the Republican Party laid bare and guess what, it involves how to react to Donald Trump. Just moments ago, a member of the House Republican leadership said there is no problem with the Republican National Committee's decision to censure to House Republicans. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney censured because they agreed to serve on the January 6 investigative committee.

That House reaction in stark contrast, a number of Republican senators yesterday, coming out to say they believe it was wrong and not politically helpful that Trump allies on the Republican National Committee censure to have their own, also using the term legitimate political discourse to describe January 6, 2021.

Our chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill. In the middle of it today, a very big difference over Trump between House and Senate Republicans.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. No question about it. Did you see, House Republicans either defending what the RNC did or not taking issue with what the RNC did in referring to the events that day is legitimate political discourse, even as a number of Senate Republicans have balked at that and that pushed back on that resolution.

Now, I just had a chance to catch up with the Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy about this issue and about the fact that this resolution that censure. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney did mention legitimate political discourse and talking about the actions of this committee and talking about what happened in the run up to January 6, then on January 6, and he made very clear in his view, the RNC did the right thing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: The RNC resolution last week referred to the events of January 6 is a legitimate political discourse. Is that correct?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): You're right, the RNC was talking. They were talking about. Everybody knows, anybody who broke in and caused damage. That was not called for those people. We've said from the very beginning, should be in jail. What they were talking about is, the six RNC members who January 6 has subpoenaed, who weren't even here who were in Florida that day.

RAJU: So, you're supported that resolution?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, not saying if you are supportive of the resolution, but defending the language in there, and contending that perhaps that this was resolution was referring to six members of the Republican National Committee who were not in Washington, who were in Florida, but who were subpoenaed by the committee.

Now, it's unclear exactly what he is referring to. I've asked his office to clarify. They've said that there's six members he's referring to, came from the Republican National Committee, Chairwoman herself, Ronna McDaniel. And I asked the RNC to clarify who exactly the leader was referring to and who the six members are, who were targeted or subpoenaed by the committee in some way I have not heard back and it's on the committee itself.

January six committee is not saying, they're certain about what the Republican leader is referring to. But nevertheless, John, you're seeing this divide play out. Number of Senate Republicans are pushing back, but that is not the tack that the Republican leadership is taking.

KING: Manu Raju, appreciate the hustles, important divide on Capitol Hill. Let's bring it in studio now. With me to share the reporting and their insights, the host of Inside Politics Sunday, our senior political correspondent Abby Phillip, and our chief national affairs correspondent, Jeff Zeleny.

Look, this is a fascinating divide. The question is, what impact might it have in this midterm election year? It's interesting theater in its own right. The question is, does it have an impact in a year, which Republicans should have a wind at their back? History says, midterm election year should be a good year for the Republicans. Let's listen. You just heard Kevin McCarthy. This is one of his key deputies, Elise Stefanik. She says what the RNC did, great.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): The RNC has every right to take any action. And the position that I have is that you're ultimately held accountable to voters in your district,voters who you represent. And we're going to hear the feedback and the views of voters pretty quickly here this year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Well, intellectual inconsistency there. The Republican National Committee, she says voters in your district, yes, voters in your district should decide. The National Committee getting involved here. But look at all these senators here. Senator Mitt Romney, to suggest that a violent attack on the seat of democracy is legitimate political discourse is so far from accurate. Lindsey Graham, I think all of us have heard what to talk about forward and not backward.

John Thune, if we want to win the election November, there are better things for us to be focused on. Susan Collins, rioters were not engaged with legitimate political discourse to say otherwise is absurd. Senate Republicans say, stop talking about this and stop trying to whitewash it. House Republicans are more Trumpy.

[12:05:00]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I do think you have to distinguish between the two camps even in that graphic that you just showed. There are some Republicans who are saying, no, no, no, don't talk about this, talk about something else. This is about politics. We want to be able to win.

And then there are others who are also saying, this is wrong. And this is endorsing not only violence, but also what underlies all of this. It's not just the folks who were breaking the windows and the glass and assaulting police officers. It's also the people who were involved in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election.

Both of those things are being investigated by the January 6 committee, and that is why Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were censured because it's the whole kit and caboodle. Not just the violence, but also the attempts to overthrow the election that the RNC wants to silence.

KING: And when you see these people doing Trump's bidding, Trump wants anyone who crosses him punished. That's what the RNC did the other day. Then they use the offensive language about legitimate political discourse. It's not just about Trump, it's about the next generation of people who continue to support him, support the big lie and support essentially shoving out anyone who has a different view.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: For sure. And now we're on about day four of this, in a new explanation about six RNC members who were involved in the RNC, and Chairwoman McDaniel had a chance to talk about this at Utah, they did not, they've been flat footed on this throughout. They've been trying to move beyond it. Well, now one thing is clear, they are not going to move beyond it. Those three words legitimate, political, discourse will be in ads in House races this fall. Is it going to have a huge effect? Probably not because of how things are drawn, but on the margins in suburbs across this country, absolutely, Republican candidates will be held to account on this. We'll see if voters care, many will not, but some will.

So, this is a moment where at least on the - in the upper chamber, if you will, they just want to talk about anything beyond this. But what Elise Stefanik just did, she doubled down on this and made this divide more clear. They did not do anything to sort of move this along. They added a couple more days to this story today.

PHILLIP: And if you're wondering why, just quickly. If you're wondering why, Elise Stefanik and Kevin McCarthy won't say anything against this. This resolution was endorsed by former President Trump.

ZELENY: That's right.

PHILLIP: He drew the line, making it clear where, if you want to be on his side where you have to stand on this anymore.

KING: And it's just proof, whether it's this issue, legitimate discourse, the recriminations Trump wants, and now we're about to move on to, most Republicans would like this year to be about Biden. Trump is going to be with us front and center throughout, including this.

Brand new CNN interview with the Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, who now has the authority to convene a special grand jury with subpoena and other investigative powers. Those subpoenas she says will target those who tried to help Trump Steele dossier back in the 2020 election. And those who refuse to help but do know the details on just how this scheme played out.

DA Willis convinced that grand jury in May and says she will not be intimidated if the former president and his allies tried to stymie that investigation. Let's bring in CNN Sara Murray, with more on her important interview. Sara, you had to sit down with a prosecutor who has a giant say in the direction of American politics over the next few months.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And look, she's been paying close attention. She pays close attention to how Donald Trump has handled previous cases. She's paid close attention to how his allies have handled, for instance, the January 6 committee. But when I asked her, if she was worried about the former president, being able to stall being, able to sort of muck up her investigation, she was defiant. Here is what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This is a criminal investigation. We're not here playing a game. I plan to use the power of the law. We are all citizens. Mr. Trump, just as every other American citizen is entitled to dignity. He's entitled to be treated fairly. He will be treated fairly in this jurisdiction. But I plan to do my job. And my job is to make sure that we get the evidence that gives us the truth. I'm not concerned at all about games to delay this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: Now, we have already seen Donald Trump railed against its investigation, he will continue to do so. But you have to know, she has already met with his attorneys twice. She has sort of later cards on the table to say, this is what's happening. I'm proceeding with this investigation, John.

KING: So, Sara, a prosecutor, a good prosecutor follows the facts. But a good prosecutor would not ask for these special powers, this special grand jury, unless she had some premise of what might be out there. Does she believe there's something out there that could actually land the former president in jail?

MURRAY: You know, she's not going to go so far at this point, even to say whether she expects to bring an indictment. She said that grand jury will be seated in May. She'll start issuing subpoenas. Then we're going to see a lot of activity in the summer months, and she's going to try before the end of 2022 to decide whether to bring an indictment.

But we've heard from a bunch of lawyers, bunch of former prosecutors who they just can't picture the notion of Donald Trump, sitting in some kind of jail cell. So, I asked her, could you really envision the former president actually being sentenced, actually facing jail time? Here's what she said.

[12:10:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIS: What I could envision is that we actually live in a society where Lady Justice is blind, and that it doesn't matter if you're rich, poor, black, white, Democrat or Republican. If you violate at the law, you're going to be charged.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: She's aware that there are people who want her to drop this case. She's aware that there are people who want her to speed up this case. She was very clear in our interview. She's going to do a thorough investigation. She's going to go at her own pace, and then she's going to make a decision about whether to bring an indictment.

KING: Fascinating interview with a prosecutor who has a fascinating challenge ahead. Sara Murray, grateful for your time sharing all that. Let's bring it back into the room again. It'll be a national conversation, but that Fulton County grand jury, sitting in Georgia, which has an enormously important Senate race this year, that again, Republicans would like to make about Biden, like to make about inflation, and bam. This is going to be on the front pages in the news every day. PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, I think that that's the big political context. I mean, I, you know, Sara is right. It's really unclear how this is going to unfold. It's unclear, even, you know, politically in the long term, whether this is something that might benefit people who are opposed to former President Trump.

One of the lessons of the two impeachments that he went through, and the Mueller investigation and all these other things, for some Democrats has been swinging at Trump and missing is often not, it's often not the best route. I mean, a lot of people want to see him punished for the things that he's done that they believe are illegal. But each successive attempt to punish him that fails, seems to only strengthen him and that could be what Democrats are facing here.

ZELENY: It certainly rallies his base. It certainly fires up his supporters of which there are many in Georgia. But you know, there's some - there's a complicated governor's race, there is well secretary of state's race. Georgia is one of the---

KING: Secretary of state who will be a witness before the grand jury without a doubt.

ZELENY: Exactly. So, this will be in the news. So, we have no idea how this is going to play out to your point. I mean, it could really go either way. But as Sara reported there, the district attorney clearly, she said, she's following the law. She's tuning out the outside noise. That's her objective, you know, but the noise will affect voters in ways that we don't yet know.

KING: Right. And we'll watch as it plays out again, grand jury starts in May. So, you're going right through the middle of the campaign season. We will see everybody stay put. Up next for us, redistricting and race. The Supreme Court's conservative block size with Republicans and allows a new map voting rights advocates say, clearly punishes, black voters in Alabama.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: The Supreme Court is handing a giant redistricting wind to Alabama Republicans and the case could have broader significance on voting rights down the line. The courts, five staunch conservatives overruled a lower court decision. That lower court decision said, the new Republican map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice Roberts, joining the courts three liberals in dissent. The high court will consider the case in full next term. But for now, Republicans can use the new map.

And let's take a look at what looks like. This is the existing map in Alabama. As you can see, one blue district, six Republicans one Democrat in the seven members of Alabama's current congressional districts. After the census every 10 years in every state, they redraw the lines. You see here those lines, you could draw square districts, you could draw rectangle districts, there creative drawing, right.

So, let's take a look at the new map. And at first glance, what jumps out? Not that much of a difference, right? If you look, if you look at the lines down here, you see the white down here, you see the white up here. What did Republicans do when they made this new map? Well, they added a few Republicans to this district here. They took a few Democrats, this blue area out of the Birmingham suburbs, added a few more Republicans here on the surface, not much of a difference, right. So, no big deal.

But let's take a look at it from this perspective. Instead, here's what civil rights groups are arguing in the state. They say that if you're going to draw silly lines, look here now. The deeper the shading, the higher the black population in these areas. And their argument from voting rights groups and civil rights group now, as it was 10 years ago, and this original map was drawn.

Is if you're going to draw the lines in all these funny shapes, well, that it would be easy. You could do this, and you could do this. And you could create at least two districts, dominated by black votes and create congressional districts that would favor the Democrats. That's what they're arguing. That if you want to take into account systemic racism in the south, take into account these populations and draw the lines in a way that give them more voting power, not draw them in a way that gives them less voting power.

But this court disagreed at least for now, and said, the new map you see the line stays in place, which means it stays in place as we go into the '22 primaries and into the '22 general election. And it could have broader impacts on other states, where you have redistricting challenges based on race.

Let's start the conversation with Ariane de Vogue, our CNN legal affairs correspondent and Supreme Court guru. What is the court saying here, Ariane, in the sense that they decided, we're going to overturn this lower court, we may come back to this later but for now, this is the state of play?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Right. And what's interesting is that lower court was a three-judge panel, and two of the three judges were Trump's nominees. So, now this Supreme Court comes in and reverses that opinion. That opinion held that these maps violated the Voting Rights Act, and it diluted the power of African American voters. So, that's what's going to be an issue here.

And the majority, it was a five-four decision, and the majority came back and said, only two majorities, two members of the majority spoke, Kavanaugh, Alito. And they said, look, all we're doing right now is preserving the status quo. We just want to keep the status quo, and then we're going to look at this issue next term and decide the bigger voting rights case. But Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the liberals here, he said, look, this lower court really followed our precedent to a tee, so we should not have blocked that.

And the liberals went much further. They said, look, you allow this map now, even though we haven't officially ruled on it, and you're really going to hurt black voters, and you're going to send a message to other states who are currently drawing their own lines that this is OK. And that's why it was such a big decision even at this early stage.

[12:20:00]

KING: Well, I want to read a little bit from Roberts' dissent, which is pretty straightforward. In short, pretty straightforward, but he makes the key point you made. I respectfully dissent, the district court properly applied existing law and an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction. So, he's essentially saying, there's nothing for the Supreme Court to discuss here. The lower court wrote a really good decision. It's based on the law. It's based on a precedent.

So, Roberts sees, even though this is you could call this a temporary decision, if you will, a whole decision, if you will. Roberts sees an effort to say, never mind, we are not going - we just going to dilute the Voting Rights Act.

VOGUE: Yes. But he says that now because he can, because it's an earlier stage. But keep in mind, it's the same Roberts who back in 2013, gathered a different section of the Voting Rights Act. So here, he looks a little bit like the middleman saying, let's not overturn this opinion, let's have oral arguments on this next term and deal with it. But when they do have oral arguments next term, you can expect that John Roberts is going to be with the conservatives on the bigger picture, which is the role of race in this important section.

KING: It's fascinating because Jeff and Abby are still here. You know, we often say the justices want to keep politics out of the court. Well forget about it on this issue. This is Justice Elena Kagan, and her dissent, Alabama is not entitled to keep violating black Alabamians voting rights just because the court's order came down in the first month of an election year. But if you leave this map in place and you have a primary, then you have a general election, then you're arguing after the fact and the courts generally say, well, you had the election, you're done.

PHILLIP: Well, this is, you know, hearing the justification from the majority and reminded me of like the Mitch McConnell explanation for why, you know, one ought not to act, for example, on a Supreme Court case. Look, the Supreme Court nominee, the court is basically saying, oh, it's too close to an election. Let's just leave things the way that it is. And, you know, what the liberals are arguing, and I think you can see the justification for that is that, if you wait until after the election, the harm has already been done. You can't undo the damage to black voters and their political power after the fact.

And so, when you have, you know, black voters only able to represent to elect about 14 percent for the political power in that state, and they are 28 percent of the voting population in the state. It's a clear imbalance and the court not speaking out on it early enough. I think we'll just allow, you know, Ariane, you might be right. Next fall, they might say, OK, Alabama, you can keep doing what you're doing. But not hearing that before the election, I think is really significant.

KING: And it's part of an evolution, especially in the southern states that were subjected once to a stronger Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act has been diluted, or you do have systemic discrimination without a fact of Republican control. Republicans winning the elections. They have the legislatures. They have a governor, and they're drawing maps in their favor, because the maps not all that different, from the map drawn 10 years ago, where we had the same arguments from the civil rights community and the voting rights community. They're doing this in a way to dilute our power.

Mo Brooks is running for Senate in Alabama. So, he's running statewide. Yes, when a primary first. Here's what he says about this issue. These liberal activist judges have tried to segregate us based on race, I find that abominable. We've got to put the skin pigmentation issue behind us. I guess that's easy to say for older white guy - nothing's going in his favor.

ZELENY: That's really what they're not doing. I mean, the reality is also as Ariane pointed out, two of the three judges on that regard panel were appointed by former President Donald Trump, and one was appointed by Bill Clinton, I believe so. I mean, we could spend all hour on Mr. Brooks' statement there.

But I remember being with Congressman John Lewis in his office, the moment the 2013 decision was being read, and he worried aloud. I was there during an interview with him to get his reaction. We didn't know what the opinion would be. And he was, he worried about this very thing and worried about the entire watering down and, you know, just throwing out of the Voting Rights Act. So, this is just one more example.

But in terms of the timing, there are our districts still being drawn in several other states. North Carolina has not decided there. Ohio is not decided there's other states. So, there's plenty of time here. We're not exactly on the cusp of the election. So that argument, I'm not sure holds much wider.

PHILLIP: And it just has to be said, John, I mean, the reason Alabama is, we're talking about race here in Alabama, it's because the reason black people live in one place or a few places in Alabama is because of racism. It didn't just happen by osmosis. It is because of racism, that black voters are concentrated in certain parts of the state that make this kind of racialized gerrymandering possible.

KING: That's a critical point. And so, what is the impact? If you're in another state now and you're still drawing your lines, you haven't finished the process? And you're looking at communities, where yes, if you carve the map up based on race, based on voting patterns, you can make a difference. Is there an impact or is it state by state?

VOGUE: Well, you're embolden. You're emboldened by what the Supreme Court did. It said, OK. These are OK. So, you're thinking in your mind, well, we can move forward in much the same way. That is what the liberals on the court were worried about, and that's what they said. KING: And that we watch the process plays out and certainly as the issue comes back to the court. Ariane, thanks for the help explaining. That for us up next. COVID cases are down nearly 70 percent for the Omicron peak, and now, many states are dropping their mask mandates.

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We are suddenly in a new phase, the more optimistic phase of the COVID pandemic. New cases are down dramatically and more and more state and local governments now moving to ease or to drop their mask mandates.

Let's go through some of the numbers and the map. First this map. You see five states here and you're seeing this in local communities and more as well. Dropping either indoor mask mandates or in most of these cases, California is an indoor mask mandate. These other states also putting on the calendar, dropping school mask mandates as well as we move forward. Now, why are they doing this?

[12:30:00]