Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Jan. 6 Panel: Trump Oversaw Conspiracy To Stay In Power; Lawmakers Remain Confident About Bipartisan Gun Talks; Most Americans Say Economy Is Bad And Getting Worse; Frustrated Dems Question Whether Biden Should Run Again; Family Feud? Aired 8-9a ET

Aired June 12, 2022 - 08:00   ET





ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice-over): Making the case.

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): January six was the culmination of an attempted coup.

PHILLIP: Explosive hearings about the Capitol riot.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): President Trump some of the, mob assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.

PHILLIP: And vivid reminders of that horrific day.

CAROLINE EDWARDS, CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER: What I saw was just a war scene. I was slipping in people's blood, I couldn't believe my eyes.

PHILLIP: What is still to come and what would that impact be?

Plus, please and protest to end mask shootings in America.

MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY, ACTOR: Can both sides see beyond the political problem at hand and admit that we have a life preservation problem on our hand?

PHILLIP: Both sides say they want a deal. But will this time be different?

And, skyrocketing inflation, record-breaking pain at the pump.

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I understand Americans are anxious, they're anxious with good reason. I'm doing everything in my power to blunt Putin's price hike.

PHILLIP: But can Biden convince a weary nation that he's doing enough?

INSIDE POLITICS, the biggest stories, sourced by the best reporters, now. (END VIDEOTAPE)


No United States president has ever faced allegations like this. That Donald Trump was at the heart of a coordinated conspiracy to steal the presidency.


CHENEY: On the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump's intention was to remain president of the United States, despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election.

Not only did President Trump refused to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the United States government to instruct that the Capitol be defended.

And, aware of the rioters' chants to hang Mike Pence, the president responded with the sentiment, quote, maybe our supporters have the right idea. Mike Pence, quote, deserves it.


PHILLIP: The January 6 Committee also wants Americans to remember just how horrific that day was and who it was that brought the rioters to Washington.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trump has only asked me for two things. He asked me for my vote any asked me to come on January 6th.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought, for everything he's done for us, this is the only thing he's going to ask for me. I'll do it.


PHILLIP: Sitting in the audience at Thursday's hearing were capital police officer, Harry Dunn, who is there that day. Also Sandra Garza, the partner of fallen officer, Brian Sicknick. The emotion, as you can see, here is etched on their faces.

And joining me now, with their reporting and their insights, Zolan Kanno-Youngs of "The New York Times", Margaret Talev of "Axios", CNN's Gabby Orr, and "The Washington Post's" Paul Kane.

One of the most compelling parts of the presentation was seeing that timeline, the facts, the proof. The timeline of Trump's actions and the rioters' actions. Watch this moment.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what had to be done to protect our country and our constitution, giving states the chance to certify a collective set of facts --


PHILLIP: And in the aftermath of that, the chants of hang Mike Pence echo out. What was your feeling about how effective they ended up being, given how high the expectations? Where

PAUL KANE, SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: So, Abby, everything about that first hearing was very different than a normal hearing where they think something important is happening.

Those hearings usually that would last 8 to 10 hours, would go deep into the night. Networks won't know went to have commercial breaks, everything will be sort of chaotic and Congress usually thinks the public can absorb that.

What they did was set up a less than two-hour hearing to do sort of an introductory, here's the timeline, here are the things.


And they let Liz Cheney, the daughter of a once powerful man, present most of the evidence, including, we'll talk about this later, unveiling the daughter of another one's powerful man, Ivanka Trump, and using her as a wedge against Trump.

It was done, everything about it has been done at a production level that is different than your normal congressional hearings, trying to get this into a digestible form for the American public. They did a pretty good job on the opening night.

PHILLIP: I do think, though, one of the challenges for them is that they have to give people something new. Not just the American people, but there is a lot of talk right now about where this is all heading in terms of criminal prosecutions.

Not just for the rioters but for the high-profile people who were involved in the conspiracy. What is the message to the Department of Justice from the January 6 Committee?

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I found that to be kind of a striking aspect of the first hearing. You even heard in Liz Cheney segment that there is this ongoing investigation by the Justice Department here.

Look, we know there is anxiety by the Democrats and many around the party about the pace of the Justice Department investigation, but this is -- this is a tricky balancing act, because if you're going to have accusations from Republicans, from those around Trump, as long as this investigation goes on.

The Justice Department as well as January 6, they're going to dismiss it as a partisan attack.

So, at the same time, this committee hearing is about informing the public well also sending a message that accountability is required for a threat to democracy.

PHILLIP: Sending a message or building a case? I mean, I think they might be slightly different things here.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's true. Because, when you talk about sending a message to the public, around a third of the public, of those who are watching it, are not watching -- they're watching coverage that wasn't even live coverage of the hearings, right?

But the central argument of the first night of the hearings was that this is about criminality. Not just an accounting of what happened. And it is about the former president, former President Trump's criminal culpability.

And I think those two points are what the committee was going for, ultimately. That if you were a member of the public watching it, you might think you already know a lot of the stuff, or whatever. That was not the point of these first hearings.

KANNO-YOUNGS: In terms of building a case, it's not just about that day, not just about January 6th as well. We also saw them outlined the steps from Election Day to January 6 on the steps to overturn the election.

PHILLIP: Featuring former Trump officials very prominently. Take a listen to some of what we heard.


JASON MILLER, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: Data person was brought on. I remember, he delivered to the president and pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.

WILLIAM BARR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: I made it clear, I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out the stuff, which I told the president was (EXPLETIVE DELETED).


PHILLIP: Back in Mar-a-Lago, what is the reaction to seeing these people who are, in Jason Miller's case, still more or less in Trump's orbit, testifying in this way.

GABBY ORR, CNN REPORTER: Yeah. Well, it was shocking for the president to see a lot of his former aides, including folks that he still talks to on a regular basis, appear in video testimony during those hearings on Thursday night.

And, you know, short of hosting a news conference at Mar-a-Lago to react to this, the way that former president Trump has reacted is really exactly what his advisers did not want him to do. And that's giving this more oxygen.

PHILLIP: He's been trying to combat the substance of it, which all the Republicans reacting did not really do. ORR: Absolutely, and that was deliberate. Again, they don't think

that these hearings are going to resonate with the public, they don't want to give it more air than it's already getting.

And so, that was the strategy going into this, and the strategy coming out by Trump's to respond to everything that he heard, including his own daughter's testimony. He's been posting on his social media website, Truth Social, over the weekend. He will be appearing next Friday at a conference for conservatives where we can certainly expect to hear more reactions.

PHILLIP: Yes, and he will have fresh things to react to.

KANE: Trump wants to see people fighting for him. It's always been his nature. We because Kevin McCarthy held back the Republicans from the committee, there were no Republicans on the committee that are pro-Trump. I want to see, and the next couple of hearings, whether there is a team of Republicans that are set up outside the hearing to go to the mikes, to go to the cameras, because he wants to see people fighting for him and there is nobody there fighting for him.

PHILLIP: I do want to talk about some of the revelations, about this dichotomy, that rift, really, that was exposed between Pence and Trump. According to the committee, Trump did nothing, literally, to stop the violence once it began at the Capitol.


But Pence was the one calling the shots.

What does that tell us about what was going on with our country in these days, on that day?

TALEV: I think it tells us that democracy was really on the brink that day. That Mike Pence was, perhaps, maybe even more on the hot seat than we have understood for all these months. I was really struck by General Milley's testimony, where he spoke about how the focus from Trump and Trump supporters was about the message, the idea that the messaging had to be that Trump was still in control.

PHILLIP: Yeah, even though they knew that wasn't true --

KANNO-YOUNGS: Mark Milley saying that at that point, he said, look, my -- my reaction to this is that this was politics. Mark meadows and the White House and the president were prioritizing how the president would be framed, how he would be perceived, how he looked in that moment, even -- rather than protecting members of Congress and the people in that building at that point.

Also, just, Liz Cheney in her opening remarks saying that, at one point, they had evidence of Trump's statement when folks were chanting hang Mike Pence outside. That he did not condemn it but, possibly, even said, well, maybe the supporters have a point.

KANE: He deserves it.


PHILLIP: These hearings pick up tomorrow. What can we expect?

KANE: I think we'll begin to see a more detail the chronological, step-by-step as the timeline goes through. Each day we will present a different aspect of the hearings and you're going to get the before part early on this week.

And then you build up until later in the month, you're going to have, essentially, the day, January 6th. They'll get into that moment and, hopefully, reveal much more of a Trump did that day.

PHILLIP: And CNN's Jamie Gangel is now reporting that conservative election lawyer Ben Ginsberg will be one of the people testifying tomorrow, which gives us a little bit of a hint about where this, perhaps, is headed?

ORR: And we can expect to hear from -- potentially a foreign counsel to Mike Pence as well. That's one of the witnesses possibly appearing. I'm quite certain that we will be hearing more from Jared and Ivanka, other former aides and advisers.

I think what really needs to be done in the next few hearings is to offer, you know, a chronological breakdown of what was happening between election day and January 6, because the committee has said time and again that that is where the heart of this potentially criminal conspiracy lies. So, they do need to break that down in a digestible format for viewers.

PHILLIP: Yeah, I mean, this is not just about the violence on that day. They are alleging a conspiracy to violate the Constitution. So, the question will be what exactly that proof is.

But coming up next for us --




PHILLIP: Americans demand lawmakers act to stop gun violence. But will they listen?



PHILLIP: Spurred to action by recent mass shootings, tens of thousands took to the streets yesterday, demanding action on gun violence.

And on Capitol Hill, a bipartisan group of senators seems to be listening. They say they are confident about reaching a deal on some reforms. A framework of the agreement could be announced early this week. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I have never been part of a negotiation that is the serious. Our group continues to grow in size. No one has walked away from the table.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): This is a time where, hopefully, we can transcend that personal, political interest and do what we think will save lives. To me, that's the ultimate goal.


PHILLIP: This was a week in which a lot happened in Washington. But I don't want to lose sight of this conversation and some of the truly emotional testimony and commentary that came out this week. Take a listen.


MIGUEL CERRILLO, DAUGHTER SURVIVED UVALDE MASS SHOOTING: Today, I come because I lost my baby girl. It's not the same little girl I used to play with.

DR. ROY GUERRERO, UVALDE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PEDIATRICIAN: And it's and children all over the country today are dead because laws and policy allow people to purchase weapons before they're legally old enough to buy a pack of beer.

MCCONAUGHEY: Responsible gun owners are fed up with the Second Amendment being abused and hijacked by some deranged individuals.


PHILLIP: The pressure is coming from everywhere -- mourning parents, surviving parents, doctors, actors. Is it being felt?

TALEV: I think the Republican Party is certainly feeling it. They are looking at an election year where it should be a no-brainer for them to retake the House majority, where they have a real bid at the Senate, where they can build momentum for 2024.

And there are two issues that could stand in their way. One is abortion rights and the other is gun safety.

PHILLIP: The Supreme Court could be weighing in on both of those things this summer.

TALEV: Well, that's absolutely right. So, what we were hearing this week was that part of the reason there is real momentum for something to happen is because, otherwise, they're going to have to keep talking about this between now and November. And they want to be talking about inflation.

So, there are some Republicans who want to deal, legislatively, with gun safety. I'm not saying there isn't a substantive feeling around it, but even for Republicans who doubt, where about protecting the second amendment, slippery slope, there's a recognition that this creates a political vulnerability and a way for Democrats to come back, politically, that they want to take that off the table.


The other thing is, voters consistently say they want Congress to do something. But it's not clear that there is a threshold that voters are demanding. It's not like voters are saying, you know, we want an assault weapons ban or nothing.

We want background checks or nothing. Part of the political calculation, now, that I think is happening inside the Republican Party, is that if they do something that something can be not very much in the public will be so glad that anything happened that they get credit.

PHILLIP: Yet, you're hearing, Chris Murphy in an interview this week, he said that what they're talking about could be the most significant gun change, the change to gun, laws in 30 years. Red flag laws, juvenile records and backer checks, mental health, school safety.

Does that seem like a significant package to you?

KANE: It would not have seemed like a significant package 20 years ago. But in the last ten years, in just a horrific mass shootings, repeatedly, in schools, in churches, synagogues, movie theaters, it has reached a point where just any bit of progress would help.

Dick Blumenthal, also from Connecticut, has been Chris Murphy's right hand man in a lot of these gun talks. I talked to him on Thursday and he said we have made more progress than I thought was possible.

I think, anything, red flag was. It's not a federal red flag law. It's an encouragement for states to adopt their own red flag laws.

So, yeah, modest is the way I would characterize this overall package.

PHILLIP: And that is a structure, by the, way on the red flag laws, that the federal government is used in other areas when it comes to the drinking age et cetera.

I want to ask about Mitch McConnell. I think there is a lot of distrust in Washington about Mitch McConnell and his motives.

And to Margaret's point, could Republicans just be trying to get this off the table? Can he be trusted, really, is what a lot of people are wondering?

ORR: Well, he certainly played coy as he's been approached about issues like raising the age bias of weapons and things like that of the past week.

I do think there's a little more leeway around someone like McConnell, also House Leader McCarthy, to take some steps here, because they don't have Donald Trump or a Republican president in office breathing down their backs, making sure that they do what is popular with that person's constituents.

We're not in a presidential election, here we are in midterms. As Margaret pointed, out there is appetite for both parties to do something. It might be very incremental at this point, but I think that both McConnell and McCarthy see the upside in even the slightest change to our gun laws.

And, so that's why they are working behind the scenes. Whether they can be trusted is a whole another question.

And I do think there is certainly a lot of pressure coming from very conservative members of both of their conferences to make sure that they don't do any changes. That could backfire, ultimately.

KANE: The point person here being John Cornyn. John Cornyn is seen as Mitch McConnell's under study, he will do whatever McConnell wants.

So, Democrats view Cornyn as simply, he's never going to broker a deal unless McConnell himself supports it.

PHILLIP: Yeah, I think that's actually very crucial to actually getting something done. The last thing you want as a negotiator at the table who doesn't have the ability to get the votes at the end of the day. What they're looking for as much as 60 but something even more than that.

But coming up next for us, she has become a pariah in her party and now, Liz Cheney is fighting back.


CHENEY: I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day went on all Trump is gone but your dishonor will remain.




PHILLIP: For the January 6 Committee, Thursday was likely the biggest chance to capture the attention of the American people.

Traveling entering primetime, congressional investigators laid out their case that former President Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

Now, 20 million people tuned in. That's about the same number as Sunday night football, and nearly 8 million people have watched this video of the committee, tweeted, showing the violence on that day.

In his opening remarks, Chairman Bennie Thompson warned that the American democracy -- the attack on American democracy could happen again.


THOMPSON: Our work must do much more than just like backwards because, if our democracy remains in danger, the conspiracy to thwart the will of the people is not over.


PHILLIP: It certainly seems to not be over, in part because the person at the heart of this is actively considering running for election again.

I mean, did that come across? A lot of people are wondering, will this matter for 2022? Let's put that aside for a second. But the players are still involved here. Did that come across?

TALEV: I think the narrative that Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney and the committee were building was to say, this is really all about Donald Trump.

We're going to bring other people into the picture, we're going to tell you about one other people Senate did. But the reason we tell you about it is that so we you understand what Donald Trump's role was.

So I think it is implied that there is not just a looking back aspect to it but they looking for an aspect to it.

PHILLIP: And there was the revelation about several members of Congress potentially seeking pardons --


PHILLIP: -- for their role in this. Some of this has been reported in the past.

One of the individuals mentioned, last week, Congressman Scott Perry, says I didn't do it. But the committee is saying, we've got the proof.

KANE: I think that's something that, look, they made a decision to pull all the Republicans off this committee. And it has been something that they are realizing, they have no insight into what the committee has compiled.

Scott Perry might be saying, no, I'm fine. But he doesn't know who they have interviewed, he does not know what the interviewees have said. He doesn't know what they have collected.

And so, I think there are quite a few House Republicans right now who are sitting around wondering, did they have that text I sent to Mark Meadows? When did I send that? They're going through their own phones right now, wondering what they said and what this committee has.

ORR: And it's not just House Republicans. I mean, I was talking to a pretty prominent Trump ally last week who, I asked in advance of Thursday night's hearing, what is the planned response for this? How do you guys plan to go on the offensive? And the response was, you know, we don't know how to respond because we don't know what to expect. We don't know what they have. And at the end of the day, they have testimony under oath, we don't.

So, they can't say that's incorrect, that's not factually inaccurate, that's wrong, because it's stacking up against sworn testimony.

KANNO-YOUNGS: And it's videotaped.

ORR: And it's videotaped, so it does put them in a really difficult position. They are sort of flying by the seat of their pants here.

PHILLIP: Another thing that the committee chairman, Bennie Thompson, says they have proof of is ties between Trump's circle and the Oathkeepers, the Proud Boys, the folks who were carrying at the violence on January 6. That would be significant.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Absolutely, that would be significant. I mean, a big part of this investigation, when you talk to those involved with it has always been establishing a connection between with the highest levels of government knew, the president, and the people that actually carried out the attack.

What the communication was like in the days before January 6, leading up to it, as well as what was that or not said on that day as well.

That's how you lay the roadmap to any kind of criminal case here. You're seeing them go and have these testimonies with associates like you would do in any other kind of criminal investigation, but to try and find what the people at the top knew.

That will something to watch going forward. As well as something maybe in the days ahead for the next couple of hearings, seeing how the folks at the top levels of the White House, including the president, what was done to pressure top officials in the DOJ as well leading up to January 6.

PHILLIP: One of the things that I think we cannot forget about all of this is just that, in a very short hearing, I mean, less than two hours, they dismantled the big lie. And yet, take a look at this graphic. The sheer number of Republicans out in the country, running on this lie -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, New York.

What happens to these folks? I mean are there any consequences or is the perverse kind of incentive system such that this could actually help them?

ORR: I think, in a lot of ways, these candidates are using this to their advantage. Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania is an excellent example. He was there on January 6 and he has -- he has said, you know, he has made election integrity, so-called election integrity, a pillar of his campaign.

And he thinks that this is a benefit to him, in a Pennsylvania gubernatorial contest. And you know, there is a leading gubernatorial candidate in Michigan who was arrested this past week by the FBI for his involvement on January 6. And I have seen editorials in right wing Web sites saying that that's actually going to give him a boost in the gubernatorial primary.

PHILLIP: Yes. Amazing.

TALEV: It has helped in some primaries, I think the general election is potentially a different question. But it does sort of depend on what media voters are absorbing and what media voters believe.

ORR: And that's why people like Mitch McConnell and those in charge of the Republican election apparatus are so worried about a lot of these candidates that Donald Trump has been propping up because of their liabilities in a general election.

PHILLIP: And speaking of primaries, Liz Cheney knows she faces losing hers in Wyoming and also there is South Carolina Congressman Tom Rice, who also voted for the impeachment.

I thought it was interesting in the "Post", this piece that said that Cheney's Republican colleagues have struggled to understand her motives, especially given the political price she is paying in Wyoming, where Trump has celebrated his largest margins of victory. Some wonder whether she is angling for running for higher office.

What gets me about this is, how hard is it to understand that Liz Cheney believes that Trump was trying to execute a coup and that is an important thing that's worth risking your career for?

KANE: So I was out there last weekend, for three days or so. And there are a lot of Cheney supporters who are trying to say to her, you know, you need to focus more on local issues because you need to grow the primary electorate and get those soft of Republicans out. They don't want to hear about Trump.


KANE: Well, I was at an event for an hour and a half, two hours with her and her supporters. Right from the get-go, she immediately starts talking about this race is about democracy, this race is about the fight against Trump.

And it builds to a point where she says, this is about making sure that Donald Trump can never be near the seat of power ever again. So she is not sort of holding back on these issues.

But it is a party that has just been radicalized. The chairman of the Wyoming Republican Party is an Oathkeeper who was at the rally, who went to the Capitol. He says he did not go inside the Capitol but he was there on the west front and at the inauguration set up with a walkie talkie in his hand.

He is a chairman of the Wyoming Republican Party. Possibly a future candidate for office out there.

PHILLIP: If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does. But coming up next for us, Joe Biden insists that he is going to run for reelection. But more and more Democrats want him to reconsider.



PHILLIP: Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy with the economy and it's easy to see why. Gas prices hit $5 a gallon yesterday and high inflation is now costing the average American family $450 a month and your 401k took a big hit last week too.

The president says that his top priority is to fight inflation, but he also had another point to make in his interview with Jimmy Kimmel this week.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's a lot of major things we've done, but what we haven't done is we haven't been able to communicate it in a way that is, let me say it another way.

JIMMY KIMMEL, TV HOST: Well see, that's kind of perfect, yes. Haven't been able to communicate it.

BIDEN: But look how the press has changed. Just everything gets sensationalized.


PHILLIP: He's not the first American president to want to turn to the press. It's your fault for not telling the story the right way. But it seems that the reality here is just actually bad for them.

KANNO-YOUNGS: No, certainly. And it's a bad situation right now. And you know, as much as the president, like others before him, would want to defer to press coverage at that point, it is true that there is debate within the White House right now as well about how to approach inflation, how to message on inflation.

We've heard from some economists that say that really the White House should be going more with the trade-off argument. Emphasizing that, yes, this big stimulus package that we had, while maybe it did play a part in rising prices now. It also is a central reason for a rebounding economy and for job growth.

But you still have political appointees in the White House, and higher officials in the White House, that are rejecting it all. That the stimulus package had anything to do with rising prices.

At the same time you have officials, and we have a report on this, that have been pointing overseas, to Putin's war in Ukraine, to supply chain bottlenecks as well and the pandemic.

The question is, does that, even if it's true and there's validity to it, does it resonate with Americans facing higher prices? PHILLIP: But all of those things are still communications approaches.

I mean have they given up on the idea that there is anything that they can actually do about it?

TALEV: There's not that much they can do about it.

KANE: It's bad, yes.

TALEV: I mean there's really not that much that he can do about it. I actually think communications is really important. The problem is that it's very hard to message to Americans about how bad it could have been in a different way.

I mean a big part of the reason why all of this is going on is COVID. And the Biden administration oversaw a massive period of vaccinations, of keeping people alive.

Things actually could've been much worse and that is all tied to the economy also. But it is very, very hard to message that if you are a skilled communicator, and that is not the position from which this team is operating.

KANNO-YOUNGS: I don't think they've necessarily given up that that's the challenge for them here. You've seen them talk about, you know, legislation in Congress that would ramp up manufacturing of semiconductor chips. You've seen them try to hold more events and talk about supply chain issues.

TALEV: It's been a year. They can't get that passed.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Right, you know, absolutely, but the problem is this is hard to digest for voters and it takes a while as well. There is an immediate challenge.

KANE: They have made a similar mistake to the previous Democratic administration, the Obama-Biden administration when in In 2009, they had a massive recovery act that was $800 billion dollars.

It was judged insufficient to meet that moment, but it did help build some sort of stability in that economy. But they immediately moved off of that, into trying to pass the Affordable Care Act, which became a messy, sausage making legislative jumble.

And 12 years later, they passed the ARP which was almost $2 trillion, to get shots in arms, help open schools, do all these things, build the economic recovery. But then they skipped past that, trying to go to a $2 to $3 trillion dollar package that ended up going down in flames. And people have just forgotten about that initial saying that they never went and sold.

PHILLIP: I do want to switch gears a little bit, although these are related conversations, to a piece in the "New York Times" this weekend, about President Biden's political future.

Saying, "Should Biden run a 2024? Democratic whispers of note start to rise. They talked to more than, you know, 50 people, including many high-level officials on this topic.

And the verdict, basically, is many people think that he maybe shouldn't. What does that do, if you're sitting in the White House right now and there is loud chatter about this issue?

TALEV: Well, it weakens Biden's ability to govern which is already weakened. But I think two things are true. Number one, if gas wasn't $5 a gallon, if inflation wasn't 8.5 percent, people would be still talking about whether Biden is the strongest person to pit against Trump which is what this has always been about.

The other truth is that there is no clear person to step in.



TALEV: And that is the other reason why someone who is around 80 is thinking about pursuing a second term.

PHILLIP: That, is in fact, the subtext of the piece as well. They write that many Democrats that they spoke to do not think that Vice President Harris will clear the field. That is a factor.

I also think, Gabby, that for Biden there is a calculus that also involves Trump. Trump is right now deliberating whether to announce early. How does that play into his decision-making, do you think?

ORR: Well, you know, Biden has always wanted too - always felt that he is the only person capable of defeating Donald Trump. And I think his victory in 2020, you know, only embolden that line of thinking.

And so of course, if Trump does announce a 2024 campaign, either later the summer or pre-midterms in October, Biden is going to want to follow as quickly as possible.

The two strains of thinking here are interesting because on the one hand, you know, a lot of Democrats would say that no matter who runs against Donald Trump we are going to defeat him. There's not an appetite for another four years of that chaos that we saw.

On the other hand, if Donald Trump does announce later this summer and you then have a messy Democratic primary that plays out, I mean that could give him a significant advantage. He will be the presumptive Republican nominee if he goes for this. And that is quite a lead time that he would have.

PHILLIP: Yes. I mean hence the anxiety in Democratic circles about this issue, you know, some two years before the next presidential election.

Well, coming up next for us, a family feud? The January 6 committee hearing opens a huge public rift between Trump and his daughter, Ivanka.


PHILLIP: Ivanka Trump's January 6 bombshell testimony this week made headlines and exposed a rare public rift between her and her father. From Politico, "Checked Out: Trump rebukes Ivanka"; and to the "New York Times", "Trump hits back at his daughter's account".

Trump's irritation is all about this.


REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): This is the president's daughter commenting on Bill Barr's statement that the department found no fraud sufficient to overturn the election.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?

IVANKA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S DAUGHTER: It affected my perception. I respect attorney General Barr. So, I accepted what he was saying.


PHILLIP: Now, I have to say, Gabby, that Jared's deposition was certainly one of the more interesting parts of it as well. So we'll get a little bit more of that.

But Trump is responding. What is going on behind the scenes in his head when it relates to his family and how they participated here?

ORR: Well, my sources in Trump world said that he was slightly caught off guard. That this video testimony did appear during the hearing last Thursday. And like you said, there was an expectation that --

PHILLIP: He didn't expect we would see Ivanka?

ORR: He did not.

PHILLIP: Even though he told her that she could testify?

ORR: That is correct. He knew that they had testified. He knew that there was a chance that that testimony would be read but to see her on screen is a different story and that was slightly jarring for the former president.

And you know, Trump has essentially jettisoned both Jared and Ivanka from his day to day political operation at this point. And there's no expectation that they will become a part of that again if he does decide to run in 2024.

But I think this and the hearings that we're expected to see next week are only going to deepen that divide. They are so far removed from his political operation at this point and you know, in his response, saying that Ivanka was essentially checked out in the final days of his administration. That rings true today as well.

PHILLIP: He's arguably closest to Ivanka, right of his children. I mean do you think that's still the case?

ORR: I think he consults her daily and talks to her about a lot of things, but she's not involved in sort of the nitty gritty political decisions that he is making like other members of his family.

Don Jr. has really taken the place of sort of being that political adviser in the family.

PHILLIP: I do want to play this Jared Kushner testimony. Take a listen.


CHENEY: Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign?

JARED KUSHNER, SON IN LAW OF DONALD TRUMP: I kind of -- like I said, my interest at that time was on trying to get as many pardons done. I know that, you know, he was always Him and the team were always saying, we're going to resign, we're not going to be here if this happens, if that happens, so I kind of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you.


PHILLIP: A lot to say about that. But Jared and Ivanka doing a lot of damage control claiming that even before the election results were final, they wanted to get out of town and go to Miami and yet, on January 6, they were both still there.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Right. A couple of things from these taped testimonies. For one, you just noted, we know both through Ivanka's statement as well as what my colleague Peter Baker reported just after the election that they were ready to leave. They were ready to go to Miami. They knew or had an awareness that the election --


PHILLIP: But that is now -- I mean it doesn't line up with the facts and it's also is just not believable.


KANNO-YOUNGS: Right. Right. No, absolutely.

And at this point, you know, from hearing Jared just now, you also hear that it was almost a norm at this point. They had heard that White House officials, that lawyers for DOJ and White House were at that point saying -- threatening to resign at times. They were uncomfortable with what was being planned at that point.

But the takeaway should be especially from Jared's comments at this point was not only did they know at this point some of the false claims of some of Trump's efforts to overturn the election but they were doing little to actually do something about it.

PHILLIP: They were doing nothing.


TALEV: They knew he had lost. They knew the election was over. They were trying to wrap up their business and get out.

PHILLIP: And set up businesses -- business deals going forward as Jared was pivoting to his post-White House life.

We'll have more to talk about on this because we'll see a lot more of Jared and Ivanka in the coming days, I imagine.

But that is it for us here on INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY.

Coming up next on CNN, "STATE OF THE UNION" with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

And Dana is in the chair this morning. She'll talk to Congressman Jamie Raskin and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

And tonight on CNN "What made John Dean decide to testify against Richard Nixon? The Watergate scandal heats up when CNN ORIGINAL SERIES: WATERGATE, BLUEPRINT FOR A SCANDAL" continues tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time.

And thank you again for sharing your Sunday morning with us. Have a great rest of your day.