Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Australia Cancels Djokovic Visa, Putting Star at Risk of Deportation; DOJ Escalates Insurrection Case, Issuing First Sedition Charges; Health Experts Suggest Stronger Masks Amid Omicron Surge. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired January 14, 2022 - 07:00   ET


BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN NEW DAY: Australian government has revoked the visa for Novak Djokovic just three days before the start of the Australian Open.


Djokovic is the number one seed in the tournament. He is also unvaccinated. And Australia is struggling with rising case numbers and has been investigating a series of errors and discrepancies in tennis star's COVID testing and travel documents.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY: Djokovic now faces deportation. If he is ordered to leave, he will be unable to defend his Australian Open title and unable break the Grand Slam record he covets at least for now. Djokovic is appealing the ruling.

Australian Immigration Minister Alex Hawke released a statement and says his decision was made in the public interest.

So, let's go live to Melbourne, bring in Paula Hancocks. Paula, this is complicated. Just three days before the tournament starts, where do things stand this morning?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, it gets even more complicated. There is currently a hearing ongoing on this. Just three hours after the immigration minister, Alex Hawke made that decision, we are back in court and hearing this decision's hearing.

Now, what we know at this point is that Djokovic will not be detained or deported tonight. It's currently 11:00 P.M. Melbourne time. We know that he will be going to an interview with immigration officials 8:00 A.M. tomorrow morning local time, that's friday, 4:00 P.M., Eastern. And from that point on, he will be considered detained. There will be Australia Border Force officials, two officials accompanying him.

So, he will have that interview with immigration officials. Then a couple hours later, he will be allowed to go to his lawyer's office to determine the next steps. But, of course, that, again, will be while he is detained. He will be accompanied by those officials. And then after that, he will, we understand, be in detention.

Now, this is going to a higher court. Judge Anthony Kelly, who presided and reinstated the visa back on Monday, has said this will go to the federal court of Australia now. And we heard from Djokovic's lawyers in the (INAUDIBLE) pointing out that the immigration minister's argument is that Djokovic staying here would, quote, excite anti-vax sentiment. Now, Djokovoci's lawyers unsurprisingly say that that is patently irrational and erratically new approach. So that is what we understand they will be fighting against at this point.

Now, Scott Morrison, the prime minister, has said that this does prove and backs up the fact that Australians have to follow these rules very closely and this backs that up his decision by the immigration minister, saying that it does justify the sacrifices that Australians have made.

But, clearly, it shows Friday night, Djokovic will fight as long as he can. His lawyers even pointing out that they would like this to go to the higher court on Sunday, so, potentially, he could play in the Australian Open Monday. John?

BERMAN: Time is running out. Paula Hancocks, thank you very much.

Joining me now, Rennae Stubbs, ESPN Tennis Analyst and former world number one in doubles, she joins us from Melbourne.

Rennae, if you will humor me for a second, I want to interview you almost as if you're two people, an Australian and then a tennis star. First, your reaction to this just as an Australian.

RENNAE STUBBS, ESPN TENNIS ANALYST: Well, I mean, that's a big issue here, isn't it, because Australia really has such a tough lockdown, particularly here in Melbourne. So, a lot of Victorians are pretty upset that he was even allowed in the country. A lot of Australians haven't been able to go over state borders to go and visit family members if unvaccinated. A lot of borders have been shut down well over a year. So, it has been a really difficult time for Australians down here. So, on that respect, you can understand the agitation and the anger towards allowing any unvaccinated person into the country.

Now, as a former tennis player, I understand also the rigors and the problems of traveling around the world and all the issues they're going to face. And Novak is going to continue to face this issue really throughout the world. But in Australia in particular, this country is really, really tough on anyone coming into the country at all.

BERMAN: I just want to remind people that Djokovic himself admitted this week that he broke COVID protocols. And after he tested positive, after he knowingly tested positive, he sat down for an interview with journalists with COVID. He also admitted that his travel documents were wrong, that there were lies on his travel documents to enter Australia. So, people need to know that is part of the situation.

So, Rennae, this is three days before the beginning of the open. What are you hearing from the players there about the turmoil that this is causing?

STUBBS: Well, I mean, quite frankly, most of the players are pretty much over it. I think a lot of people are over it, including Novak, which is (INAUDIBLE) as well. I know that Craig Tiley at Tennis Australia but mainly the tennis players, really, they're on -- you know, tennis players are pretty selfish in their own right so they have been in their own little bubble.

I'll be really honest, I was one prior, so I know. So, they are really thinking about their own draw and how they're playing and what's going on. They're not really concerned because Novak really doesn't sort of mean anything to them except, obviously, if he's one of your opponents.


So, they are really sticking to their own matches and practices and worrying about themselves. But I'm sure they will be very happy when this is over and done with at some point.

BERMAN: I see no reason or avenue for this ruling to be overturned by the Australian minister. Maybe it will be. But right now, I don't think there is any dispute he had the authority to revoke the visa. But if somehow Djokovic does end up playing, what do you think the reaction will be when he takes the court?

STUBBS: I think it will be a little bit mixed. There's a lot of Serbian expats that live here in Australia, particularly in Melbourne. So, he gets a rousing response from them. I think the majority of the actual Australian public probably won't be necessarily on his side. And he will get a little bit of, I'd say, some boos to come his way because it's been so stressful for Australians in general here with COVID. But I don't think Novak is going to have a lot of overtly aggressive fans on his side if he does plays on Monday night.

BERMAN: No. And, of course, if he doesn't, it means the world number one seeded player disappears before even playing the first match, which is something the tournament will have to grapple with. Rennae Stubbs, thank you so much for being with us.

STUBBS: You're welcome. Thanks, John.

KEILAR: For the first time, the Justice Department is unveiling charges of seditious conspiracy against 11 participants in the January 6th Capitol riot. So, what do these new charges tell us? There are five takeaways from our Marshall Cohen, who has been following these cases every step of the way. Prosecutors sending a clear message after criticism from lawmakers and legal experts who thought the DOJ was going too easy on the rioters.

BERMAN: The charges show the extent of advanced planning. As we learned, many of the rioters were expecting war. The indictment also shows the attack could have been far worse. The Oath Keepers accused of coordinating to get inside the Senate chamber.

KEILAR: It was clear that the plot went beyond January 6th. One defendant allegedly spent thousands of dollars on weapons and equipment to organize militias to oppose the Biden administration. And, finally, the charges show prosecutors are focusing on the top of the food chain, as some Oath Keepers have turned up on the group's leaders.

Joining me now is attorney Jon Moseley. He is representing the Oath Keepers' leader, Stewart Rhodes, before the January 6th committee and in civil lawsuits against him and the group. Jon, thank you so much for being with us.

Your reaction to this indictment?

JON MOSELEY, ATTORNEY FOR STEWART RHODES: Well, they are very serious charges. And it's ironic to talk about them with the overnight news from Kazakhstan. They are very concerning. The thing is that we don't see any new facts. They have added a new legal label, as you say, after congressional criticism. But as I go through it, there's more social media discussions that are named. But I would be concerned if the FBI found some new revelation. It shows that they are going to go after very seriously. It's about 18 individual Oath Keepers now -- 20, I guess, that are in the USA, which is Caldwell Group, are going to have some very serious work to go after that.

The Oath Keepers generally feel like their videos in the smart phone video camera revolution, the whole new world we have here with all this new video, show that people did do what the government alleges, but it wasn't them. They had some very tough talk among themselves, that's true. And ,as you say, they are going after leaders in this sense, what they perceive to be leaders. The government admits that these Oath Keepers did not do any violence, they did not attack police officers. They did not do any damage --

KEILAR: No, they don't -- Jon, that's actually incorrect according to this indictment. It talks about them forcibly pushing into the Capitol and past law enforcement. So, that's just a misrepresentation of what's going on. You're talking about tough talk here. There's more than tough talk. There's talk about essentially overthrowing a government.

And there are new things here. There are a lot of signal communications, including with your clients, that paint a very clear picture of what happened before the insurrection, during and after.

MOSELEY: Well, outside of the indictment, the government has admitted they did no violence, they didn't attack any police officers and they didn't damage any property. But they say they led -- they claim that they organized some of that, which in court, the entire document has to be put before the court, not snippets of things.

KEILAR: I read the indictment, Jon. It says they forcibly pushed past police officers, that they used force.


MOSELEY: Right, and the video shows that they did not. And the prosecutors know that we know that they're lying. We have the video. We have the documents, including non-public documents. But the charges are a very serious hurdle for them to overcome. And what I want to see the complete conversations that they alleged there, which are about other -- KEILAR: Jon, I just have to stop you for a moment. We're watching video of them forcibly pushing their way into the Capitol.

MOSELEY: Not the Oath Keepers.

KEILAR: They were part of a mob that did this. What are you trying to say, the people around them were doing it and they weren't?

MOSELEY: The people you see on video were on the other side of the building, which is as big as a cruise ship. There were some very violent events and some very troubling events, but they were on the west side of the building, and the Oath Keepers were on the east side, and it's as big as a cruise ship. So, that's why we believe that some very terrible things happened.

KEILAR: I hear what you're saying. You're saying they didn't -- you know, we have seen the video of Officer Fanone. You're saying they weren't participating in the worst of it. They were forcibly entering the Capitol and pushing past police officers. I don't want to get hung up on that. I mean, we have video of it. I don't want to litigate that. You are trying to say the worst of the worst that we have seen, that wasn't them. They're using force here.

So, tell me how you defend against this, how you defend against all the planning that is laid out very clearly here in the indictment?

MOSELEY: I want to see the entire documents. Because the planning was about events in Florida, it was about December 12th, it was about November 14th, and it was about their fanciful somewhat idea that they thought the president was going to follow him up under the Insurrection Act, which I don't pretend to understand. But they were quite fixated on the idea that Trump was going to activate them as a militia under the Insurrection Act.

And so we think that most of the folks are misrepresented. Not to say that serious things didn't happen on January 6th, but their main defense is going to be they weren't the people doing it. They were there to help support --

KEIALR: You are saying the training wasn't about January 6th. So then explain this, Watkins on a Zello channel saying, we are in the Mezzanine, we are in the main dome right now, we are rocking it, goes on to say, this is what we effing something up for, everything we effing trained for. Minuda (ph) stated words to the effect of, now we're talking, that's what I came up here for. And James then instructed the group to get their gear and get ready to head to the Capitol.

Rhodes then, sometime after that when it was very clear what was happening at the Capitol said, anyone in D.C. who is not tasked with a security detail, come to U.S. Capitol on the Supreme Court side. Come to Capitol on the northeast corner. He was calling them to join in. We all knew what was happening at that point, Jon.

MOSELEY: Well, remember, they had a permit on the Supreme Court side -- KEILAR: No. Jon, you just said the training was not about January 6th. It clearly was.

MOSELEY: They got training on September 30 in Florida. They claim it was paramilitary training, which is illegal in Florida. And the company (ph) says we didn't train them. We just did standard gun training for the month, September 30.

So, that's -- you asked how I respond to it. They are serious charges. But how I respond to it is putting the entire context in front of the court and the entire conversations.

KEILAR: Rhodes hears them. I mean, unless -- what could they have said that is going to somehow change the meaning of what is in this indictment unless they said just kidding after all of it.

MOSELEY: They went to the Capitol to provide security at a demonstration that turned into chaos. They had a permit from the U.S. Capitol Police, Ali Alexander's group. They were supposed to be there to do security. They shouldn't have gone in the --

KEILAR: Jon, by their own the admission, that is not true. They said this is what we -- everything we effing trained for. Now we're talking. That is what I came up here for. And then after all of that is said, Rhodes then calls even more people to the Capitol. This isn't mission creep. They are making clear this is what they were there for. And furthermore, if you are saying this somehow went off the rails, then why is your client then, after having spent thousands and thousands of dollars including on a platform-style A.R. rifle, why is he then spending thousands and thousands and thousands more dollars on all kinds of weapons and equipment following January 6th?


MOSELEY: Well, as we've seen, they did believe that they were going to have to respond to Antifa or be called up by the president. But what's interesting is they didn't bring any of that into the District of Columbia. They left it in Virginia. So, if they were going to do any of those things, they would have brought weapons with them into the Capitol. And they didn't do that. So, I'm not saying that they were wise --

KEILAR: They talked about it. Jon, they talked about bringing weapons. They discussed it. And then they discussed putting them on a boat. And to be clear, I think, for everyone who isn't familiar with Virginia and D.C., there's a small river separates the two. And your clients were talking about putting heavy weapons on a boat from a dock or some sort of water access area in the Pentagon, which is like a stone's throw from the Lincoln Memorial and driving it over to the Lincoln Memorial.

MOSELEY: There were those chats, like I said. But if you see it in full context, they will say, if things went -- in fact, they say it with acronyms and expletive. If things go all to hell, they would have those weapons over there. But they never brought them into the District. So, you know, I'm not saying I would advise them to do any of the things they did, but that's what we're -- and, again, you're asking how do we intend to defend it. Those will be the things that we would look at, is they clearly talked about coming up to do security. It's beyond all that. The prosecutions know it. Their purpose in coming to D.C. was mainly to provide security for permitted legal demonstrations.

KEILAR: They actually -- they're talking very clearly they are not providing security. They are saying that this is exactly what they trained for. But Rhodes, your client, actually said, at one point when he is -- in response to a claim by an Oath Keepers' affiliate that Antifa breached the Capitol, he said, nope. I'm right here. They are patriots. He's saying this isn't Antifa. So, they knew that this wasn't Antifa. They knew that. He was making that clear, the organizer of all of this.

MOSELEY: Well, at that moment. But I'm saying why did they come to D.C.? Why did they do these things? I mean, the indictment says that, practically, they ate a hamburger on their way up here in order to overthrow the government. Now, they ate a hamburger because -- I mean, I'm speaking hypothetically, they keep saying that everything they did was to overthrow the government, and the evidence, the prosecution knows that's false, that we have clear -- not in the indictment. And that's why I'm concerned about the indictment as a work of fiction, is that outside of that --

KEILAR: Okay, then explain this, because this doesn't seem like fiction. This is your client. We will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them. That's what's going to have to happen.

MOSELEY: Yes. I think a lot of people predicted things like that. And, you know, I believe that whether somebody wanted it to happen and whether somebody observes in history this is where we're headed may not be the same thing. That's what I'll say. My main concern in responding to how we defend this is I want to see the entire conversations.

KEILAR: He said, we aren't getting through this without a civil war. Too late for that. Prepared your mind, body, spirit. This is what he was telling other Oath Keepers.

MOSELEY: Right. But that doesn't mean he's the one starting the civil war. I believe that too. But I don't think people on the right are going to be responsible for the civil war.

KEILAR: They were training -- the indictment shows them training for ambushes, Jon.

MOSELEY: Yes. Which is -- which the government knows is a lie because I've talked to the trainer. I'm calling the trainer as a witness. And that didn't happen.

KEILAR: Look at -- this is Rhodes, your client. We will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them. That's not reactive.

MOSELEY: Well, I think it is. I think it is. From what everybody was saying at the time --

KEILAR: What is that reactive to, Jon?

MOSELEY: To what they believe the left and the deep state and other people were doing. It was a very common conversation people were having at the time that this is going south. And, you know, we're heading in a very bad way.

KEILAR: Wait. So what were they reacting -- don't just tell me vaguely what the deep state was doing, which is -- I mean, I don't even know what you're talking about. What were they reacting to specifically if you're saying they weren't starting anything?

MOSELEY: I think everything, from new censorship of sort of the other thing and everything where they felt that the election was being manipulated and then stolen.


KEILAR: It wasn't manipulated or stolen, Jon.

MOSELEY: Okay. But I'm saying the discussion at the time was they think that this is all going bad and it's not us doing it, but we're going to have to do something about it.

KEILAR: Okay. Well, then we are responding to an imaginary thing is not a defense.

MOSELEY: Well, it depends. Like I say, seditious conspiracy, the last time it was tried in 2010, it was thrown out by a judge because they said that political diatribe were not seditious conspiracy.

KEILAR: Yes. I've gone through that case, Jon. I mean, Jon, that is apples and watermelons. That is not a case that you can look at, all right? That is not a case that you can look at and say it has anything that is similar to what happened on January 6th. That would be an embarrassing defense to use in court.

MOSELEY: Well, in terms of that fact these aren't the guys who did what you're concerned about on January 6th. I mean, they were --

KEILAR: They were in the Capitol, forcibly pushing past law enforcement to enter the Capitol in an effort to overturn the results of the election.

MOSELEY: All right. Well, at trial, the video is going to show that they did not force their way past.

KEILAR: I mean, can we put the video of them forcing their way past up again? I would like to put the video up of them forcing their way past law enforcement.

MOSELEY: Okay. I can't see it here. But if you're talking about the arch tunnel, that's on the west side.

KEILAR: No. We have video of them as they have entered -- we're not talking about the west side. They forcibly entered the east side, which is where you said they were, and this is video of that, from the Justice Department.

MOSELEY: Of who?

KEILAR: The Oath Keepers.

MOSELEY: I mean, because there is a video I had seen that some people forcibly entering, but they were not the Oath Keepers. They weren't there yet. They didn't arrive at the stairs until 2:35 P.M., and entered until about 2:40 P.M.

KEILAR: We have a picture of them.

MOSELEY: We have a picture of them too, of them singing the national anthem at the top of the stairs. And the doors open, which you cannot open from the outside. The Columbus doors are like a bank vault. And someone opened the doors from the inside. And they just calmly walked in and the police officers let them. We have this video. That's why I say the prosecutor knows that we know that they know we have all the proof.

KEILAR: All right. Jon, I'm going to end our conversation there. Jon Moseley, attorney for Stewart Rhodes, I appreciate you being on.

MOSELEY: Well, thank you very much.

KEILAR: Coming up, tough setbacks for the Biden White House. So, what is the path forward after what has turned out to be a week to forget?

BERMAN: Breaking overnight, a crippling cyberattack on Ukraine with Russian troops gathered ominously on the border.

And the science behind masks and how to spot fake KN-95s.


KELLY CAROTHERS, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, PROJECT N95: There's a lot of bad information out there. And, unfortunately, in this circumstance, that information could cost someone their life.




BERMAN: This morning, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says any mask is better than no mask. Still, though, which ones work best? How can you spot a fake one?

CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta shows us the science behind the masks.


DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): In the United States, we are being drenched with omicron, a variant so contagious that it has caused daily cases to double in the past two weeks.

Now, just like you would put on a better rain coat in a bad storm, we need better masks more than ever. Our best bet, an N-9 5 mask.

AARON COLLINS, MECHANICAL ENGINEER: If you are going to wear a mask, wear the best mask possible.

GUPTA: Aaron Collins, a self-proclaimed mask nerd, is a mechanical engineer with a background in aerosol science.

COLLINS: There is significant improvement. And the amount of aerosol that you're going to be exposed to when everyone is wearing an N-95 and you're an N-95. That's why they are such a powerful tool.

GUPTA: I think it's worth reminding people why exactly they work so well. It has to do with the actual material. There are electro static recharged fibers in here. So, it's not just filtering particles that's actually attracting particles, kind of like a blanket, it might attract your socks in the dryer. Also it works well not just for air that's potentially coming in but also air that's potentially going out.

Now, one key thing about the N-95 masks if you've got to make sure they actually fit really well. Having these two bands around the back of your head, then making sure no air is escaping around your eyes or your cheeks or your chin.

Studies have shown that cloth masks can have about 75 percent leakage. a surgical mask, 50 percent, but with an N-95, it can go down to as low as 1 percent. So, the question is why aren't the masks being recommended for all Americans.

Why not just recommend it, especially with these more transmissible variants?

DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC DIRECTOR: I worry that if we suggest or require that people wear them, they won't wear them all the time.

They're very hard to tolerate when you wear them for long periods of time.

GUPTA: However, on Thursday, President Joe Biden announced a step in the right direction.


JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: Next week, we'll announce how where I'm making high quality masks available to the American people for free.

GUPTA: If you buy your own, the average cost.