Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Ukraine Shocked at Biden's Comments about Possible Russian Invasion; Supreme Court Rebukes Trump in Bid to Block Document Release; GOP & Manchin, Sinema Block Advance of Voting Rights Bills. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired January 20, 2022 - 06:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to our viewers here in the United States and all around the world. It is Thursday, January 20th. I'm John Berman. Brianna is on night duty this week. Kasie Hunt here with me to mark one year into the Biden presidency.

[06:00:07]

KASIE HUNT, CNN CORRESPONDENT/ANCHOR: What a day.

BERMAN: And what a morning it is, right? The White House working the phones, and Twitter, and email, trying to make clear the president did not somehow create a permission structure for Russian leader Vladimir Putin to launch some kind of incursion into Ukraine.

His remarks raised immediate alarm in Kyiv, where our reporters are fielding furious responses from Ukrainian officials.

The president spoke in stunningly stark terms of what he sees as a likelihood of a Russian invasion. And that was on top of other major developments in the news conference, one where, for the first time, he said he would be willing to break up his signature domestic agenda bill; one where he refused to say the next election would be legitimate; one where he confessed surprise by the intransigence of Republicans and the lingering power of Donald Trump. But the most immediate concern is clearly Ukraine.

HUNT: His comments come at a tipping point there, as Russia nearly completes its buildup of forces along the Ukrainian border. An invasion, Biden suggests, is all but inevitable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion, and then we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.

But if they actually do what they're capable of doing with the force amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia. My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Less than an hour later, the White House scrambling to try to clean up those remarks, saying in a statement, quote, "President Biden has been clear with the Russian president if any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that's a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our allies."

Joining us now, CNN White House correspondent Jeremy Diamond and senior international correspondent Matthew Chance in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Let me start with you, Jeremy, at the White House. What do we know at this hour?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, President Biden in this news conference, on the eve of his one-year anniversary, trying to outline that his last year in office has been one of progress but also acknowledging that there have been challenges.

The president acknowledging shortcomings on the testing fronts, on the coronavirus, even as he insisted that overall, he believes that he has done remarkably well in addressing the coronavirus pandemic.

He also made news on the Build Back Better agenda, acknowledging that he will need to break that up into pieces. But he said that he believes that he can pass big chunks of his agenda.

The president, for the -- perhaps in the strongest terms so far, really laying the blame for his stalled agenda at the feet of Republicans in Congress, saying that he encountered more opposition, more obstruction than even President Obama encountered when President -- President Biden was vice president.

That, of course, came just hours before it was not Republicans necessarily who -- yes, they opposed the voting rights legislation, but it was Democrats. The president's failure to united Democrats that prevented those Senate rules changes from going forward.

But of course, the big news from President Biden's news conference was his comments on Russia. The president sparking an outcry in Ukraine after he suggested that a minor incursion by Russia would perhaps not meet the full force of these devastating sanctions that President Biden has promised to exact on Russia.

The White House then cleaning that up, insisting that that minor incursion was referring to, perhaps, actions by paramilitary forces, cyberattacks by Russia, but ultimately, making clear that any movement of Russian troops across the Ukrainian border into Ukraine would elicit a swift and severe response, not only by the United States but by its allies, as well -- Kasie. HUNT: Let's not forget, he also alluded and talked about potential

divisions within NATO, which is, of course, potentially very problematic in this standoff. Jeremy Diamond, thanks very much.

BERMAN: So Ukrainian officials reacted with shock with what President Biden said when he talked about a minor incursion might be a different situation.

CNN reporter Matthew Chance is on the ground in Kyiv. And Matthew, it's been so interesting to hear from you in real time the Ukrainian reaction.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely, John. I mean, look, as soon as President Biden made that distinction between a minor incursion and a full invasion and suggested that -- that a minor action by the Russian military, an incursion into Ukraine would elicit a lesser response in terms of sanctions than a full invasion, I mean, my telephone just lit up with people texting me, Ukrainian officials saying, you know, they were shocked and stunned by what they heard.

Usually, remember, U.S. officials talk about the crushing sanctions that will be imposed against Russia if there's any kind of military action at all. This nuance, this sliding scale of, you know, lesser sanctions for a lesser incursion, it's just never been made public before, even though I understand that behind closed doors in the United States, that's always been something that has been considered. It's certainly not been something they put out there publicly.

And, you know, the big concern expressed by one Ukrainian official I spoke to last night is that this offers Vladimir Putin a green light, in his words, to enter Ukraine at his pleasure, I think was the phrase that he used.

And of course, remember, a limited incursion in Ukraine's east, possibly expanding the rebel-controlled zone or possibly seizing some kind of land corridor that connects, you know, the rebel zone with Crimea, if you're familiar with the geography at all. Is -- is -- you know, many analysts feel that that's Vladimir Putin's preferred option.

So the idea that he could do that and only elicit limited sanctions from the United States, instead of the devastating ones that have been promised, is -- is something Ukrainian officials feel may encourage the Kremlin to press the go button -- John.

BERMAN: Matthew Chance for us in Kyiv. Matthew, please keep your ear to the ground. Let us know what else you hear this morning. Obviously, you're in one of the most important positions in the world right now, so we appreciate it.

HUNT: Very much so. All right. Joining us now, Washington bureau chief of "USA Today," Susan Page; and CNN political and national security analyst and White House and national correspondent for "The New York Times," David Sanger, who of course we saw question the president yesterday at the news conference. And David, let me start with you on that very point. Because, as we

just heard from Matthew Chance, this was not received well in Kyiv. I was very surprised when the president said what he said about potentially having a minor incursion here, acknowledging that an invasion may be all but inevitable, and talking about the fact that NATO may not be united in response if that incursion was minor.

What -- what's your analysis around what we saw yesterday and how it's going to impact the stand-off on the border?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Kasie, I was surprised that he said it in in public. But you know, what's the old line that a gaffe in Washington is saying something that's true in public, right?

HUNT: True.

SANGER: And I think that -- I think that's what went on here.

NATO is not completely unified on these issues. They're unified about what happens if Russia moves to seize all of Ukraine back. As Matthew suggested before, there are not many people who think that that is Putin's preferred way of doing this, because he knows that that will result in an insurgency, and he'll be stuck there as the Soviet Union was stuck in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

So the most likely would be that he would take some of the Russian- speaking areas around Crimea. And the president clearly, you know, has been briefed on that and was probably talking about it a little more honestly than he should.

I think the fact that he said this now probably means that the United States and its allies will have to go react more strongly, even if there is a minor incursion. And we won't know, if one starts, whether it's minor or major for some time.

BERMAN: That's really interesting, that perhaps this actually created a situation where the response needs to be even stronger.

You know, Susan, a gaffe is a truth said out loud. But diplomacy and national security does require precision of language. And when you telegraph that NATO is not united, when NATO unity is actually the main thing that needs to be projected to Vladimir Putin, how much of a problem does that create?

SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "USA TODAY": Later in the news conference, in reference to a different topic, the president said he needed to be -- act more like the president and not like a senator. And here was a case where he was acting, I think, like a senator.

A senator could have taken that question and given that answer, and we would have quoted it, and it would have been fine. But a president does not have that luxury, because every word is parsed. Everyone around the world is listening to it and taking cues from it.

And one thing I think is damaging for President Biden in terms of this answer is one of the promises he made to Americans when he was elected a year ago was competence: competence and experience in his administration, including in foreign policy. And I think this is -- this risks raising questions, once again, about the competence of his administration, as did the Afghanistan withdrawal.

HUNT: Yes. One of the other things, David, that I think has dogged President Biden is a perception perhaps of weakness. I've spoken to Democrats who are worried that he potentially appears weak.

Do you think that that's what we saw yesterday if you're Vladimir Putin watching that news conference? Did President Biden project weakness to the Russian president?

SANGER: Well, I think that Putin pretty well understood what the range of options are and how they may split NATO. And so to the degree that he got confirmation of his view that there are splits in NATO, then perhaps so.

[06:10:06]

But I thought that overall, the president in his response was actually pushing back on Putin pretty hard. I mean, it was interesting to see where he took this question.

I asked him about whether or not Putin wanted to have a Cold War resumption. And he answered by saying, Well, I don't think that he wants to go back into a full-scale war. And then preceded to describe where Putin was sort of jammed in between the West and China.

And in some ways, he almost described Putin as a somewhat weak figure who's making quick, tactical decisions rather than big, strategic ones. And I think that was an effort by the president not to declare that Putin was 10 feet tall.

But the speed at which the White House had to go clean up the comments on a minor incursion versus a major one, I think shows you that that they were concerned that the -- that the terminology would make the president seem weak or give Putin a pretext.

BERMAN: And look, I think that might be what stings the White House the most, Susan, is that the president clearly does have a comprehension of that region. He has an eagerness to talk about that region. He knows what he wants there. He knows what he's doing.

You got the impression at his first summit with Vladimir Putin that Putin got it, too. That there was a tacit understanding between these two men about a tougher stance, in some ways, toward Russia than maybe before, which is why I think the idea of a cleanup on something like this stings internationally but also, as Kasie said, stings domestically.

The last thing that this White House wants is the image that people have to clean up after this president.

PAGE: You know, I think that's right. And of course, this is one of the reasons, I think, that the White House has had so few of these big formal news conferences at the White House. This has just been the second one of his presidency.

I mean, kudos to the president for standing up there for nearly two hours and taking questions from all comers, including from reporters that he knew were going to ask him very critical questions. So let's not forget that he -- he did that.

But the risk of doing that is that there's some things you leave that you're going to have to clean up.

BERMAN: David Sanger, we appreciate it.

Susan Page, stick around. We're going to have much more to talk about involving this news conference and the implications of what it all means this morning.

Also, a major development overnight into the investigation into January 6th. The Supreme Court just basically completely dismissed arguments from Donald Trump. And now the January 6th Committee has its hands on key White House records. What have they learned already from what happened on January 6th?

Plus, Senate Democrats suffering a major blow. Senators Manchin and Sinema join Republicans in sinking filibuster changes to the voting rights bill.

HUNT: And an anti-vax folk singer wanted COVID on purpose. What happened when she finally got it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:17:26]

BERMAN: Developing overnight, a major legal setback for former President Donald Trump. And now the House Select Committee on January 6th has a whole lot of new crucial information in its hands.

The Supreme Court, in a near unanimous decision, we believe to be 8-1, cleared the way for the January 6th Select Committee to obtain more than 700 pages of Trump White House documents from the National Archives. These records could shed light on the events leading up to, and most importantly, the events taking place during the attack on the Capitol.

Joining us now CNN legal analyst, former U.S. ambassador and former House Judiciary special counsel in Trump's first impeachment trial, Norm Eisen.

Norm, I guess I want to dismiss the -- get through the legal implications of this firsthand. The Supreme Court basically said, We don't even have to decide whether or not a former president has the right to executive privilege if the current president doesn't think so. We don't have to decide that, because the appeals court, on the merits of the case, said that even if Trump was president, he couldn't keep this stuff secret.

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right, John. And we've tracked this case for the past three months, since it was filed in district court and said that Trump was not going to succeed. And he's failed at every level.

And the reason he's failed, the Supreme Court wrote last night, is because he simply did not make the showing that he needed to make in order to have these documents held back.

It's a balancing test when you're talking about executive privilege, the right of a president to hold back documents. And you've got to show an overwhelming, compelling need for each individual document. And sometimes even a paragraph or a line in a document to be held back, and he just failed to do it.

So once again, Trump was brought down by lousy lawyering.

HUNT: We've seen a lot of that, or we did see a lot of that, especially in the waning days of the -- the Trump administration. But of course, we did come very close to something much worse happening on January 6th.

Let's talk a little bit about the contents of what's in this package of documents. What do you think is going to be most valuable to the January 6th Committee? What are they going to learn from these documents from the Archives?

EISEN: Well, the contents of the documents, I think, are going to provide further depth to the mosaic. They're putting together all the pieces of this terrible falsehood, one of the worst in American history, that that election was stolen. And we saw the violence of January 6th erupt as a result.

[06:20:15]

Now they'll have call logs; they'll have memos; they'll have speech drafts; they'll have emails and other material from the core people in the White House who were talking to the president about this big lie. I think it will help them to advance the narrative.

Look, they're clearly building. Just this week we've seen them going deeper into the president's inner circle, getting phone records of his son, of Kimberly Guilfoyle, subpoenaing Rudy Giuliani.

So all roads lead to Donald Trump: what he knew, and what he did and didn't do. And these documents are going to help them very likely make that case and lead to dramatic televised hearings and a report that may very well have a criminal referral or referrals, including against the former president. These documents are absolutely critical inside information.

BERMAN: You know, Ambassador, this includes visitor records. This includes call logs. So does that mean, you know, once and for all Jim Jordan will find out just how many times Donald Trump and Jim Jordan talked on that day, maybe during the time the Capitol was under siege? Just how many times Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump talked about that. Who walked into the Oval Office, maybe, and tried to get the president to -- the former president, to call off the mob. Is that the kind of thing that there will be clarity on?

EISEN: There will be all of that and more. Although, John, we have to remember that the president sometimes used a variety of devices. It won't -- these materials won't necessarily capture every communication.

But, yes, you're going to be able to tell the story, if you are the members of this committee, in minute-by-minute, second-by-second detail.

And perhaps the most important information that is in there is evidence that the president knew, that he was told over and over again, that these claims he were making -- he was making were false. That he knew, for example, in Georgia, where he's under criminal investigation -- it may shed light on that, that he knew when he said to the Georgia secretary of state, just find 11,780 votes, that those votes didn't exist. That he was calling for an alleged criminal election fraud.

So that kind of evidence is going to be powerful in the hearings and in the report that the committee will issue with possible criminal referrals.

HUNT: All right. Norm Eisen, thanks very much for offering your insights, Mr. Ambassador. We really appreciate having you here this morning.

EISEN: Thank you.

BERMAN: You know, when he was talking, and you pointed out, look how much the committee has learned from the stuff that Mark Meadows and others willingly turned over.

HUNT: Right.

BERMAN: What could be in the stuff that the White House and former White House didn't want to turn over? That's why it's so intriguing.

HUNT: Right. If they're really trying to protect this, the way clearly they were, to the point where it has to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, there's got to be something in there that they don't want us to know.

All right. Coming up next, the Senate vote to change a filibuster rule to pass voting rights failing overnight. It is no surprise who joined with Republicans.

BERMAN: And a surprising development this morning. The FBI searches a Democratic congressman's home. What were they looking for?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:27:46]

HUNT: Breaking overnight, Senate Democrats failing to pass their sweeping voting rights bill, thanks to opposition from members of their own party. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema joined all Republicans in blocking a change to Senate rules that would have allowed the legislation to pass with a simple majority.

CNN's Lauren Fox is live on Capitol Hill with more.

This was quite a scene overnight, Lauren, including some back slaps from Republicans for Kyrsten Sinema for -- for doing this, for standing with them instead of with Democrats. And of course, Joe Manchin, also not exactly winning any friends in the Democratic Party.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's exactly right. And this was expected. But that makes it no less significant, Kasie, given the fact that this was the opportunity that Democrats had to try to change Senate rules and make sure that they pass this legislation.

They've been arguing that it was essential for months now, and yet they failed to do so.

Now, Senator Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, they both voted in support of the voting rights legislation. But they said they couldn't agree to change the Senate rules. Here's what Senator Manchin said yesterday defending that vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): Allowing one party to exert complete control in the Senate with only a simple majority will only pour fuel on the fire of political whiplash and dysfunction that is tearing this nation apart. Eliminating the filibuster would be the easy way out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And Manchin's position putting fuel on the fire of Democratic colleagues, who are arguing that he is not voting with the president; he's not voting with Democrats. You heard Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, last night saying that he could see a situation where he would support a primary challenge against his own colleagues.

Both Sinema and Manchin, they're not facing re-election for two more years.

But Kasie, a significant development, a significant comment from a fellow colleague who argues, look, we've been having these negotiations for months and months over Build Back Better, over voting rights legislation, and where are we? We are nowhere closer to passing the president's agenda.

Where do Senate Democrats go from here? That is the major question.

HUNT: A lot of frustration among the Democratic Caucus. And worth noting, that that speech took place as the Democratic president was giving a news conference at the White House. So no longer following old rules of decorum that say --