Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

NFL's Most Thrilling Weekend of Playoff Football in History; Biden Considers Deploying U.S. Troops to Putin's Doorstep; Trump Rips Panel for Pursuing Ivanka, Despite Fact She was Adviser. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired January 24, 2022 - 07:00   ET

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

[07:00:03]

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And that, of course, is what the Chinese Communist Party thinks of us, that we can all be bought off, that all of our morals are just happy talk and that we don't really believe them when push comes to shove.

I'm here to tell you, Brianna, that actually a lot more people, especially because of these atrocities and how horrible they are, are now starting to care. And we have more activism and more groups and calls for justice and for attention to the suffering of not just Uyghers but Tibetans and Hong Kongers and lots of other Chinese dissidents and other people who are suffering greatly under the oppression of the Chinese Communist Party right now.

So, yes, there's a lot of people in Silicon Valley and in the corporate world and who don't care, some in the media, actually. But Americans do care. Americans are actually -- and people around the world are actually awakening to the reality of these mass atrocities. And I think the Olympics has actually contributed to that.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN NEW DAY: Yes. The flip side of this is the Olympics is drawing awareness to that, and that's what we are seeing. Josh, great to see you, thank you.

ROGIN: Any time.

KEILAR: And New Day continues right now.

A very good morning to our viewers here in the U.S. and around the world. It is Monday, January 24th. And I'm Brianna Keilar along with John Berman.

And we begin with arguably the wildest and the most thrilling divisional playoff weekend in NFL history, four absolute nail-biters, every game coming down to the final play. Two number one seeds sent home in the divisional round for the first time in 12 years. The Rams, 49ers, the Chiefs, the Bengals advancing to next week's championship round, just one win away from the Super Bowl.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY: And there will be no 11th Super Bowl for Tom Brady at least this year. Brady's Buccaneers lost to the Rams on Sunday on the final play of the game. After when asked about his plans for the future, Brady told reporters he is going to take it day-by- day, but that's what he always says, honesty. And there's no reason to think he is going to quit. And actually just this one time, Brady nowhere near the most interesting or most important story in this football weekend.

Joining us now, CNN Sports Anchor Andy Scholes, and I think you are going to start with what was probably the greatest or one of the greatest football games I've ever seen. The Chiefs/Bills, it was absolutely crazy.

ANDY SCHOLES, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: John and Brianna, there's probably no way you are going to ever be able to top that Chiefs/Bills game. It was just epic. The drama, the emotion, you thought you won it then you lost it. It was just incredible back and forth. It's going to go down as one of the greatest playoff games probably in the history, if not, the best that we have ever seen.

And I will show you how the drama all unfolded in the final seconds of the game. The final minutes of the fourth quarter, really, Josh Allen hits Gabriel Davis here for a 27-yard touchdown. Bills take a three- point Lead after this two-point conversion right here. But the Chiefs answered right back. Patrick Mahomes was just incredible down the stretch in this game, finds Tyreek Hill. His nickname is the cheetah. He's the fastest player in the NFL and he showed it right here, went 64 yards for the touchdown.

So, the Chiefs retook the lead with a minute to go. But Allen and the Bills answered. He finds Davis again. Those two hooked up for four touchdowns in the game. So, the Bills right looked like they had won it. They're up three. Only 13 seconds left. But Mahomes completed two passes, the last to Travis Kelce, right here. They got enough yard for Harrison Butker to make a 49-yard field goal to send the game into overtime. And the Chiefs would win the coin toss. Mahomes leads them right down the field, finds Travis Kelce for a game-winning touchdown.

Lots of people wishing the overtime rules were different right here, because Allen and the Bills never got a chance to answer. Kansas City wins the thriller 42- 36. And Andy Reid was asked after the game how grim things were looking for his team down with just 13 seconds left.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY REID, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS HEAD COACH: Yes. When it's grim, be the grim reaper and go get it. So, he did that.

PATRICK MAHOMES, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS QUARTERBACK: To be in this moment and this team against that team, and the makeup play, the walk off a game at Arrowhead, I'll remember this for the rest of my life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOLES: Yes. Patrick the Grim Reaper Mahomes was just incredible in the game. The 25-point score in the last two minutes of the regulation between the Bills and Chiefs the most in NFL postseason history. Now, the drama between the Bucs and the Rams, it was almost just as good. Tampa was down 27-3 in the third quarter. But we all know Tom Brady has been there before, and Brady bringing the Bucs back and finds Mike Evans here for a 55-yard touchdown. That got the Bucs within seven with a little over three minutes to go. (INAUDIBLE) forced to fumble and recovered it, set up a fourth and one and Leonard Fournette takes it in for a nine-yard touchdown.

So, we are all tied up with 42 seconds remaining. Raymond James Stadium was going crazy, but Matthew Stafford and Cooper Kupp quickly silencing all those fans. Stafford finding Kupp twice in 30 seconds, the last one right here, a 44-yard right down the middle. Kupp had an incredible game, 183 yards receiving.

[07:05:02]

Rams kicked a field goal as time expired to win 30-27, knocking out the defending champs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW STAFFORD, LOS ANGELES RAMS QUARTERBACK: It's a whole lot more fun when you have to make a play like that to win the game and just steal somebody's soul. That's what it feels like sometimes when they're sitting there going, man, we just had this great comeback and you get to reach in and take it from them. That's a whole lot of fun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOLES: Yes. So many were wondering was this the last time we're going to see Tom Brady walking off an NFL field. ESPN reported before the game, Brady undecided on coming back for a 23rd NFL season. And this is what the 44-year-old said about his future after the game.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BRADY, TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS QUARTERBACK: I haven't put a lot of thought into it. So, I will just take it day by day and see where we're at.

Truthfully, guys, I'm thinking about this game and not thinking about anything five minutes from now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOLES: All right. So, here's a look at Sunday's playoff games. The Chiefs are going to host the AFC championship game for the fourth straight season as they welcome the Bengals at Arrowhead next Sunday. In the NFC, it's going to be Niners heading to L.A. to face the Rams for round three. San Francisco won both of the matchups this season. The winners are going to square off in the Super Bowl LVI at SoFi Stadium.

Rams, guys, looking to be the second straight team to play a Super Bowl in their home stadium. The Bucs were the first, of course, last year, winning it. It's the first time though in 12 years Tom Brady nor Aaron Rodgers will be playing on championship weekend. So, it's been a while since that happened.

BERMAN: Wow. But Patriots' great Jimmy Garoppolo will be playing next week. Luckily, the Patriots will be represented.

Andy, the 13 seconds thing, it still -- it breaks my brain. I can't figure out how that could happen.

SCHOLES: And this is the thing, John, think about this. The Bills could have just tackled the Chiefs receivers at the line of scrimmage on each play and been a five-yard penalty and the Chiefs wouldn't have been able to move down the field at all and they would have just had one time down. Instead, Patrick Mahomes pulled off a miracle getting them in field goal position. That was just unbelievable.

BERMAN: And, clearly, next time, that's what you do. I mean, just break the rules if you can't do it. Wow, all right, Andy, thank you very much. What a night.

KEILAR: A massive shift this morning in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The Biden administration is now considering deploying several thousand U.S. troops, along with warships and aircraft to NATO allies in Baltic States in Eastern Europe. It's a move that would signal a significant pivot for the White House as fears on of a Russian invasion are going.

CNN's Barbara Starr is joining us on this reporting of yours, Barbara. Tell us what's happening here.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, Brianna. Okay. We have already seen the Biden administration order the drawdown of nonessential personnel at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv. But now what is the next step? Over the weekend, a number of military options were presented to President Biden at Camp David. He is now mowing them over. The idea is these options would call for potentially thousands of U.S. troops to be put into the Baltics, into Eastern Europe, think Poland, Romania, the countries that are so nervous about Russian aggression.

But, look, we are not talking by all accounts any U.S. troops involved in military action against the Russians. This is about deterrence and reassurance of the U.S. allies in Europe. That's what they're talking about. And already some of the NATO allies are beefing up exercises, adding aircraft, adding ships. The U.S. could do that as well.

But one of the key questions is when would the U.S. troops make their move? What would President Biden order? Up until now, the idea has been that any U.S. response waits until the Russians cross the line. But the question now is could President Biden order these troops into Eastern Europe, into the Baltics in advance of any potential Russian invasion to get the reassurance, to get the deterrence going. And that is what everybody is waiting to see, what he'll decide and when and if U.S. troops might make their move. Brianna?

KEILAR: All right, Barbara. Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thank you.

Let's talk about this now with former European Affairs Director on the National Security Council, retired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. Colonel, thank you so much for being with us to talk about this. I mean, this is really a pivotal time as we are looking at President Biden considering this potential military move. What do you think about this?

LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN (RET.), FORMER EUROPEAN AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: I think it's the right thing to do. We have to remember that this isn't the context of the Russians positioning some 100,000-plus some estimates, 127,000 troops on Ukraine's border, and a significant chunk of those, some 10,000 or more into Belarus.

Now, if you have them on the Ukrainian border, that still puts hundreds of miles between Russian troops and NATO forces. Once you put them into Belarus, that's right on the border of several NATO countries, Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. And at that point, you just need to make sure that you make it clear that NATO Article 5 holds, that U.S. forces will be there to support NATO allies when they get skittish about what's going on their borders and to warm off Russia, the aggression, anything beyond the scope of whatever is being looked at will not be tolerated.

[07:10:11]

This is not a game brinksmanship. This is not, in any way, really escalating direct threat between the U.S. and Russia, because the U.S. has made it clear that they are not prepared to use military force over the looming offensive in Ukraine but it is something that clearly establishes whether the U.S. will protect its interests.

KEILAR: What is the minimum that you think Vladimir Putin can be held to by U.S. military, you know, threat or also sanctions?

VINDMAN: The minimum -- I would say that we're still continuing to move forward towards this very large offensive on Ukraine. I think there's these types of moves are by themselves still not likely to deter Russian action. It will show a seriousness that the U.S. and NATO are prepared to defense their interests but it doesn't change the calculus around Ukraine.

On the margins, it tells Putin that he is actually precipitating the kind of security dilemma, the kind of buildup on NATO's eastern flank that he wants to avoid. I think the sanctions that are being discussed might come across as more meaningful at this point. The arming of Ukrainian forces with limited tactical capabilities becomes more meaningful but still not enough to deter this large bloody war in Ukraine.

I think there is also something to be said about all these troops going into Belarus and what that means for the sovereignty and independence of Belarus. This is not something that Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, would have ever tolerated in the past but he is in such a weakened position that he has no choice but to comply.

And what those troops leave Belarus is a whole different question. That could be a permanent stationing of Russian forces in large quantities on NATO's flank and that's going to also warrant a pretty significant media response with regards to increasing the security presence of the U.S. and NATO forces on the eastern flanks of NATO.

KEILAR: So, Alex, the U.S. made the decision to pull nonessential U.S. embassy staff from Kyiv and to send home the families of embassy staff. Was that the right decision? And I ask because Ukraine thinks this is premature. But from a U.S. perspective, was that the right move?

VINDMAN: It's -- I understand the difficult position that the Ukrainian leadership is in. They want to present the image of keep calm and carry on. This might still be several weeks away, sometime in middle February. They don't want to spook the population. And I think it is natural for them to say that.

The U.S. sees that this is -- we're just on the cusp of a large-scale war, and it has an obligation to protect those families that are on the frontlines. And I think it was definitely the appropriate move. I'm very heartened to see that the U.S. is taking appropriate deterrent steps, nothing that is really alarming or should spook the Russians into making this a bilateral crisis, but appropriate actions to defend U.S. interests.

KEILAR: I want you to listen to something that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said about the current situation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: We had deterrence for four years. Vladimir Putin didn't do these kinds of things. He didn't threaten. He didn't use coercive activity to try to push back on NATO and the way he did. We made sure NATO was focused on its mission. And when we did that, Vladimir Putin respected us. We had report for him and his power. He is a very talented statesman. He has lots of gifts. He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Where do we start with that? What's your reaction to that?

VINDMAN: I'm not sure why he would pop his head up just to get knocked down. His administration in particular went a long way to undermining any deterrence on behalf of the United States. If we recall, there were chemical attacks on U.S. -- closest U.S. allies in Salisbury. There were bounties put on U.S. soldiers' heads in Afghanistan.

Mike Pompeo himself negotiated an agreement to withdraw from Afghanistan. He forced the hands of this administration to a large degree. I don't know why, frankly, a backbencher in any other administration would come back up -- I know he is getting paid as a contributor on Fox but I don't know why he would expose himself to such an easy swipe back at him.

I think it's very poor form to do what Tucker Carlson and so many on the right are doing, which his singing the laurels of Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is not somebody that should be admired. [07:15:01]

He's not somebody that should be encouraged, like Pompeo, like Tucker Carlson and too many folks on the right are doing. These are the kinds of actions that actually suggest that there is an opportunity for greater aggression against Ukraine, against U.S. interests because there is a division between what should be a no-brainer for the Republican Party and pushing back on authoritarianism and aggression. Instead, there is bandwagoning and enamoration with Vladimir Putin. It's quite troubling.

KEILAR: Yes, troubling and, I mean, just eye-popping to hear the rhetoric. Colonel, thanks for being with us.

VINDMAN: Thank you for having me on, Brianna.

BERMAN: This morning, the Justice Department arguing to keep Oath Keepers Leader Stewart Rhodes behind bars as he awaits trial for seditious conspiracy for the attack on the U.S. Capitol. At a hearing today, prosecutors plan to argue there are no conditions of release that can reasonably assure the safety of the community.

Our Ed Lavandera live in Dallas this morning with the latest on this. Ed?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John. Well, federal prosecutors say that Stewart Rhodes, quote, stood at the center of this seditious conspiracy to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power. All of this dating back to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Attorneys for Stewart Rhodes say that he is not a flight risk, he doesn't have a passport, and that he is not a danger, and that he plans to continue fighting these criminal charges against him in court.

But federal prosecutors want to see Stewart Rhodes held in jail until this trial is heard before a jury. They say that Rhodes was the leader of this conspiracy, that he had texted members of the Oath Keepers group that was in Washington, D.C. for the January 6th event saying that we are not getting through this without a civil war, and that Rhodes had spent thousands on of dollars amassing an arsenal of weapons and firearms and tactical gear. And they are also concerned, they say, that he could be someone who obstructs justice if he were to be released on bond, tampering with witnesses, talking to other witnesses, that sort of thing.

But if there's any indication, last week, one of the other Oath Keepers who was arrested in Arizona, had his request for a bond denied by a federal judge. So, we will see if that court hearing foreshadows what might happen later this morning when Stewart Rhodes returns to a federal courtroom. John?

BERMAN: Yes. And sometimes it's the arguments themselves that end up being very revealing for the larger case, in general. Ed Lavandera, thanks so much for being there for us.

KEILAR: Pope Benedict confessing he attended a 1980 meeting where an abusive priest was discussed. Benedict is blaming his initial denial on an editing error to his statement amid an investigation into abuse by Catholic clergy during his time as archbishop of the Archdiocese of Munich.

CNN's Delia Gallagher live in Rome with more. In wonder what you make of this explanation of his initial denial.

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Listen, Brianna, it does seem feasible if there was an editing error. Let's go back and understand that this is a response to one of the four accusations that Benedict mishandled sex abuse cases while he was archbishop of Munich.

This case has to do with a priest who was transferred into the Archdiocese to receive therapy for pedophilia. It is unclear what his record was before then. But then he received therapy and was subsequently put back into ministry, and then convicted in 1986 of sexual abuse.

So, in Benedicts initial testimony to investigators, he said he was not present at this meeting. The investigators said they didn't find that credible because they had the minutes of the meeting, which suggested he was there. This was a big problem on Thursday about whether or not the pope was lying about being at this meeting.

Now, the important part of his clarification aside from the fact that he is admitting he was at the meeting because of this editing error, he says, at the meeting they discussed whether or not this priest should receive therapy in Munich. They didn't discuss about putting him back into ministry. So, that's an important clarification on the part of the pope emeritus.

He is also saying that he needs time to go through the rest of the report. So, he's saying he is going to give a more detailed explanation about this case and the other three cases in the coming days. The report, Brianna, is 1,800 pages. It's quite long. It's quite dense. And it doesn't just involve the pope emeritus. It involves a sitting cardinal archbishop of Munich, who is Cardinal Marx, an adviser to Pope Francis. He too says he will be responding to the report on Thursday. Brianna?

KEILAR: Yes, an essential report. It's not about the past. It's about the present and the future as well, and we'll be tracking that.

[07:20:02]

Delia, thank you.

Coming up, no surprise, Donald Trump is slamming the January 6th panel for going after his daughter, Ivanka Trump. We will speak with Melania's former aide who says that she testified over Trump children's actions.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm done with COVID. It's a pandemic of bureaucracy. It's not real anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: So, those comments are sparking a big debate. We are going to speak with doctors on both sides of it.

BERMAN: Adele to fans, hello, it's me. We'll speak to a fan who's spent $2,100 to go see her before she canceled her concert. But, you know, she kind of made it up to him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:25:00]

BERMAN: This morning, former President Trump kind of whining about the January 6th select committee after it asked his daughter, Ivanka, to speak with him. Trump told The Washington Examiner, quote, it's a very unfair situation for my children, very, very unfair.

Joining me now is Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. She was an adviser to the former first lady, Melania Trump, and she is the author of the book, Melania and Me, the Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady. Stephanie, thanks so much for being with us.

Very, very unfair, the committee wants to speak with Ivanka. How do you read that?

STEPHANIE WINSTON WOLKOFF, FORMER ADVISER TO MELANIA TRUMP: I think it was very kind and generous of the committee to even extend an invitation to Ivanka as opposed to just subpoenaing her outright.

BERMAN: The president is saying, it's unfair to the children. It's kind of a double standard, yes?

WOLKOFF: It seems to be the case with the Trump family always. Ivanka and his children have always played a large part in the falsification, fabrication of everything that's going on around Donald. Now is not the time for him to play child.

BERMAN: And in this case, he is referring to her as a child, wherein other cases, she's a senior adviser inside the White House. Which one is it?

WOLKOFF: You know, I think whatever plays best to which discussion you're having or what role Ivanka wants to play, but you can't have it both ways. And this time, unfortunately, it is going to catch up to them.

BERMAN: I want to read the response from attorney of Ivanka Trump. It reads in the end, as the committee already knows, Ivanka did not speak at the January 6 rally, as she publicly stated that day at 3:15 P.M.. Any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful. So, put on your Ivanka Trump decoder ring. What does that mean?

WOLKOFF: Ivanka Trump is really going to try and distance herself from any type of issues that relate to anything that is negative in the White House. This is her way of distancing herself. And it's worked so far. I mean, it worked during the depositions through the United States attorney general (INAUDIBLE) case about the presidential inauguration committee's work together with the Trump organization's finances. Ivanka claims, I know nothing. And that seems to be the case all the time. So far she's gotten away with it.

BERMAN: why do you think she wants to distance herself from this particularly?

WOLKOFF: Well, this is an insurrection, a coup attempt, and this is something that has a lot of evidence behind it. I mean, I always say, if things are in black and white, the truth will catch up to you. And there is no way for Ivanka to distance herself from this with her role in the White House.

BERMAN: Okay. Why no way to distance herself? Because in some of the accounts we've heard, Kellogg and other people were trying to get her to go in and talk to her father and say to call off the mob there. So, do you think she was somehow culpable for what happened?

WOLKOFF: I think her calling these insurrectionists patriots at first and then taking that down on her Twitter is just a perfect example of her, you know, doing what's best for Ivanka in the moment. These were not patriots, and we know that now. She can do a lot more than -- she has not come out publicly. She has tried to stay away from social media. And she has recently just come on to show that she is involved in humanitarian causes. It doesn't work both ways.

BERMAN: Do you think if she does testify or speak to them voluntarily, do you think that she will help her cause or get herself in more trouble?

WOLKOFF: I think Ivanka will get herself in more trouble regardless of whether she speaks or not. She doesn't seem to usually tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth under deposition or not. So, I just think that either way, she is not turning against her father, and her father is definitely not going to take the blame for Ivanka.

BERMAN: And do you have a sense that it hurts more when the committee wants to speak with Ivanka than perhaps others of the children?

WOLKOFF: This is it. This is the golden child. I mean, this is Donald's daughter, his baby girl. And as Ivanka called Donald throughout the presidency when I was inside the White House planning the presidential inauguration, everything was about dad and daddy. It was a little strange. Because when you work with your parents at that age, you would refer to him as the president.

BERMAN: And just finally, as part of the January 6th investigation, one of the things that's come to light is people have suggested that the former president was holding meetings not in the Oval Office but in the private residence, maybe intentionally to keep them somehow private or off the records. You have got some experience in this.

WOLKOFF: Yes, I do. I mean, the executive residence in the White House was truly a revolving door. People would come and go at all times. They have questioned Timothy Harleth, who is the chief usher. But there are many other people that are always around in the residence.

[07:30:02]

And several times, or many times, Ivanka in charge with the last one lingering, but there was always a contingency of people coming in and out --