Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Sergiy Stakhovsky is Interviewed about Joining the Fight Against Russia; Yaroslav Trofimov is Interviewed about Russian Attacks on Major Ukraine Cities; January 6th Panel Lays out Potential Charges; Bob Corker is Interviewed about the Russian Attack. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired March 03, 2022 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00]

SERGIY STAKHOVSKY, LEFT HIS WIFE AND KIDS BEHIND TO FIGHT RUSSIANS: It's -- I want to see my kids. That's for sure. I want to see my wife. That's also -- that's my goal. But in a given moment, nobody knows what's going to happen. Maybe I don't have to. If the missile comes into the house, well, is that sacrificing your life? No, you've just been killed. That's not a sacrifice.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: What is your message, Sergiy, to your -- to your wife and to your kids?

STAKHOVSKY: My message, that I love them very much. And they understand the reasons why I'm here because the country which I love and which a citizen, I am -- I have only one passport, and I would like it to still be on the map, developed, become better, become European, more, and eventually my kids can, you know, can see the transformation of my country.

KEILAR: Sergiy, your family is beautiful. We do hope that you remain safe and that you are reunited with them.

Thank you.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Just a heartbreaking interview. I would like to see Ukraine still on a map.

All right, this just in, members of the Kyiv Center for Jewish Elderly, some of whom survived World War II, and whose family members were murdered in Babyn Yar, they have a message for Vladimir Putin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was born in Ukraine. On June 22, 1942, during war I was in Kyiv being shelled. My relatives were killed in Babyn Yar.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a horrifying monstrosity. Putin, I hope you die! Leave us alone, you bastard! We want peace! It hurts!

CROWD: We want peace!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: We want peace. Leave us along, you bastard.

We have brand-new video coming in from Ukraine's ministry of defense. It shows artillery fire and a show of force against the Russians. Will this make a difference? We're live on the ground in Ukraine, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:35:52]

BERMAN: This is disturbing new video just in. This is dash cam video from Chernihiv, north of Kyiv.

Let's watch.

All right, we don't know yet. We are trying to ascertain exactly what building that was. We're trying to figure out if there are any casualties. You can see people near the site of the blast there and other people walking on the street. You can see how close these aerial attacks are coming to civilians, like that one right there. Still very much trying to live in their home country.

KEILAR: And this just in, the Ukrainian armed forces have released video of the airfield at Hostomel, which is northwest of Kyiv, which was reportedly captured by Russian forces last week. The clip shows Russian trucks there at the airfield on fire, indicating that Russian control of Hostomel was short lived.

Joining us now from Kyiv is Yaroslav Trofimov. He is the chief foreign affairs correspondent at "The Wall Street Journal."

Look, Yaroslav, we've been talking all week, and I just wonder, what has changed in Kyiv here in the last day or so?

YAROSLAV TROFIMOV, CHIEF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, in the city itself, there is a sort of sense of confidence that, you know, Russia's planned for week (ph) takeover of the Ukrainian capital have failed. We went around the city to see the defenders of the city on the front lines. They seem to be in very good spirits. They say they're on a counteroffensive, especially in the Hostomel of the airports. But also now in areas. And they say that the Russian forces lack food, lack fuel, and have low morale, which allows the Ukrainian (INAUDIBLE) to push outwards and enlarge the perimeter around the city. However, Kyiv is still pounded every day by Russian air strikes and missile that was shot down by Ukrainian air defenses now on the city's railway station -- near the city's railway station yesterday, cracking windows there. Just at the time where, you know, thousands of people were there waiting to leave the city, women and children.

KEILAR: So, right now we're seeing air strikes. We're seeing that in Kharkiv. We're seeing air strikes near Kyiv.

I wonder what -- not the -- not the Ukrainian armed forces, but what just everyday Ukrainians there in Kyiv, what are they waiting for? Are they waiting for the point where Russian tanks come in and how are they going to respond?

TROFIMOV: Well, I think a lot of people left. A lot of women and children have left the city. But people who stay in Kyiv believe that the Russian (INAUDIBLE) in Kyiv. A lot of people believe that the Ukrainians, the military, the Ukrainian people are well inflicting enough pain on the Russian forces to stop the offensive and to make Russia agree to some sort of deal. And already today there's another round of potential cease-fire talks between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus due to start in a couple hours.

KEILAR: And we'll be keeping an eye on those as well, as are the people there in Kyiv with you.

Yaroslav, thank you again for being with us.

TROFIMOV: Thank you.

KEILAR: Just released, a stunning court filing by the January 6th committee claiming former President Trump was part of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. What is the significance of this? We'll discuss ahead.

Plus, yachts, private jets, luxury apartments, how Russian oligarchs may finally be paying a price for Putin's war.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:43:34]

BERMAN: Breaking overnight, the January 6th select committee's latest court filing alleges that former President Donald Trump and one of his lawyers, John Eastman, were part of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. The committee writes, President Trump and members of his campaign knew he had not won enough legitimate state electoral votes to be declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, but the president, nevertheless, sought to use the vice president to manipulate the results in his favor.

Joining me now, CNN chief legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin and CNN senior political analyst John Avlon.

Jeffrey, I misstated I think exactly what the story is here. The January 6th committee is not saying they committed a crime. What they're doing in this court filing is telling a judge that there's enough evidence that they might have committed a crime, that Eastman doesn't have attorney/client privilege.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Correct. There is a doctrine of law called the crime fraud exception, which says that an attorney/client privilege communication is not privilege if the attorney and the client are working together to commit a crime. And Eastman in this case, in California, is saying, I don't want to turn over these documents because they're privileged under the attorney/client privilege and the committee is saying, it's not privilege because you and the president were involved in a criminal conspiracy, so we want the documents. That's how this filing yesterday came to light.

[08:45:01]

BERMAN: And, John Avlon, you've been write writing about what they suggest this specific crime might be for some time.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's correct. I mean, look, I've been big on accountability for the insurrection plotters, applying laws that in some cases were put in place by the Civil War generation after the last great insurrection. But in this case, I've been obsessed about this 1924 opinion by Chief Justice Taft (ph) about conspiracy to defraud the United States, where he makes it clear it's not simply a financial crime. It's something that could look a lot like what Donald Trump has perpetrated on the American people in the form of the big lie.

The question, obviously, is, you know, what will Garland do? It's not even a recommendation.

TOOBIN: Right.

AVLON: And this motion, it's not about the January 6th committee. But you need to apply the laws that are at our disposal, many of which were put in place for just this kind of an insane eventuality in mind.

BERMAN: Right. This isn't specifically about Merrick Garland.

AVLON: Correct.

BERMAN: This, again, is about a court case to free up some emails that the committee want from John Eastman.

But, you're absolutely right, the larger implication here is, if there is a crime that's worth investigating here, shouldn't Merrick Garland be investigating it?

TOOBIN: Well, and I do want to offer one caveat, it is not entirely -- let me put it affirmatively, they may be investigating this and we just don't know it.

BERMAN: Right.

TOOBIN: I mean there is a big January 6th investigation going on, and the full extent of it we don't know. And we do know that Rudy Giuliani, for example, is under criminal investigation for related matters, if not this in and of itself.

But the really striking thing about this 60-page brief that was filed is you see all the evidence together for the first time. And so it's, you know, the way we've been covering this story necessarily, it's like this witness said this, this witness said that. But when you see it pulled all together, it's really very striking. And let me just give you one example. Something that I didn't either know or remember.

At 2:24 in the afternoon on January 6th, while the riot is going on, while the -- the capital is already being occupied, President Trump is tweeting that Mike Pence, in effect, betrayed his office, encouraging, some of the rioters say, them to consider, to continue. That's a big deal. I mean that's actually a very significant piece of evidence that, you know, when you pull it all together, you say to yourself, boy, this sure does look like a crime.

AVLON: Yes, an incitement of insurrection itself is mentioned in some of these statutes.

The other thing that happened yesterday is one of the Oath Keepers pled guilty to seditious conspiracy. That's a big deal too. Among other things, they were providing protection for Roger Stone at the time.

So, the pieces are starting to come into place. And that's, I think, what's (INAUDIBLE).

BERMAN: Jeffrey, just one legal question here. Eastman, what's the difference between being wrong, which Eastman could have been wrong about what the Electoral Count Act lets people do, and being illegal? When does it go from wrong to being criminal?

AVLON: Great question.

TOOBIN: Well, you know, this is, in many respects, the key question about the whole investigation here, which is, broadly stated, good faith. If you say that I really believe that the moon is made of green cheese, is that fraud, when everybody knows it's not made of green cheese, or is it -- are some facts so beyond dispute that if you assert them, it's just automatically bad faith? And that's the question that they are going to have to address in a criminal investigation here because it is not a crime to assert a legal proposition that loses. But the question is, how much do you have to be wrong for it to be fraud.

AVLON: Does this set up a circumstance where the president -- the ex- president's got to have an insanity defense? I mean this goes well beyond good faith. This is about responsibility, an attempt to proactively overturn an election to stay in power. And ignorance seem like that's not going to be a convincing defense, especially given the evidence we know that was presented to him.

TOOBIN: We shall see. I don't know.

AVLON: That's very Trumpian. That's very Trumpian.

TOOBIN: I mean, I don't know. Well, no, I mean I actually think it's just --

AVLON: I know, I know, I know, I know.

TOOBIN: It's -- it's an unusual situation because usually fraud you have proof that someone knew they were doing something wrong. You know, they falsified an invoice. They lied in a deposition. All of that is proof that they know they're doing something wrong. It's not the same kind of case here.

AVLON: You know why it's also unusual?

TOOBIN: Why?

AVLON: Most presidents don't try to overturn elections.

TOOBIN: Yes, that is certainly true.

AVLON: But there is some -- in this filing, there is some evidence that the Trump people and the lawyers were told repeatedly, you don't have this authority. It's not there. So --

TOOBIN: Including by Bill Barr, the attorney general. I mean, it's -- it's not over.

BERMAN: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, John Avlon, thank you very much.

The key Ukrainian port city of Mariupol coming under more than 26 hours of shelling by Russian forces. One official says they will not surrender.

This is CNN's special live coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:53:57]

BERMAN: All right, this new video just in to CNN. This is from Chernihiv, north of Kyiv. This dash cam video from a car here.

Let's watch.

You see civilians there, not far from wherever that missile struck. You can see people walking on the streets all over this city. Just a sign of how civilians in Ukraine increasingly come under attack.

Joining me now is former U.S. senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker. He served as the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, thank you for being with us.

The news this morning, Kherson, near the Black Sea coast, is now under Russian control to an extent and there is a siege in the city of Mariupol here.

Do you think the Ukrainians can hold out if this becomes a war of attrition?

BOB CORKER (R), FORMER TENNESSEE SENATOR: Well, John, thanks for having me on.

And I think the reporting has been very useful in this conflict. And I appreciate that.

I don't know.

[08:55:00]

I mean it's a country almost the size of Texas. I don't think 100,000 Russian troops can hold it and it likely becomes a bleeding ulcer.

But I think there's a real moral dilemma here. We have encouraged Ukraine to move to the west. They've done so. They moved away from many of the kleptocratic kind of things that were taking place there, the corruption. And here we -- they find themselves in this conflict because of that movement to the west. And while I'm grateful for all the things that have occurred thus far to put pressure on Russia, to me there's much more that should be done.

I looked at the Ukrainian ambassador the other night at the State of the Union. And while I know she appreciated people having Ukrainian flags on their chest and holding them and appreciated the sanctions, she knows that there's ways for this to stop and yet we understand that we've got a pariah that would resort to nuclear weapons.

So, we're in this moral dilemma. And I hope there's some way that we can figure out a way to put more pressure, and not just see this country totally destroyed, innocent people just like us being killed indiscriminately. This is -- this is not a place the west should be. And we've got to figure out a way to apply more pressure to keep more lives and more cities from being destroyed and taken over.

BERMAN: You know, Senator, I'm glad you put it as a moral dilemma because, let's be clear, there are no easy answers here. No one should think that there's an easy solution to this. And the dilemma, as you put it then, is, how do you stop this without starting World War III? How do you stop this without a full-scale war between the United States and Russia?

CORKER: Well, we're doing a lot, but, to me, there's so much more that could be done. And, covertly, I don't know what's happening there. I'm not read into intelligence. There just seems to be more.

You know, you watch this, and the reporting is illuminating and no doubt a part of us, over time, of Russia losing this. But it's almost like watching a football game, isn't it, where you have people reporting on what Russia is doing, the reporting on what the resistance in Ukraine is doing, and it's almost sanitized. And, again, I understand. I'm not being critical. But people's lives are being lost, nonstop, and it's almost like we're watching something that's not really happening.

And so, yes, and, of course, the lose-lose here, John, would be for him to create this bleeding ulcer that he really can't get rid of and then turn in desperation. I mean I don't think Putin is going to, you know, take a long loss here, which this could end up being, and then he turns -- so we have a lose, lose. We lose a country. It's destroyed. We lose lives. And then he turns to other sorts of efforts that we're trying to avoid.

So, I'm hoping, again, hope, somehow there's a way for us to apply far more pressure to assist the Ukrainians in much bigger ways and stay within that fine line of not forcing -- not giving him, by the way, the credibility within his own country that somehow the U.S. is directly confronting him and then turning the tide of thought within the country of Russia. But, again, let's hope smarter people than me are working on this today, I know. And -- but we're in a real dilemma as a country watching this unfold.

BERMAN: Let me ask you very quickly, Senator, we've got about 30 seconds left. As a leader, how do you prepare the American people for this? How do you explain to the American people they should want to do more here?

CORKER: I -- I -- you know, I'm sorry, I -- it's easy for me to say, I know, but I hear people complaining, understandably, about gasoline prices and that kind of thing. And, you know, it's a global market and certainly there's a lot more our own country could do. And it's unbelievable that we're not.

But, you know, that's a -- it's a -- it's a small price, you know. It's a small price to pay for supporting a country that wants to move our way, that has the same dreams and aspirations that we, as a nation, have. And I don't think we're doing the kind of job that we need to be doing.

I thought the first part of the speech the other night was pretty good. But then the move into a cafeteria plan of domestic issues to me just doesn't grab the moment. I know it's 30 seconds up, John. It's good to be with you. And thank you for the coverage.

BERMAN: Senator Bob Corker, former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the first U.S. senator, former or current, ever to wrap himself on live television.

Senator, it was a pleasure to see you this morning.

[09:00:01]

Thank you very much for being with us. I really do appreciate you joining us.

Obviously, we're getting new developments by the second here.