Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Witnesses to Testify to House January 6th Committee regarding Involvement of Oath Keepers and Proud Boys in January 6th Insurrection and Their Possible Ties to Trump Administration Officials; U.S. Says Iran Rushing Drones to Russia in New Escalation. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired July 12, 2022 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: President in American history to call for a protest against the peaceful transfer of power.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: The committee says the hearing today will focus on how extremist groups were inspired by that tweet and mobilized in response, along with the connections that existed between Trump's inner circle and these extremist groups.

Witnesses will include writer Stephen Ayres, convicted for his role in the insurrection. He talked about civil war. A former spokesman for the Oath Keepers will also testify.

Pamela Brown joins us now from Washington with more on what we can expect from this afternoon's hearing. Pam, can you tell us more about these witnesses?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Right, so these witnesses are key for the committee to look at Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and their involvement on January 6th, and how Trump spurred on these people to go into the Capitol building. Stephen Ayres, as you mentioned, he has pleaded guilty to illegally entering the Capitol building. He actually posted that tweet from Trump that you mentioned where he called for people to come to the Capitol building to protest the peaceful transfer of power, saying it'll be wild. Stephen Ayres posted that and he said that there will be a civil war.

So he's going to be testifying today to the committee. Also testifying today is Jason Van Tatenhove then. He's a former spokesperson and self-proclaimed propagandist for the Oath Keepers. He's going to be providing testimony. And we're probably going to see, as we know, from committee members, video clips from others, Brianna and John, including the former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who testified at length last Friday.

BERMAN: Yes. And, Pamela, you've got some reporting on what he testified to. He was asked a lot of questions about a meeting that preceded this tweet.

BROWN: Right, I reported on that meeting at the time, December 18th. And this was a meeting when you had Trump allies coming together with White House officials like Pat Cipollone and others, and there basically was a chaotic scene that ensued where you have the Trump allies pushing the president to use his power to overturn the election results, to seize voting machines, to talking about martial law, to appoint Sidney Powell as special counsel.

Pat Cipollone was one of the White House officials in the meeting pushing back. He expressed to the committee last Friday according to sources I spoke with, his view that this meeting was absolutely insane. And what the committee is going to try to do is paint this picture of how that meeting happen, then hours later Trump sent that tweet calling on people to come to the Capitol building and how that spurred on the chain of events leading to the riots.

KEILAR: Pamela, thank you so much for all of that reporting, we do appreciate it.

BERMAN: Joining us now, former federal prosecutor and lead counsel on former president Trump's first impeachment, Daniel Goldman. He is now running for Congress in New York. Daniel, thank you so much for being with us this morning. If you are asking the questions today in public, and you've been there in this type of setting, what would you seek to do in terms of connecting the actions of these extremist groups to the Trump circle?

DANIEL GOLDMAN, FORMER HOUSE IMPEACHMENT LEAD COUNSEL: Look, I think there's a difference in doing this in a trial and a difference in doing this in a hearing today. If you wanted to show that Donald Trump intended to incite a rowdy if not violent protest, what you would want to do is show all of the different thinly veiled statements that he made to his supporters in the months and years preceding this tweet so you could show that he knew what he was doing and he knew how his supporters would react.

I think what we're going to want to see today, is, a, what happened in the meeting, and whether there is any witness testimony about what Donald Trump said to others prior to tweeting that, or around tweeting that. Did he have an intention behind his tweet? What we will then get is how the tweet was interpreted by the people who received it. That is very compelling evidence because it goes to show that, all right, we know this guy. We know how he speaks. He speaks in code, he speaks like a mob boss. But when he tells us, the Proud Boys to, to stand up and standby in a debate against Joe Biden, we know that that's a clarion call to us to get ready. And this is the order for us to, having been ready, now to go and actually go into action.

So I will want to see on both ends of things, what do we know, what witness testimony is there about what Trump intended to do by the tweet, and then how was it interpreted, and why was it interpreted that way from the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys?

KEILAR: We see the narrative that is already going to take place this afternoon, connecting this meeting to this tweet, to the violence. But Daniel, the legal peril is such a different thing. That's going to be very difficult.

[08:05:02] Tell us why getting just from the narrative to some sort of legal culpability on the part of Donald Trump is so hard?

GOLDMAN: It's hard, because, as you can imagine, it's one thing if the recipient of the tweet says I interpreted it this way. But Donald Trump could say, oh, well, he interpreted it that way, but that wasn't the way that I intended it. And he has to intend for it to have the impact that it does in order for there to be the heightened criminal liability.

But that's why in a trial, you would want to show a pattern and practice of him making statements like this, and then watching as his supporters reacted violently. So you could then show, oh, he's done this before, and they've reacted violently, so he now knows that when he says something like this in a thinly veiled way, he actually does intend for them to react as they did react. That is circumstantial evidence, and it is absolutely admissible in trial. It's usually how intent is proved. So it is difficult, but in Donald Trump's case, we have years of examples of him doing this, and of watching the reaction.

And then, I would throw in the statement he made, I forgot to whom, but he said, well, to someone, I guess you don't pay as close attention to the Internet as I do, which means that he knows what is going on online, he knows how people are talking about what he says and how it's being received. That could be also a very powerful piece of evidence.

BERMAN: So you have Oath Keepers and Proud Boys over here. You've got Donald Trump here. And then you've got Roger Stone and Michael Flynn, here. How do you handle that? What is important to do in terms of connecting these three circles?

GOLDMAN: Everyone I think, or at least certainly I've been talking about for some time the connection, the connective tissue between the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and Trump, Meadows, the White House, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, et cetera, is probably going to be Roger Stone who we know hired domestic violence extremist to be his, quote, security, unquote, around January 5th and January 6th, and that they were at the war room at the Willard Hotel. And we know now from Cassidy Hutchinson that Mark Meadows wanted to go to that war room on January 5th.

So what I expect to see today if they have evidence of this is all of those links from the White House to the Willard to the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. And if they can make a compelling case that this was all one coordinated effort, coordinated attack, then, all of a sudden, what you get is the White House directly connected to the riot, the rioters, and the violence on January 6th. This was all part of a larger plan to overthrow the election.

And I think that the committee needs to make sure that that is always front and center. Donald Trump was trying in any way possible to overthrow the election, and by December 18th, as you may remember, John and Brianna, these electors had been selected. December 14th is the day when they were certified. So the legal recourse was over. This was now a function of a coup, that we are now in the coup period from December 14th to January 6th. And so that is going to be why this meeting on December 18th, this tweet on December 18th, and ultimately the Willard Hotel in the days leading up to January 6th are going to be so important to connect Donald Trump's coup effort to what happened on January 6th.

BERMAN: Daniel Goldman, as always, thank you so much for being with us today.

GOLDMAN: Thank you.

BERMAN: So with today's hearing set to focus on the role of the Oath Keepers, joining me now is Tasha Adams. She is the ex-wife of the Oath Keepers founders Stewart Rhodes who is awaiting trial on seditious conspiracy charges for his role in all of this. Tasha, thank you so much for being with us this morning. It is nice to see you again. One of the witnesses today will be Jason Van Tatenhove, and I hope I'm saying that right. What story do you think he has to tell about the Oath Keepers?

TASHA ADAMS, EX-WIFE OF OATH KEEPERS FOUNDER STEWART RHODES: Well, I think if he sticks with what he knows in his wheelhouse, if he sticks with the history of the Oath Keepers, his participation in it in an honest way, I think it could be really helpful. He was out there with the guys, he was out there at Bundy Ranch. If he tries to really hold onto this idea that he was somehow not a part of Oath Keepers, as I've read in some of his pieces, that he was just an embedded reporter, or that he completely left Oath Keepers in 2016, that's not really accurate.

[08:10:00]

But he does have a lot of history with Oath Keepers, and he definitely overheard a lot of the talk and the types of things I was really not exposed to. And I think as long as he sticks with that, it could be really useful.

BERMAN: And to be clear, no one is suggesting that he was anywhere near Washington, D.C., on January 6th. He wasn't involved, as far as we know, in any way. And the instruction has more to do with the history of the Oath Keepers and who they are. You saw it all firsthand. Your husband Stewart Rhodes was the founder, ex-husband, the founder of the Oath Keepers. What is it that America needs to know about Stewart and about the Oath Keepers?

ADAMS: It's a dangerous group, he's a man that should not be given a platform. That's huge. I know that he was trying to make demands to speak live before America, primetime, and that's exactly what should never happen with someone like him, who has a very persuasive manner of speak. He knows how to wow a crowd. He grew up learning speaking techniques from ministers and motivational speakers, and he studies body language and group hypnosis extensively. And he uses those techniques on people, so it's really important that is not given a platform to keep talking.

BERMAN: You are talking about the idea that the January 6th committee, he has volunteered to testify publicly before them, and you are warning against giving him not voice. Based on what you know of Stewart in the past, if he were to see a tweet from Donald Trump, like the one that he issued, January 6th, come to the protest, they will be wild, what would his likely response have been when you knew him?

ADAMS: He would have seen that as a go ahead. He would have seen secret underlying signals, whether they were there or not, and they may have been there, but it's going to be OK as long as they keep the former president in office. No matter what happens, as long as they are loyal to him, it's all going to be OK.

BERMAN: Talk to me a little more about what that means, because in the past, we've had a chance to talk a few times, you've described Stewart as someone who is very smart, as the type of person who wouldn't necessarily do something like this unless he thought he could get away by that. What do you mean by that?

ADAMS: He's very calculated. He's a graduate of Yale Law School. He's very careful about legal minds. And I just don't believe that he would have done something -- it's just so obvious something like this could wind up landing a person in prison. And I don't think he would have taken that risk if it hadn't been very calculated, and if he hadn't been given some type of go-ahead that it would be OK, and that in the end, whether it be a pardon or some -- I'm just not sure. But I feel like he felt like he was going to get away with this, one way or another. And I think he is still betting on that.

BERMAN: Still betting on that. You think he thinks that he can get away with it, how? If Donald Trump runs and wins?

ADAMS: Yes. I think he's -- I think he's -- the way that he, Stewart, is speaking so publicly, and behaving in a way that any defense attorney would pull their hair out over. He's giving interviews weekly. He's using his 10-minute call every week to go to the live in conservative media circles. He's talking, talking, talking. And I think it's because he's given up on the idea of reducing his sentence in any way. He's thinking only of acquittal or a pardon.

BERMAN: I'm going to let you run, but I know you've been watching a lot of these hearings, the January 6th hearings. What do you think they've shown the American people?

ADAMS: I think they've done an excellent job of getting the information out there to the masses, just from both sides. Here are the facts of what really happened. There are people out there out, I live in a town that voted 73 percent Donald Trump 2020, and because of the algorithms that they are reading in their social media, there are people that didn't know until a few weeks ago that windows were broken on January 6th. They just didn't know, and they are shocked. And so I think it's been an excellent tool for getting a really good summary out there of what really happened.

BERMAN: Tasha Adams, thank you for being with us this morning, helping us understand one of the groups that we'll hear a lot about today. So newly classified intelligence indicates that Iran is set to supply

Russia with hundreds of armed drones. How this could change the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[08:15:03]

KEILAR: Growing calls for New York prosecutors to drop a murder charge against a bodega clerk who fatally stabbed a man in his store.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Newly declassified U.S. intelligence indicates that Iran is looking to supply Russia with hundreds of weapons-capable drones that could be used for the war in Ukraine. The White House says Iran is beginning to train Russia on these drones as early as later this month.

Joining us is National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications at the White House, John Kirby.

John, thanks so much for being with us this morning.

JOHN KIRBY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL COORDINATOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS AT THE WHITE HOUSE: You bet. Happy to be here.

KEILAR: OK. So, when -- we're looking about this news about the drones. How will that change Russia's capability right now in Ukraine?

KIRBY: I think drone capability can help you with your surveillance and reconnaissance. Obviously, drones have the offensive capability. They can deliver munitions. They can sometimes be the munitions.

So, I think it was important to make it clear to the world, that we know that Russia, A, needs these additional capabilities. They are expending their resources at an accelerated rate.

And, B, that they're leaning toward a nation like Iran, a nation that hasn't condemned their invasion, hasn't tried to put pressure on Mr. Putin's war-making machine, and quite frankly, appears to be willing to assist in his efforts inside Ukraine.

[08:20:09]

KEILAR: Is Ukraine going to have enough drones to counter Russia getting this many more drones from Iran?

KIRBY: Couple of thoughts here, Brianna.

One, it's not a drone versus drone war. It's not like you need to have numerical parity here. It depends on what these UAVs are used for.

We have already provided hundreds of UAVs to Ukraine. We're in constant conversation with them about their needs and certainly wouldn't roll out, you know, additional capabilities of useful UAVs.

But it's not just about one capability. It really is all the capabilities taken in sum, given the kind of fighting that they're doing in the Donbas.

You saw that just last Friday, we announced another four of these HIMARS, these high mobility advanced rocket systems, as well as counter battery radars.

So, we're trying to give them a suite of systems, to provide them a suite of systems, I should say, that allow them to better fight the Russians in this war in the Donbas. The only thing I would add to in this is that it's not just the United States. Some 50 other nations now are contributing some measure of security assistance to Ukraine.

KEILAR: Sure. But beyond what the U.S. is providing, and beyond drones, does this change anything in terms of what the U.S. will need to commit to Ukraine, in the future, to balance out this commitment by Iran?

John, can you hear me?

All right, I think we're having a technical difficulty with John Kirby. We're going to take a quick break and try to reestablish our connection with him. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:40]

KEILAR: And we're back now with John Kirby from the White House.

John, we were talking about Iran providing drones to Russia for use in Ukraine, potentially that they can man with weapons here.

How is this going to affect efforts by the U.S. to potentially revive a nuclear deal with Iran?

KIRBY: I don't know that this necessarily has any effect on our efforts to try to get a nuclear deal with Iran. It certainly is going to affect our efforts to continue to support Ukraine. It's going to -- we have to see exactly how the Russians move forward here with the Iranians on these UAVs, and what they get, how many, how they use them. So, we'll be watching that closely.

I do want to add, though, Brianna, that we continue to want to see a nuclear deal that takes Iran's nuclear ambitions, at least nuclear weapons ambitions off the table. And there is a deal -- there is a deal actually on the table. The onus is on Iran now to accept it.

Iran continues to isolate themselves from the international community. Iran continues to pursue these kinds of ambitions. And Iran continues their destabilizing activity in the region -- another reason why this trip that the president is leaving on tonight to Israel and to Saudi Arabia is so important.

KEILAR: So, in this visit to Saudi Arabia, we've seen the publisher of "The Washington Post", Fred Ryan, who, of course, "The Post" having employed Jamal Khashoggi, and obviously questions about the death of Jamaal Khashoggi and the role of the crown prince of Saudi Arabia in that death right now are hanging over the president's visit to Saudi Arabia. He said that this erodes America's world authority, this visit.

How is he wrong?

KIRBY: I -- look, I think the president has been very, very clear, from the very early stage, right, in the beginning of his administration about what happened to Mr. Jamaal Khashoggi. And he made public the intel community's report about that. He issued a series of visa bans called the Khashoggi ban more than 70 times it's been issued. He sanctioned key Saudi officials.

He's been nothing but clear about his deep concerns, our deep concerns about what happened to Mr. Khashoggi.

But we also said that we want to reorient this relationship with Saudi Arabia, not rupture it. Saudi Arabia is a key strategic partner in the region. It's a nation with which we often have a need to deal with, and to communicate with on issues like counterterrorism, the war in Yemen, Iran, which we were just talking about.

There's an awful lot of energy security. There's an awful lot on the agenda here for the president as he gets ready to leave for the region.

And American leadership in the region still matters, Brianna. It's still -- we have convening power, we have influence and the president is looking forward to face-to-face diplomacy to advance those -- that influence.

KEILAR: The Biden administration is reportedly considering lifting its ban on offensive weapon sales to Saudi Arabia. Is there any way that could be done with Saudi Arabia not ending its offensive in Yemen, and what would the effect of this be in the hopes of the Biden administration when it comes to Saudi Arabia and oil?

KIRBY: I don't have any announcements to make with respect to offensive weapons. As you know, that was another principled stand that the president took very early on, that we weren't going to provide those kinds of systems and capabilities to the Saudis to use inside Yemen.

I would note, and it's important for people to remember, that we are now on a second extension of the cease- fire in Yemen. It's the longest period of peace, almost four months now, in seven years inside Yemen. So, literally thousands of lives have been saved by the cease- fire, and that's because of American engagement, that's because of American diplomacy. That's because of our engagement with leaders in Saudi Arabia.

So, I know the president is looking forward to having that part of the context, that part of the agenda when we go to Jeddah.

KEILAR: Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was killed in the West Bank in May as you are aware of, likely by an Israeli bullet, an IDF bullet, according to American findings. Her family is demanding a meeting with President Biden on this trip.

Is he open to that?

KIRBY: I don't have any meetings to speak to you today, Brianna.

I would just say a couple of things. First, our thoughts and prayers continue to go to the family. We understand the grief and suffering that they're experiencing. We also understand their strong desire for answers. We have shared that desire for answers.

That's why we wanted this to be completely, fully, thoroughly, transparently investigated.

[08:30:00]