Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Biden Weighs Response to Drone Strike; Worries a Response Could Trigger War with Iran; Mark Kimmitt is Interviewed about Iran; New Truce Proposal for Hamas; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) is Interviewed about the Mayorkas Impeachment. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired January 30, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:47]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We are getting new information on the menu of options that President Biden is considering this morning on how to respond to the drone attack that left three U.S. soldiers dead.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Next hour, the effort to impeach the Homeland Security secretary over the southern border crisis enters a brand-new phase. House Republicans moving one step closer to a full impeachment vote as Democrats blast them for simply playing politics.

Also, never before seen video of the moment the parents of the Michigan school shooter saw their son after he carried out the deadly attack. The new details emerging in the trial of the shooter's mother, Jennifer Crumbley. We'll have those details and much more.

I'm Sara Sidner, with John Berman. Kate is out today. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

BERMAN: And this morning we do have new reporting on the range of options being considered by the United States to respond to the deadly drone attack that killed three U.S. soldiers in Jordan. Among the options, a so-called multi-level approach that could be, quote, "sustained over time." U.S. officials now say the drone that killed the soldiers was following a U.S. drone as it approached Tower 22. That confused, apparently, U.S. defenses.

CNN national security reporter Natasha Bertrand is at the Pentagon this morning.

So, Natasha, a multi-level response, what does that mean exactly?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Well, John, I think that that just means that the U.S. could undertake a number of different options to respond to this attack given how really brazen it was, the fact that this drone killed three U.S. service members and wounded over 40 others. And I think what it means is that the U.S. is considering not just one potential response but multiple in a layered approach that could potentially, they hope, degrade these Iran-backed militias for good.

Now, what we are told is that the U.S. could engage in strikes against these Iran-backed militias in Iraq or Syria or even both. They could engage in cyberattacks against Iranian and Iran-backed infrastructure to try to degrade those capabilities. They could also impose new sanctions and financial penalties on these groups.

And in addition to that, of course, there are the Iranian and Iran- backed naval assets that are operating in the Red Sea that could be fair game for the U.S. to target. There are just a range of options here that the U.S. is capable of doing and is weighing. But the one that is least likely at this point we are told is that the Biden administration is going to actually take that dramatic step of striking inside Iran itself. The U.S. has said repeatedly that they do not want to go to war with Iran.

But here's what Secretary of State Antony Blinken said yesterday about the U.S. options.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: The president's been very clear that we want to prevent broader escalation. We want to prevent this conflict from spreading.

We will respond. And that response could be multi-levelled, come in stages and be sustained over time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERTRAND: Now, in terms of the 48 U.S. service members who were injured in this attack, we are learning a little bit more about the status of three of those service members who were injured and had to be actually medically evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Facility in Germany for treatment. We are told now, according to a spokesperson, that one of those service members had critical injuries but all three are currently in stable condition.

John.

BERMAN: All right, Natasha Bertrand, thank you very much. Keep us posted from the Pentagon.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, all three soldiers killed in the line of duty were based out of Fort Moore in Georgia. Their families want you to know who they were. The parents of 23-year-old Specialist Breonna Moffett sharing how incredibly proud they were of her. Her mother telling CNN, she was waiting for her to call her back when she was killed.

FRANCINE MOFFETT, MOTHER OF SPC. BREONNA MOFFETT: If we knew what we know now, we would have held on to that phone call as long as possible.

I would have got an I love you. And then we'd make - just we'd make sure that she knew how much we loved her.

(END VIDEO CLIP) [09:05:08]

SIDNER: Oh. The Moffetts. Hard to listen to that.

Forty-six-year-old Sergeant William Rivers is being remembered as a beloved husband and a true family man. His wife of 11 years says she didn't know exactly where he had been deployed when he left in August. She described him last night as always smiling, always happy, and a very hard worker for his family.

And the parents of 24-year-old Specialist Kennedy Sanders say they also spoke with their daughter just hours before the attack. That conversation about a motorcycle that had just purchased. They hope their daughter is remembered now for her service, her sacrifice, and her sweet spirit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ONEIDA OLIVER-SANDERS, MOTHER OF SPC. KENNEDY SANDERS: Her smile was contagious. She was always laughing about everything. So, I just want people to remember that, you know, even though her time was short on earth, she lived her life to the fullest. And she enjoyed her life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: When asked if he wanted President Biden to retaliate for the attack, Sanders' dad said, no action could ease their pain, but he knows Kennedy would be concerned for the safety of her fellow soldiers.

CNN's Arlette Saenz is live for us at the White House.

Look, President Biden is going to be leaving soon. Are we expecting to hear anything from him on this particular issue?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Sara, President Biden is set to depart the White House in about an hour. So, it could give him an opportunity to speak with reporters to offer some type of insight into his thinking about how and when the U.S. will respond.

It all comes as President Biden is really trying to strike this delicate balancing act, trying to come up with a forceful response that would deter future attacks like this while also preventing a broader regional conflict. One thing that the White House has really been trying to stress over the course of the past day is that the U.S. is not seeking direct confrontation with Iran. Those were statements that were made with -- by National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby yesterday, saying that the U.S. simply does not want a war with Iran at this time.

So, the president has been working with his advisers, his national security team, trying to come up with how and when the U.S. will respond. Officials have said that they anticipate this will be a more powerful response than some of the other retaliatory strikes that the U.S. has taken against Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria. The - of course, the previous strikes the U.S. has been taking have not deterred them from taking action against U.S. and coalition forces more than 160 times since the October 7th conflict began.

But President Biden is really facing a very tough test in this moment as he's trying to prevent a regional war from spreading even further, especially in the middle of an election year. We've already heard Republican lawmakers up on Capitol Hill saying they want the president to take a more forceful response against Iran, potentially striking within the country itself. And then out on the campaign trail, former President Donald Trump has already tried to use this moment to portray Biden as weak and accusing him of dragging the U.S. into a broader Middle East conflict. So, these are all issues President Biden is balancing at this moment.

But, of course, trying to keep those families of those three soldiers who lost their lives in the attack front and center in his mind as he is going through these decisions. That is what makes this situation so much different from the other attacks that have faced U.S. and coalition forces is the fact that three U.S. service members have died.

We are still waiting to hear whether President Biden plans to speak with any of the families. We know one of those families, the mother of Keri (ph) Sanders, said that they were anticipating a call with the Biden administration in the coming days. We're still waiting to hear whether President Biden himself has placed those phone calls.

Today he will be down in the state of Florida for a pair of political fundraisers. Those fundraisers are often venues where the president speaks a bit more freely and candidly about what he is thinking. So, we will see whether he offers any further insight as he is trying to craft this response that officials hope will defer future action -- future attacks like the one that was carried out on Sunday.

SIDNER: Yes, this isn't just about retaliation, as the family of Kennedy Sanders says, this is also about trying to figure out how to keep U.S. troops safe in the Middle East right now, where there are strikes happening in several different places.

Thank you so much, Arlette Saenz. We'll be following this story. I know you will be bringing us anything new that you get as soon as you get it.

All right, John.

BERMAN: All right, joining us now is retired Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt.

General, let's talk about the range of options that the U.S. has here, that the president is considering. They're obvious. We took these from foreign policy. Option one would be a strike inside Iran. Option two would be a strike against Iran's assets, not in Iran proper. And option three, broadly speaking, would be diplomacy, sanctions and the like.

Let's take this one at a time if we can. Let's start with strikes inside Iran. And I want you to discuss what exactly the risk would be here and what you think the reward would be to strike somewhere inside Iran proper.

[09:10:07]

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, let's talk about the risk first because that's the most significant aspect of that option, which is you effectively are putting the United States at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The targets that would probably be selected may not be their nuclear facilities, but I would suspect would be their Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force headquarters, some of their facilities. Perhaps even some of their personnel high-valued targets that have been tracked. Clearly, a pretty tough response with the highest amount of risk because this would go beyond simply a fight against the proxies and now it would be a fight against the government of Iran, which is exactly what some of the senators, like Cornyn and Cotton are pushing the president in the direction.

BERMAN: Let's talk about option two then, which is sort of the middle response here, which would be a strike against Iran's assets. Their proxies throughout the region.

I'm going to put up a different map here so people can see as we're discussing this and as you're outlining what the United States could do where U.S. troops are. There are thousands of U.S. troops in this region operating near these Iranian proxies in Iraq, in Syria, you know, off the coast of Yemen. So, the risk/reward to attacking these so-called proxies, General?

KIMMITT: Well, first of all, not only are there thousands of American troops, but there are also thousands of Iranian-backed proxies that are - that are involved in this conflict at this point. There, I think, the most likely option would be a leadership target, or two, inside of Iraq, if, I fact, they can attribute this attack from an Iraqi (INAUDIBLE) mobilization force and the launch was from Iraq itself. We did that a couple of weeks ago when they attacked (INAUDIBLE), but there are higher levels leadership targets that could be attacked. Again, the risk there is somewhat unique to Iraq as we are trying to hammer out a new, strategic alignment from the coalition with (ph) perhaps a bilateral response. Certainly let's - certainly less risk than if we made an attack on Iran proper, but we've got to think about the relationship with Iraq.

But, candidly, at this point, the government of Iraq, if informed, really has no reason to stop this attack if, in fact, that attack, which killed American soldiers, came from Iraq, by Iraqi (INAUDIBLE) mobilization forces and Iranian-backed forces as well.

BERMAN: Now, the last option, broadly speaking, would be diplomacy here. I don't think anyone expects the United States to sit down with Iran at a negotiating table and hammer out the differences right now. But there are those who look at the region and look where things are and say, hey, look, we need to leave time for maybe a ceasefire in Gaza and any extensive military action right now would jeopardize that.

KIMMITT: Well, I think that's right, but I think there are quite a few people that are thinking about a diplomatic solution. Those that don't want to see the Americans pulled into another Middle Eastern war. Very low risk by trying it diplomatically, but there's also a very low chance of success. Up to this point, diplomacy has not worked in any number of ways with the Iranians or the Iranian-backed proxies. So while that may be the least risky, it probably is and will be the least successful.

BERMAN: General Mark Kimmitt, great to have your insight this morning. Thank you very much.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, next hour, House Republicans will move one step closer to possibly impeaching a cabinet secretary for the first time in 150 years. Details on their quest to oust DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over the border crisis.

Plus, the secretary of state says there is real hope now that a proposal to get the Israeli hostages home could work. Hear how Hamas is responding.

Also, Elon Musk says his startup has implanted a chip in a human brain for the very first time. How this milestone could end up changing lives.

All those stories and more coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:39]

BERMAN: All right, new this morning, Hamas says it is, quote, studying a new proposal for the possible release of hostages and a possible ceasefire. Negotiators in Paris hammered out a broad framework for a deal over the weekend. U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is expected to meet with the families of U.S. hostages at the White House today.

CNN's chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt is with us now.

What is the broad framework of this deal, Alex?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, according to most of the parties involved, there was real progress made in that Paris meeting. Now, remember, that was with the CIA director, as well as his Egyptian and Israeli counterparts, and the Qatari prime minister. The Qatari prime minister then came here to Washington and essentially said that there was this broad framework that was being discussed, that progress had been made.

I spoke to a source who's familiar with the discussions, who essentially broke it down this way, that there would be a pause in the fighting that initially would be for about six weeks long. And during that first pause, John, that is when these remaining civilian hostages would be released. So, we're talking about women, children who remain, the elderly. And then we would go on to second and third phases. So, that pause could be extended beyond six weeks. And that's when Israeli soldiers would be released, both men and women, as well as the bodies of hostages who are still being held in Gaza.

[09:20:00]

Now, throughout this process, John, Hamas would be expected to demand that Palestinian prisoners would also be released. Initially it would be three Palestinian prisoners for every civilian hostage. That's the same three to one ratio that we saw during the first hostage and cessation of hostilities. But there would be an expectation that then Hamas would demand a lot more prisoners in exchange for the Israeli soldiers.

Now, every source we talked to, every official we hear from says that a lot of details still need to be ironed out. That this is just the broad, general framework that has now been delivered to Hamas because, of course, they weren't in Paris. I asked Secretary Blinken about this framework yesterday. He called it a strong and compelling proposal and said that there is some real hope going forward. So, we are hearing optimism but caution at the same time, John.

BERMAN: So, it's interesting, if you're looking at the deal, the outlines of this deal, it's a longer pause in fighting than we saw the first time, and fewer hostages that would be released than the first time, largely because there are fewer hostages remaining at this point.

What does Hamas say about this, Alex?

MARQUARDT: Well, I was told that yesterday, so the day after the Paris meeting, Egyptian intelligence actually took this proposal to Hamas. So, Hamas, today, is saying that they are studying this proposal. They certainly haven't ruled it out. This is probably going to take a couple days for them to take a look at this and come back with their responses.

But, John, this is where the major sticking point is. Hamas wants an end to this war. Whatever happens next, they want a comprehensive deal that will see Palestinian prisoners come out. They'll release the hostages. But also see an end to Israel's war. That is their main priority. An that is not what Israel is saying right now. Israel is saying it still has the right to go after Hamas, to eradicate them, as they've said.

So, Hamas is now saying that their priorities are the end of what they're calling the brutal attack on Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. Remember, last time Israeli forces just pulled back from population centers. Hamas now demanding that Israeli soldiers completely leave the Gaza Strip. That is something that Israel may not agree to, John.

BERMAN: All right, Alex Marquardt in Washington. Alex, thank you.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, we've got new video revealing in court of the interaction between the Oxford High School shooter and his parent when they first saw him after the school shooting. What it could mean for the case to hold them criminally responsible.

And, another member of the president's cabinet is set to have surgery after weeks of criticism over Secretary Austin's secret hospitalization. We'll talk about all those things coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:27:01]

SIDNER: Next hour, the House Homeland Security committee will move ahead with a resolution to impeach DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. And this morning Mayorkas is responding directly to that panel, for the very first time, saying this in a letter addressed to the committee's chairman. "Your false accusations," it reads, "do not rattle me and do not divert me from the law enforcement and broader public service to which I remain devoted."

House Democrats have released their own 29-page report defending Mayorkas and saying they found no evidence of any impeachable offense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): So this is at best a sham.

We don't see the high crimes and misdemeanors standard being met.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): House Republicans have clearly turned their ever shrinking majority over to the extremists. And this sham impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas is just another sad example.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee joining us now from Capitol Hill.

Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us.

You sit on the House Homeland Security Committee and will be in the room for the hearing today. I do want to ask you, have you seen any evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors that have been committed by DHS Secretary Mayorkas?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D- TX): Well, good morning and thank you for having me.

This is clearly the textbook definition of revengeful impeachment. This is about revenge. I have been in this Congress and sat on three impeachment proceedings. And all of them had a basis in fact. Whether or not there was a conviction basis in some form of fact.

But I will tell you that there is nothing in the charges that the secretary has violated the law or that he has had breach of trust. Breach of trust is that you've used the government properties, the government resources for your own personal benefits. Americans understand that. And violation of the law is like you robbed a bank. And the secretary has done none of those items. And, frankly, all that the Republicans are trying to do is the bidding of the president of the United States - the former president, to get them, a got-you moment.

And I think this is tragic for the American people. It does not bear well for getting the job done. And that is, passing comprehensive immigration reform or securing the border, which is what the secretary has been working on for so long.

SIDNER: Do you think this is going to hurt the chances of the Senate getting through a bill, hurt the chances of there actually being a bill that everyone can eventually agree upon?

LEE: I think thoughtful senators who happen to be Republican, this may galvanize them to realize that they have got to do their job, and that is to at least present something for both the Senate and the House to look at. You've already seen the letter from Speaker Johnson, which really is a deficiency in leadership, which is to say, legislation unseen is dead on arrival in the House.

[09:30:08]

I take issue with that.