Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Capitol Hill's Riot Investigation; Interview with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 08, 2021 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: Hello, everybody and welcome to Inside Politics. I'm John King in Washington. There are damning new details today about intelligence and other failures around the Capitol insurrection. A new senate report says several agencies ignored or played down clues things could get violent. Plus, the White House has a new initiative to get more Americans vaccinated on-site clinics where you work.

And Vice President Kamala Harris is in Mexico today and feeling the heat of the immigration spotlight. The key liberal in Congress is mad, the vice president is telling the undocumented they should not come and this answer, listen, unlikely to quiet her conservative critics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any plans to visit the border?

KAMALA HARRIS (D) VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: At some point. We are going to the border. We've been to the border. So, this whole thing about the border. We've been to the border. We've been to the border.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You haven't been to the border.

HARRIS: And I haven't been to Europe. And I don't understand the point that you're making.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Of course, at this hour though those new and unsettling details about the January 6th insurrection. A bipartisan report says U.S. Capitol Police failed to respond to its own intelligence warnings in the days and weeks leading up to the attack. Those warnings included social media posts from would-be rioters planning to bring guns and to trap lawmakers. The report also leaves out a lot including the role of the former President Donald Trump. Let's get straight up to Capitol Hill and our Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju.

Manu, what are the most important takeaways here?

MANU RAJU, CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's very clear here that there was serious miscommunication and also a failure to act among key law enforcement agencies. Despite the uptake and discussion, including on social media posts from Trump supporters warning that they may do something on January 6th, it just goes into detail about the failure to both see those concerns, those potential threats, communicate and come up with a plan to secure this building.

Now at the same time, it also is bound to fuel debate about whether there should be further investigation going forward, namely about Donald Trump's role in all of this. The scope of this investigation was about what happened on that day and the failure to respond on that day. But it does not look in Donald Trump's role, his promotion of the January 6th rally, his efforts to try to overturn the electoral results, and the belief among some of his supporters pushed by him that Congress could actually do something and overturn Joe Biden's victory on January 6th.

Now, Republicans whom I spoken to today, by and large say, this is an authoritative report and is essentially time to move on and there should not be further exploration into Donald Trump's role.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Do you think there needs to be further investigation to like the origins and Trump's role in all this?

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): No, I don't actually.

RAJU: Why is that?

LANKFORD: It has been fully explored at this point that you're getting the political voyeurism at this point, rather than actually trying to figure out what we're trying to determine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU (on camera): And that is the viewpoint of a large majority of Republicans. And one reason why we saw an effort to create an outside commission to look into all those issues. The full picture of what happened on January 6th, pushed back and defeated by Republicans who say it's time to focus on other matters.

But one of the things that they had pointed to, as they defeated that commission was that this investigation was coming. Now that it's done, they're saying there's nothing else to look into and that the Justice Department investigations, looking at prosecuting some of the perpetrators and rioters and attackers on that day, that is sufficient enough to investigate what happened here.

But regardless, John, Democrats are making very clear that they plan to pursue this. Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker putting out a letter to her colleagues saying, if there is not a commission where there's no sign that's going to happen, but given the resistance from Republicans, then Democrats will take matters into their own hands. So, expect news on that in the days ahead. Democrats likely to launch an investigation, not a bipartisan outside commission, but one led by Democrats who would say to have subpoena power and the power to schedule hearings as well. John.

KING: Manu Raju, we're grateful for the live report off the Hill.

Let's continue the conversation now with Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. He helped put this report together and joins us now live.

Senator, let's start with what went wrong and your take on whether or not it will be fixed. If you look at some of these posts, it was pretty clear the Capitol Police, the FBI, Homeland Security, whoever saw them and had them should have been a lot more concerned about what could happen.

Here's one exactly -- forget the tunnels, get into the Capitol Building, stand outside Congress, be in the room next to them, they won't have time to run.

Number two here -- if they don't show up, we can enter the Capitol of the Third Continental Congress and certify the Trump electors, surround every building with a tunnel entrance/exit. They better take a tunnel all the way to China, if they want to escape.

When you read the report, Senator, it is clear, number one, the Capitol Police Intelligence Unit needs a lot of work. But number two, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, just like on 9/11, one agency had this piece of information, others had that piece of information.

[12:05:00]

They didn't share it. Are you convinced that, based on this report, that you will pass bipartisan legislation to fix the chain of command and the sharing of information problems?

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): Well, I do think there's specific recommendations that have come out of this report that should gain bipartisan support. For example, there were three intelligence units operating within the Capitol Police, those need to be an intelligence bureau so they're sharing all the leads that come in. It's hard to believe that that didn't happen. You would think any one of these pieces of information would have been enough to get everyone together and say, what's going on here and what's the full picture? And the failure of that is a colossal failure.

You would almost think there wasn't an intelligence unit inside the Capitol Police. And when you find out there was one, and it just did not act on this information coming in, did not consolidate their information, did not analyze their information, did not report their information, it's pretty, pretty shocking. So. that's like an example of something that should have complete bipartisan support.

The ability also, of the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police to be able to seek support from the D.C. National Guard without having a big bureaucratic process is another example of something that should have bipartisan support.

So, yes, hopefully, I - hope springs eternal we'll get cooperation on fixing some of the things internal to Capitol Hill.

KING: If you pick up the report, and it is very helpful, one of the things you learn, though, is that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security refused to provide documents, refused to provide information that the committees wanted.

They are under President Biden's watch now. This conduct happened during the Trump administration. What is the problem there? Do you think they have something to hide? Is this just non-cooperation, incompetence? What's the issue?

MERKLEY: Yes, it's completely unacceptable that we're not getting the full picture. And we've got to reassert that effort as Congress and make the point that that's unacceptable. And hopefully we'll have full cooperation from team Biden.

But I mean, here's the issue. It really needs to be the sort of commission that was envisioned in the January 6th commission bill, which Republicans didn't just block it on the floor, they blocked it from even being debated. And that's the type of minority veto over important issues that's paralyzing the Senate and destroying our ability to act on a host of issues.

This one is a national security issue, where you would think that the odds would be least likely for obstruction to occur, and yet massive obstruction from our Republican colleagues.

KING: Well, then help me lastly then, this report, again, as helpless it is, does not use the term insurrection because the Republicans would be upset. It does not get at the role of President Trump; doesn't even fact check of the lies he told at the rally that day about the election results because the Republicans would be upset, and it wouldn't be a bipartisan report.

You just heard your colleague Senator Lankford telling Manu Raju it's voyeurism to look into the role of President Trump.

Are we done? Or is it time for more Democrats either bring the independent commission up for another vote in the Senate here? What should be - what next?

MERKLEY: Well, we certainly could file to have another vote on this commission. I'm not sure where the Senate leadership is thinking about that. But it's - if - it's - to -- for someone to call this voyeurism, when critical security issues of the United States of America, critical issues, the division of power, the first storming of the Capitol in 100 years, and not to get fully all the details and analyze it from every direction, that is a complete failure of the responsibility of senators.

They're sweeping it under the rug, because they're bowing to Trump, and it's an abdication of their responsibility.

KING: Senator Merkley, grateful for your time on this important day. We'll continue the conversation as these issues get litigated in the months ahead. Let's bring it in studio now with me to share the reporting and their

insights, Politico's Rachael Bade, Michael Shear of The New York Times, Francesca Chambers of McClatchy and the Daily Beast Jackie Kucinich.

There is a lot of value here about what went wrong. And there's a lot that's glossed over or ignored when it comes to the role of Trump or even using the word insurrection. So, let's go through some of the issues.

Number one is, senator says he's convinced there'll be partisan, bipartisan legislation, I mean, to fix some of the problems. If you look at these social media posts. Anyone going arm needs to be mentally prepared to draw down, let them shoot first, but make sure they know what happens if they do. Bring guns. It's now or never. It's a million patriots. If a million patriots lineup bristling with AR is just how brave you think.

The warnings were all there. And yet agency A was not sharing with agency B or Lieutenant A was not moving it up the chain of command. Do they have a sense of what to do?

MICHAEL SHEAR, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I mean, look, the part of the problem here is that just like in 9/11, there were fundamental institutional breakdowns in the national security apparatus of this country. But the difference now is that the people who are being blamed for - the people who are responsible for the insurrection, both.

[12:10:00]

Literally the people in our country who were storming the Capitol and the president, the former president and his associates who egged it on, they're part of this country, it's not as easy for our political leaders to point sort of to an external foe like they did in 9/11. Right, we were attacked from outside this country. So, it was easier for the two political parties to rally around the changes that needed to be made in security, some say, too many changes.

But that's the problem. Like it's hard to see, as much as the report lays out, the fundamental kind of - fixing of the system that needs to be done. There's so much internal political strife and tension that it's hard to see that they do it.

KING: When they can't agree on a basic set of common facts, basic set. This is from our reporting on this source tell CNN. In order for this report, which is compiled by the Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committees, to have support from both parties, the language had to be carefully crafted. And that included excluding the word insurrection, which notably does not appear outside of witness' quotes and footnotes.

If you can't agree on what happened that day, how can you have a consensus on A, what to do about it and B, how it happened.

JACKIE KUCINICH, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, THE DAILY BEAST: Which is why the outside commission would be very, very important, because that takes at least the personal politics, you can't take politics out of what happened on January 6th, politics is what fueled this in a lot of ways. But to keep this among people who have to worry about reelection who have to worry about all these exterior things, external things, excuse me. That is why that was so important to have that outside commission that would not be beholden to voters, are not beholden to Trump or anyone else.

KING: Here's another piece of the same conversation about how to deal with again, the role of the former President of the United States. When you go through this, president - this is what it says about the president, former president, President Trump began his address just before noon, during the next 75 minutes, the president continued his claims on election fraud and encouraged his supporters to go to the Capitol. President Trump's speeches included in its entirety in Appendix B.

In other words, read it yourself and make your own conclusions. Again, there's a lot of valuable stuff in here about the security lapses and what needs to be done to make them go away. But what is the point of having a United States Congress, if they can't on issues this big and important go into a room and say, ladies and gentlemen, let's figure it out. The president lied. What the president said was a lie. Why can't you use that word?

FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, MCCLATCHYDC: Well, there's all sorts of revisionist history that's taking place here, John. I reported on this at the time about conversations that were taking place in the Oval Office, the night before President Trump gave those remarks. They had a logistical meeting, I cited sources familiar with the conversation at the time in which the president thought about tweeting that he was planning to walk to the Capitol with his supporters.

And the reason that he did not do that I was told is because he knew that if he sent a tweet like that, they would probably be prevented from going to the Capitol. And aides at the time, so that they were very, very frustrated and very upset with everything that happened that day. That may not be what they're saying now. But that is certainly what they were saying at the time.

So, there's certainly more that if Congress wanted to that they could dig into regarding the former president's actions.

RACHAEL BADE, POLITICO PLAYBOOK CO-AUTHOR: The thing about this report that's also striking is, who they're blaming here. I mean, obviously, it was a very narrow scope. But you just read this document. And its 100 percent going after the agency that is charged with protecting lawmakers, who in many ways, saved a lot of their lives that day. I mean, what about Trump? What about the FBI and what they knew? What about Homeland?

Biden obviously was not willing to sort of weigh in and allow them to sort of cooperate with this investigation. But the focus of this report, and the blame of this report is very much centered on the Capitol Police. And you have right now, Capitol Police who are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorders, two have taken their own lives after January 6th, some of them have quit. And so, you kind of also have to think of how this is going to affect the men and women who protect the lawmakers. It's only a teeny fraction of what happened that day. And those are the people who are in many ways being blamed here.

KING: Answer some questions, but raises so many more. The question is, how do you deal with those questions? We know the most proper way to do it, but that apparently will not happen in Washington, at least not for now. Everyone's going to stay put up. Next for us, we go live to Mexico City. Immigration is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris's first foreign trip. And guess what, there's incoming from both the Left and the Right back here at home.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

KING: Just moments ago in Mexico City, the Vice President Kamala Harris meeting with the Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. This is the second stop on the Vice President's first foreign trip yesterday in Guatemala. Harris issued a stark warning to migrants, don't come to the United States. CNN White House Correspondent Jeremy Diamond in Mexico City live tracking the trip.

Jeremy, what's the major takeaway today?

JEREMY DIAMOND, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, we saw Vice President Harris meeting with the Mexican President, we got a brief spray of the bilateral meeting that they were engaging in, we heard the vice president talking about the fact that she believes they are entering a new era of cooperation in terms of addressing these root causes of migration.

One thing that's important to keep in mind, Mexico as much as it has largely been a transit country for those Central American migrants. It is also increasingly a destination country. And so that makes the U.S. and Mexico their interest on addressing these root causes on investing in development in Central America, all the more aligned and so we also saw the charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy here, as well as the Mexican Foreign Minister sign a memorandum of understanding outlining how they are going to increase that cooperation and that developments in Central America.

So, some steps there. Yesterday, we saw the vice president actually in Central America, talking about do not come to the U.S. Today, we're seeing her work with Mexico in terms of security, but also developing the economy of the Central American countries.

[12:20:00]

KING: And let's talk a little bit more about that because Vice President Harris makes the case. The Biden White House makes the case. These are complicated issues. They're going to take times. There's corruption issues, there's cooperation issues. It's a new administration. They had to work that through, but she got a quick introduction to the politics. So, you mentioned the message in Guatemala yesterday. Let's listen to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: I want to be clear to folks in this region, who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States Mexico border. Do not come. Do not come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Response on that one from the Left. This is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeting. This is disappointing to me. First, seeking asylum at any U.S. border is a 100 percent legal method of arrival. Second, the U.S. spent decades contributing to regime change and destabilization in Latin America, we can't help set someone houses on fire and then blame them for fleeing.

The vice president certainly knew conservatives are watching this trip very closely. And they have been critical. Now she's taking it from the Left as well.

DIAMOND: Yes, it's hard to move any way on the immigration issue and not run into a political wall, or some kind of a political minefield. And that is exactly what is happening here. Listen, the vice president delivered a message that we have heard President Biden himself delivered before as well as other administration officials.

Of course, they carry a lot more weight coming from the vice president, as she was actually standing in Guatemala, one of those countries that has seen tens of thousands of migrants every month, make that dangerous journey to the United States to try and cross the U.S. Mexico border. So, she knows that she is walking into this with a political lens as well.

And again, they are trying to both deliver that message, but also say, we want to provide hope in these countries so that people can actually stay. But again, it is a very, very dicey issue. And she's getting it from all sides here.

KING: The quicksand of American politics is what I often call the immigration issue. We shall see. Jeremy Diamond, grateful for the live reporting on this important trip. Up next for us, President Biden's Department of Justice is going to court to defend Donald Trump, but DOJ says it is not vouching for what he said about the case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

KING: The Biden Justice Department is coming to Donald Trump's defense in a case where the former president is accused of rape. E. Jean Carroll is suing Trump for defamation. She accuses the former president of raping her in the 1990s. The lawsuit stems from comments Trump made denying her allegations. Specifically, as President Donald Trump said she was not his type. The Biden's Justice Department says it sees no choice but to defend

Trump in this case, because he was president at the time of the remarks. The DOJ saying in its legal brief, this case does not concern whether Mr. Trump's response was appropriate. Nor does it turn on the truthfulness of Ms. Carroll's allegations. members of the White House media asked then President Trump to respond to Ms. Carroll's serious allegations of wrongdoing. Their questions were posed to him in his capacity as president.

Likewise, when Mr. Trump responded to those questions with denials of wrongdoing, he acted within the scope of his office. Our panel is back with us. This is one of those episodes' cases where out in America, your answer is what? Why would the Biden Administration do this, come to Donald Trump's defense in a case that's about personal conduct, and just reprehensible language even beyond the allegations?

Their argument is, he was president, you have to defend the institution.

SHEAR: Right. It's defending the office of the presidency, not so much the person who occupied it at that moment. And the Justice Department is concerned not so much with the past, but with the future, if there are future answers that presidents give, during the conduct of their office, whether that'd be Joe Biden or whoever comes next after Joe Biden, should that president be subject to a kind of lawsuit like this?

And the Justice Department's answer, the White House answer has to be no, they shouldn't. The president has to be insulated from that kind of legal threat. And so, regardless of what the case was about, regardless of who the President was, they want to draw that line in the sand. But as you say, it doesn't feel like, like it makes a whole lot of sense to a regular person.

KUCINICH: And it's on brand for Merrick Garland, he went into the Justice Department talking about taking politics out of the DOJ. And this is very much in line with that.

KING: Here's - I hesitate to read this. But it's important, I think, for people to understand. He was the President of the United States. And he was asked about this lawsuit. And he said, I'll say it with great respect, which of course, he does not say with any respect. Number one, she's not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened. OK. That was, at the time a man, the President of the United States saying something that again, whether the allegation is true or false, it's just reprehensible.

But the Department of Justice feels it has to go to court to say he is protected as president to say just about anything.

BADE: Yes, I mean, most voters are not going to understand this. But just going back to what we are talking about protecting the presidency, presidency, presidents protecting other presidents and the executive privilege, et cetera. The Justice Department has been doing this on other cases too. I mean, the Don McGahn case, they just settled this in court. House Democrats actually wanted a ruling from the Supreme Court that

said McGahn had to listen to their subpoenas, but the Justice Department did not particularly want that ruling, settled the case with House Democrats and had him come in recently. So again, you're seeing sort of this division. People are going to find it hard to understand.

[12:30:00]