Return to Transcripts main page


Stock Future's Down on News of Economic Advisor Resigning; Porn Star Sues Trump Over Alleged Affair; Another Nor'easter Slams U.S. East Coast. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired March 7, 2018 - 07:00   ET


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: March either comes in like a lamb or a lion. And it's certainly coming in like a pride of lions, apparently.

[07:00:08] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Winter isn't over just yet.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Fifty million people bracing for another nor'easter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drive safe or go home.


ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota.

CAMEROTA: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY.

So U.S. stock futures are down sharply on the sudden resignation of President Trump's top economic adviser. Gary Cohn is just the latest in a series of high-profile departures from the Trump administration. Cohn exiting after clashing with the president over the president's plan to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel imports. So who will the president now turn to to fill that critical post?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Meantime, porn star Stormy Daniels is back. This time, she is suing President Trump over an alleged affair and hush agreement. The suit claims the nondisclosure agreement is void because the president never signed it.

The bigger question is, did the the president really know about this and, if so, does that break campaign finance laws?

We're also monitoring another powerful nor'easter. Look at your screen. The East Coast is going to get slammed today. You've got 50 million people in the path. A lot of those same people are already beat up from last week's storm. If you're traveling today, flights, a lot of them, are going to be canceled. Check your arrangements.

All right. We have it all covered, so let's begin with CNN's Abby Phillip, live at the White House -- Ab.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, Chris. The departure of Gary Cohn this morning is sending Dow futures

tumbling this morning. And allies of Cohn's inside and outside of the White House are now worried that there is a rise of economic populism inside this White House.


PHILLIP (voice-over): President Trump's top economic adviser, Gary Cohn, becoming the latest in a string of White House advisers to abandon ship after butting heads with the president over his decision to impose stiff tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. News of Cohn's departure coming just hours after the president insisted that there is no chaos in his administration.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I read where, "Oh, gee, maybe people don't want to work for Trump." And believe me, everybody wants to work in the White House. They all want a piece of that Oval Office; they want a piece of the West Wing. I could take any position in the White House, and I'll have a choice of the ten top people having to do with that position.

PHILLIP: The president later reiterating this message on Twitter, noting that he'll be making a decision about Cohn's replacement soon.

Sources say the president is considering tapping trade adviser Peter Navarro, who unlike Cohn, is in favor of imposing tariffs. Trump also considering informal advisor Larry Kudlow, who's been a vocal critic of the tariffs and lamented Cohn's resignation.

LARRY KUDLOW, CNBC BUSINESS NEWS (via phone): I think it's a turn for the worse. I think he did a great job. I'm really sorry he's leaving.

PHILLIP: Less than a month ago, Cohn was being considered as a possible replacement for embattled chief of staff John Kelly after successfully ushering in the tax bill. But sources say his feud with the president over tariffs was the last straw.

Cohn considered resigning last year after the president equated neo- Nazis and those protesting them in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Very fine people on both sides.

PHILLIP: The revolving door at the West Wing may not stop there. Speculation continues about national security adviser H.R. McMaster and chief of staff John Kelly. CNN has learned President Trump has emboldened former communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who was fired after just 11 days on the job, to continue attacking Kelly publicly.

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: There's a fear, culture of fear, culture of intimidation. People are afraid to talk to each other.

CUOMO: Coming from the president? They're afraid of the president?

SCARAMUCCI: No. I think it's the chief of staff.

PHILLIP: When asked about the infighting at the White House, President Trump saying this Tuesday.

TRUMP: I like conflict. I like having two people with different points of view. And I certainly have that. And then I make a decision.


PHILLIP: So the question today for President Trump is who is going to replace Gary Cohn? He says that decision could come any day now. Meanwhile, he's expected to speak before the Latino Coalition's legislative summit today. And his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is headed to Mexico as questions over the president's tariff proposal and also NAFTA renegotiations hangs over that critical U.S./Mexican relationship, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Abby. A lot to watch today. Thank you very much.

So porn star Stormy Daniels suing President Trump. For the first time in public court documents, she says that candidate Donald Trump knew all about the hush money that she was paid over their alleged affair.

CNN's Sara Sidner is live in Los Angeles with the full story for us -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, yes, lots of details in this lawsuit. It's kind of everything you might have wanted to know about this story, about the alleged affair and about the NDA, why she signed it. And it has some alias in there that sort of captured people's attention.


SIDNER (voice-over): Porn star Stormy Daniels suing President Trump, seeking to invalidate the nondisclosure agreement she signed just days before the 2016 presidential election, preventing her from talking about their alleged sexual encounter.

[07:05:04] JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, ABC'S "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!": You can't say whether you have a nondisclosure agreement. But if you didn't have a nondisclosure agreement, you most certainly could say, "I don't have a nondisclosure agreement," yes?


KIMMEL: Thank you very much.

SIDNER: The lawsuit argues that the agreement is null and void, because it was not signed by Mr. Trump, referred to in the document by a pseudonym "David Dennison."

Daniels's lawyer says Mr. Trump "purposely did not sign the agreement so he could later, if need be, publicly disavow any knowledge of the contract and Ms. Daniels." According to the complaint, Daniels had an intimate relationship with

Mr. Trump that began in the summer of 2006 and continued "well into 2007." The adult film star, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, considered sharing her story in 2016 after the "Access Hollywood" tape surfaced.

TRUMP: I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.


TRUMP: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

SIDNER: The complaint alleges Trump's long-time attorney, Michael Cohen, intervened, paying Daniels $130,000. Daniels says Mr. Trump knew about the payment, which she calls hush money.

Last week, Cohen admitted to paying Daniels but insisted that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, "and neither reimbursed me for the payment either directly or indirectly."

The lawsuit says Cohen has continued to "intimidate Ms. Clifford into silence and 'shut her up' in order to protect Mr. Trump," even as recently as February 27, when Cohen filed a bogus arbitration against Daniels without giving her notice of the proceeding and basic due process.

In the lawsuit Daniels also alleges Cohen coerced her into signing this statement in January, which states that reports of her relationship with Mr. Trump were false.


SIDNER: Now, there is already a complaint that has been filed from a group called Common Cause with the FEC. The question is, if the allegations in this lawsuit are true, do they truly violate federal election campaign laws? Common Cause group says they absolutely do -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. Sara, we will be exploring that with all of our legal analysts. Thank you very much.

So joining us now are CNN political analysts David Gregory and Alex Burns.

The president said something so fascinating yesterday, David, about -- he admitted, he said -- I'll just quote him, "I like conflict. I like seeing it, and I think it's the best way to go." I mean, truer words never spoken.


CAMEROTA: But here are the list of people who have been somehow caught in the crossfire of that conflict. These are just the White House departures. As we know, this president has set a record for the amount of turnover. Brookings calls it 43 percent, since this -- beginning of his inauguration, and that's far above the closest president, Ronald Reagan, at 17 percent.

So conflict doesn't agree with everyone in terms of longevity of staying at the White House.

GREGORY: And I think that's a really frightening statistic, the fact that he's hemorrhaging people from the White House and from the administration.

It sounds reasonable enough. But I think when he says he likes conflict, he means it in the reality show kind of way, which is "Disagree and then like a gladiator, I'll be thumbs up or thumbs down." It's not a good process.

And, you know, some of the reporting that I've been reviewing this morning about Gary Cohn, who's been upset with his role and with the president at various times, now wants to leave. That, in and of itself, is not unusual. But the reality is that you now have moderating influences on the president who are now outside the White House.

So you have a more nationalistic, a more hardline group of people around the president whose instincts trend that way anyway. And it could lead to both bad policy and bad process, which again is not insignificant. Process in government really, really matters. It can make the difference between life and death when it comes to national security and just good policy. And helping a chief executive deal with their instincts and cover for areas that they may not know as well.

CUOMO: So look, one problem he has is process. Another he has is principle, which is a lot of his advisors say that it's the last person in the room.


CUOMO: He doesn't really own his own head. He doesn't have his own -- that's a problem.


CUOMO: The third is personnel. Because he's getting a pass on what is truly chaotic about this, Alex. Which is that if you put up that list of the people who have left, a lot of them have left because of marks on their own character, and that they weren't qualified to be there. And that he said he would hire the best, and he hasn't. And as a result, you have chaotic turnover.

ALEX BURNS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. In a lot of ways, I think it gives those people a pass to make this about systemic chaos and lack of organization and process in the White House.

But you're talking about people who have spousal abuse allegations who blew themselves up in the press because of intemperate things that they said on the record; of people with financial liabilities. And this is an ongoing challenge for the White House as they try to replace all of those people.

That, you know, we're talking about here is chaos today. But in a lot of ways, it's greater chaos tomorrow. Because what the president said about having his pick of people to come into the White House, that's simply not true.


[07:10:13] BURNS: I know a whole number of people who have turned down senior jobs pretty recently. Because they see this, and they don't want any part of it. And, you know, going back a year, Republicans in Washington have been joking that they don't know if they can join the White House, because they don't know if they can afford the legal bills. And that's really true now. But that was a joke a year ago. Today that is very literally a consideration.

GREGORY: And by the way, you've got -- just talking about the national security, you know, establishment, we have totally been willing to give a pass to the idea that he has so many generals, you know, retired generals in civilian government, which is something that we always stood against as a country. Because people hope and pray. Serious people of all political persuasions hope and pray that a Jim Mattis, an H.R. McMaster have a moderating influence on this president, who doesn't know his own mind, who is erratic, who is impulsive. That's where things have come to. And I think Gary Cohn, who is a Democrat, you know, fits in that mold.

Now, I think the president is entitled to be a hardliner on trade and an economic populist. He is a populist. He got elected on that. People will disagree with it. And it may be really scary, but he's entitled to be that if that's really what he is.

But he's also surrounded by people who said, "No, this is a horrible idea." And the Republican leadership is saying, "This is a horrible idea." And he is still going back and forth.

He's definitely doing this. He felt vindicated by the fact that the market recovered on Monday. Now it's going to probably tank again today. And he's kind of riding this wave. That's not a serious policy position.

CAMEROTA: Here are the names that are being floated to replace Gary Cohn, for what it's worth today. I mean, these are snapshots that change into the ether. But here it is. Larry Kudlow, a TV show host. Peter Navarro, who's the -- one of the hardliners on the tariffs. And Andrew Puzder, who of course, has his own checkered past.

BURNS: Right. That's -- I think Andrew Puzder would be an explosive, explosive choice in Washington, to bring spousal abuse back into the political conversation.

I do think if you look at Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro, this is very much the sort of angel on on one shoulder, angel [SIC] on the other shoulder. You can decide which one is the devil. But it's two very, very different paths for this administration.

He goes with Kudlow, that is very much an extension of this marriage of convenience between this populist president and the much more conventionally conservative Republican Party. It would be calming in Washington, and it would also potentially create greater friction down the line.

CUOMO: Well, how does he bring in Kudlow if Kudlow is against the tariffs?

BURNS: How did he have Gary Cohn in place for 14 months, right?

CUOMO: That's true. Gary Cohn was on the same page with him fundamentally about tax breaks and what they believed would loose the engine --

BURNS: True.

CUOMO: -- of the economy. But we'll see. Look, we'll see. The lanes can change every five minutes.

BURNS: And it does get to the basic political arrangement that people in Washington have kind of come to accept.

But I don't think that we should just sort of overlook that you have enormous special interests on both sides of the political spectrum and the leadership in Congress, especially in the Republican Party, that basically wants to work with this president as long as he can be made to act against his own instincts.

GREGORY: Well, and the point is that it's really important to have high-quality people. And it's OK to have people who disagree, on one condition, that you have a manner in which you can arbitrate those disputes.

It's not OK to have, you know, really smart people who really disagree if you have no measures, as the president or somebody close to you, to make a good decision as a result of that. And his whole idea, of like, "Well, I just have terrific conflict and then I make a decision." You know, based on what? We've seen in our recent history where that kind of breakdown in process has real consequences.

CUOMO: Thunderdome is not the best policy.

CAMEROTA: Nor is stormy weather. And that is a play on what's happening today. Stormy Daniels. You're welcome.

How is it this does not violate campaign finance laws? Michael Cohen, the president's personal attorney, was paying Stormy Daniels so that it didn't leak out, their affair, before the election so Donald Trump didn't lose. Isn't there a direct line?

BURNS: Well, if it can be shown that Donald Trump knew about this, then yes. That's a very, very serious...

CUOMO: And that Michael Cohen intended the payment, one, to be reimbursed. Or two, as a campaign contribution.

CAMEROTA: But why does it have to be reimbursed? Why can't he, as the personal attorney, have paid somebody, and that violates campaign finance laws?

CUOMO: Because it's why he paid them. That's the --

CAMEROTA: So that Donald Trump could win.

BURNS: Well, and he is -- and Michael Cohen has done himself no favors by going out and saying pretty explicitly, "I will do whatever I can" --

CUOMO: Right.

BURNS: " -- to protect Mr. Trump," right? That's a -- that's quite a confession of motive of a kind.

But the most explosive -- I mean, there are a whole bunch of explosive statements in this Stormy Daniels filing last night. But maybe the most important is the phrase that Donald Trump knew about this, right? With Donald Trump knowingly authorizing this. If that can actually be demonstrated, if that's not just an allegation, that gets a lot more --

CUOMO: Cohen has to explain why there's a signature line for -- what was his line?

CAMEROTA: David Dennison.

[07:15:05] CUOMO: David Dennison is supposedly Donald Trump in this thing. And I guess you could talk about the name all day, but we won't. That's a problem for Cohen in his theory of "I did this to take care of someone I care about."

The FEC, that's one potential legality. It's potential. I'll give you that.


CUOMO: The bigger potential one, if I were someone who was counseling the president, is boy, oh, boy, would this send a chill up my spine, because it feels so much like the Lewinsky situation. You have to remember how we got there.

Whitewater, you know, this was about real-estate transactions. They start asking about the president's affairs. They get him lying about that. It wound up being everything.

If the president is going to sit down with investigators, can his lawyers allow it, David, if they don't cut a deal that Mueller and his people won't ask about this? Will they trust the president to sit down and tell the truth about this, even though he knows lying would carry a penalty?

GREGORY: Right. And -- and they're already so worried about him lying in other areas, let alone this.

And I think the thing that screams out to me, is I've talked to lawyers about Michael Cohen's statements about all of this, his -- Trump's lawyer, is that he didn't know anything about it. And yet, you know, how do you have a material change in a case that you don't tell the client about. That seems unusual.

No. 2, that the idea that this was the allegation that they thought -- the unfounded allegation that they felt had to be dealt with, whereas none of the others did. This one had to be dealt with. It seems like there was a reason they were so concerned.

CUOMO: Cohen at some point needs to come out and explain all these things for himself.

CAMEROTA: That would be helpful.

GREGORY: He was on TV so much for so long. Hmm. Curious.

CAMEROTA: All right. David Gregory, Alex Burns, thank you very much.

CUOMO: All right. Another nor'easter hammering the East Coast. This is the second time in just a week. Take a look at the screen. More than 50 million people in the storm's path. So many of those same people already beat up from the last storm.

Let's get to CNN's Chad Myers live from Ft. Lee, New Jersey, with more. Uh-oh. White stuff. What are you seeing?

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: You bet. You know what? We only moved about 10 miles from where we were in Lower Manhattan last hour, where it was just raining. You get up a little bit of elevation, you just get a little bit farther to the west and the north, and the snow is already starting.

And this and points to the west and north are where we expect that big snow to take place. And this is heavy snow. Let me tell you, if you're going to shovel this stuff, this is heavy, heavy stuff. It's only a half inch. But I can almost squeeze the water out of it. I mean, there is so much moisture in there. And this is what we're going to see, because it's 34 degrees.

So the streets are fine. The grass is getting covered up. But the streets are fine. And you have to brush off the car a little bit, but so far so good.

But this storm is just beginning. Don't take this storm lightly. You wake up and go, "Ah, it didn't happen." It didn't happen yet. It is still going to happen. There will still be six inches in the city. Maybe even that into Queens. And then another six or 12 on top of that from eastern and central New Jersey into Pennsylvania, upstate New York, all the way through all of New England.

I-95 is going to stay at 34 degrees the entire time. But it's going to snow the entire time. And it may snow two to three inches per hour for a time around 1 p.m. And there may even be some thundersnow. Not all that rare anymore, because we talk about it a lot. But it's certainly, a possibility. The snow will be coming down that hard, guys.

CAMEROTA: Wow. I like thundersnow. That is dramatic.

OK, Chad, thank you very much.

Speaking of stormy weather, how does porn star Stormy Daniels make her case in the legal fight against President Trump? We have two legal experts weighing in on this new lawsuit, next.


[07:22:32] CAMEROTA: Adult film star Stormy Daniels is suing President Trump. In this suit that was filed yesterday, Daniels claims that a contract paying her hush money to keep her alleged affair with Donald Trump was never signed by Mr. Trump. Therefore, it should be voided.

Joining us now are CNN legal commentator Jim Shultz. He is the former White House lawyer for President Trump. And CNN legal analyst Laura Coates. OK. Great to have both of you.

So Laura, the fact that it was not signed, that this contract that she had that we have in front of us, was never signed by Donald Trump, does that make it null and void; and does that then give Stormy Daniels permission to speak freely about her experience?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the legal answer is that it depends. Frankly, it's not an unusual thing. It's unusual, but it's not going to null and void a contract simply because both parties did not sign it.

Ultimately, it has to be an offer and acceptance and some consideration in the form of, "Hey, I'm going to give you an offer of $130,000. You're going to agree not to speak. And as part, you're going to actually cash the check." The fact that we actually then operate under the assumption that it was valid for more than a year, for more than two years at this point in time, is going to go against any court finding saying that, "Oh, wait. It was null and void."

What she may be trying to say, that perhaps there are actual provisions of it that are voidable, Alisyn. Meaning if one of the parties of the contract is somehow undermining a provision, meaning they're speaking out against it, they're talking about its existence, they're buying the terms of the NDA, then that may make the rest of it voidable. But not initially just because of one absent signature.

CAMEROTA: OK. Good to know.

So Jim, the bigger question is how does this not violate campaign finance laws?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: So the payment itself doesn't violate campaign finance laws if it's not used -- if the payment wasn't made to influence the election. So it really goes to the intent of the payment in these types of

situations. What was the purpose of the payment? And in this case, Michael Cohen has said on -- to the news media that he did it in order to protect his client.


SCHULTZ: He made the payment in order to protect --

CAMEROTA: But isn't that influencing the --

SCHULTZ: That doesn't mean it was there to protect -- no, no, no, no. Not so -- not so fast. Because -- because it could mean that, in his personal capacity. Michael Cohen has been his lawyer a long time, has represented Donald Trump a long time. He's been a -- he's been his lawyer. He's cared for him. He's represented him.

And just because there was -- there may have been a payment made --


SCHULTZ: -- you know, in order to protect his client doesn't mean it was made to influence the outcome of this -- of the past election.

[07:25:11] CAMEROTA: Even -- even if it was made just weeks before the election?

SCHULTZ: It doesn't matter what timing was. I mean all that's going to factor into it. But the -- but the -- but what is important is why was the payment made?

CAMEROTA: And why was the payment made? I mean --

SCHULTZ: And what's the trail that led to the payment?

CAMEROTA: -- what's your -- if it's not to influence the election --

SCHULTZ: I think Michael Cohen has said --

CAMEROTA: -- what? Why do you think he would have made a $130,000 payment?

SCHULTZ: The $130,000 payment is made -- look, they've denied that any of the allegations were ever true. But that doesn't mean the payment's -- allegations are made day in and day out. Complaints are filed day in and day out. And folks settle those suits for a variety of reasons and do not admit liability.

In this particular instance, what we've heard from Cohen so far is none of these allegations are true. But this payment was made.

CAMEROTA: OK. Laura, what do you think of that argument?

COATES: The thing is, though, Alisyn -- well, the thing is that it's not just an issue of semantics. I mean, a lot does change if your client is Joe Schmo versus somebody who's running for office. The difference being that there are campaign finance reform laws and

campaign finance election laws that actually kick in if the person is not just a client but also a candidate for an office. Because disclosure matters.

And it's very kind of -- you know, it almost belies all logic that somebody would simply say, "Well, I'm trying to protect this person. It just so happens that in two weeks he's up for election as the president of the United States of America." It raises eyebrows and suspicion.

It also raises eyebrows, because it's been reporting that Cohen was complained about not having been reimbursed by either the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign. Although he has now publicly gone and said it was not for those things. You have behind-the-scenes reporting talking about he was complaining about the absence of that -- of that reimbursement.

So those sort of things combine to have a little bit of more contextual clues than what you're alluding to.

And of course, remember, campaign election laws are all geared towards ensuring transparency. It's not a crime to try to get someone to keep quiet about a matter of personal concern. What can transform it into -- into a crime is if the payments are being made to affect an election. And, again, the timing is very, very crucial in that consideration.

Ultimately, it may be a toothless endeavor, given the fact that the FEC may choose not to prosecute, and the DOJ may say, "We don't want to touch it either."

CAMEROTA: OK. So let's move on, because there's another legal matter to deal with that's happening inside the White House. Kellyanne Conway, who is the counselor to the president, she's been with him since the beginning. She is now being investigated by the Office of the Special Counsel, different than Robert Mueller. OK? Separate and apart. Completely distinct.

The Office of the Special Counsel, which exists in the federal government, is a permanent, totally independent federal investigative prosecutorial agency that looks into whether or not federal employees, which she is, are violating regulations or being discriminated against or are getting in trouble for whistleblowing.

So she has come to the attention of that office now, because they think that she might have violated the Hatch Act when she came on our show, NEW DAY, and made these statements during the Roy Moore/Doug Jones election. So watch this moment.


KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO DONALD TRUMP: The only endorsement that matters in this race is President Trump's. And when he came out questioning the ideology and the vote of Doug Jones, he'll be a reliable vote for tax hikes, he'll be a reliable vote against border security, he'll be a reliable vote against national security and keeping ISIS in retreat. He'll be a reliable vote against the Second Amendment, against life. He's out of step for Alabama voters, according to the president.


CAMEROTA: So, Jim, how is that not an endorsement for Roy Moore and criticism of Jones, which she's not allowed to be doing because of the Hatch Act?

SCHULTZ: Well, the Office of Special Counsel, just to clarify that, did make a finding against Kellyanne Conway yesterday on this issue. But I don't think they necessarily got it right here.

Two other times we looked at cases, Kathleen Sebelius under the Obama administration came out and endorsed the president, and said how important it was that he got re-elected, and endorsed a candidate in North Carolina for governor and talked about how important that was.


SCHULTZ: That was in her official capacity, official event. And then you had --

CAMEROTA: Isn't that what this is?

SCHULTZ: -- Julian Castro, the HUD director -- No, it's different. Here's why it's different. Kellyanne was on the front lawn of the White House in an interview, discussing what the president's views were relative to an -- relative to tax reform.


SCHULTZ: And the impact that a candidate winning the election could have on tax reform. That's strikingly different than coming out and saying, "I'm -- you need to vote for this candidate."


SCHULTZ: "Republicans need to come out and vote."


SCHULTZ: And she was very careful in her words to say, "Look, these aren't -- this isn't what I feel."

CAMEROTA: Yes, I mean, OK.

SCHULTZ: She said, "This isn't what I feel. I'm discussing what the president thinks."

CAMEROTA: All right. Hold on. Let me get Laura in.

SCHULTZ: That's strikingly different than what happened on prior occasions.

CAMEROTA: Do you agree with that assessment?

COATES: Well, Jim, I don't think she was careful enough. Because she's hanging all of her hat on the words "according to the president."