Return to Transcripts main page
Gates Takes the Stand; Trump Tweeting on Meeting; Trump Junior and the Law; Sekulow Given Bad Information; California Wildfire makes History; Giuliani on Trump Interview with Mueller. Aired 7-7:30a ET
Aired August 7, 2018 - 07:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[07:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Started staring at him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The admission of the stealing gives the defense a lot of ammunition. He's really up there fighting for his life.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rick Gates recited a long list of alleged crimes saying that he was doing this at Manafort's direction.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody's dirty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are making more money than most working folks will ever see and still go broke.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a 20-minute meeting. It ended up being about essentially nothing that was relevant to any of these things (ph). And that's all it is.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's such a goliath. But on this particular issue, they're saying, just put the phone down, please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's very clear the president's concerned about this meeting. I think there's enough evidence there to present this information to a grand jury.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: We're very close this morning.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to your NEW DAY.
And what a day it is, not just because we are uncomfortably close this morning, but because the one-time deputy chair of the president's campaign is testifying against the one time chair of his campaign, saying they committed crimes together.
Rick Gates told the jury he knowingly committed financial crimes alongside Paul Manafort and at his direction. Gates says they had 15 foreign accounts that they did not report to the federal government and they knew that this was illegal. Gates also testified he embezzled several hundred thousand dollars from his one-time boss. Gates will be back on the witness stand this morning for what promises to be a withering cross-examination.
CAMEROTA: Should we just stay on a two-shot for the whole show?
BERMAN: Let's do it.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump Junior dismissing the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians as a bait and switch. He claims the Russians got the meeting by promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, but only wanted to discuss adoptions once everyone was in the room.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So joining us now is former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci.
Anthony, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
I believe you are in Michigan this morning, so halfway across the country.
You were connected to the Trump campaign during the time that Rick Gates and Paul Manafort were there. They are now involved in this trial. What were your impressions of them at the time?
ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Well, you know, I knew Rick probably a little bit better than Paul because we worked alongside of each other every day. I would say in Paul's case, he was always -- he was always very good to me. He was a very well organized guy. If you remember going back into that time frame, the big concern for the campaign at that time was the president was winning primary after primary but was there going to be some kind of revolt at the convention and would he lose delegates in some kind of legal rigmarole at the convention. And so Paul was an expert in that and he was brought in to help us with that. And when Corey left, candidate Trump, then Mr. Trump, elevated, you know, Paul to the campaign manager.
SCARAMUCCI: But I didn't -- you know, listen, I mean a lot of the stuff that they're talking about, having read through the reports on the case, it seems like all of that stuff was happening well before these two guys joined the campaign.
I'm sorry to see it. I still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Obviously Mr. Manafort believes that he is innocent. And so we have to see his side of the case, which hopefully will be as clearly and as accurately reported as the prosecutor's side of the case.
SCARAMUCCI: But listen, you know, you know, somehow --
BERMAN: Rick Gates has already admitted guilt, though. Rick Gates has admitted guilt. He -- SCARAMUCCI: No, I understand that, but Paul -- Paul is saying he's -- Paul is saying he's innocent.
BERMAN: OK, I understand that.
SCARAMUCCI: And in our -- in our system, in our system, we sometimes now, because of the media scrutiny, we decide that people are guilty well before the judicial process. And so --
BERMAN: This isn't -- this isn't about the media here. We are watching this trial very, very carefully and Paul Manafort faces the potential of spending the rest of his life in prison. This is -- this is very serious.
SCARAMUCCI: Well, John, I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just saying that, you know, having gone to law school, understanding the judicial process, he's innocent until that court and that jury proves him -- proves him guilty.
But having said that, I didn't see these guys doing anything nefarious or untoward during the campaign. And I think the facts that related to these two guys is well before this campaign started. And so --
BERMAN: I will say this, though. I will say this. In regards to Paul Manafort, a Google search by someone on the campaign would have revealed that there were at least questions about the type of work he had done in the past. We saw these headlines -- one right here I can put up on the screen -- from "Politico" in March 15, 2014, about Paul Manafort. It says mystery man, Ukraine's U.S. fixer, what's already certain is this, even among the many American strategists who test their forces abroad, Manafort's journey from the front lines of the Reagan revolution to the right hand of a Moscow-backed eastern bloc poll straight out of the central casting ranks as one of the more unusual escapades of the Washington consulting class.
So that much should have been known of Paul Manafort, correct?
SCARAMUCCI: Yes. I mean, look, the point is well taken. But you have -- you have to also remember, let's go back 24, 26 months where the Trump campaign was in full acceleration. The candidate had caught great momentum around the country.
[07:05:05] And he was on the cusp of breaking out and becoming the Republican nominee. And so -- and, remember, we were outspent and outmanned by the other side. And so this was a very entrepreneurial campaign. And the president was looking for -- at least the candidate at that time was looking for somebody that could protect him going into the convention.
And so, you know, we were moving very quickly. He hired Paul. I think Paul did a good job related to that. And if you're making the case that more due diligence should have been done related to Paul and whether or not he should have been hired or not, I can't really judge that from here.
Certainly hindsight would suggest that. But at that time, you know, he was a 40-year veteran of Republican conventions. He had worked all the way back with Gerald Ford. I mean, so, at the end of the day, the president thought he was well vetted, or at least Mr. Trump thought he was well vetted at that time. And if a mistake was made, so be it --
SCARAMUCCI: But I don't think he did anything in the campaign, John, that was nefarious or would taint President Trump.
BERMAN: OK. I mean he was -- he did --
SCARAMUCCI: That's my opinion based on the facts that I've -- I've been able to observe.
BERMAN: Paul Manafort was part of that meeting at Trump Tower in June of 2016, along with Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Junior. I want to ask about that. You noted, Anthony, that you are a graduate of Harvard Law School, a lawyer by training.
Do you think the president --
SCARAMUCCI: I didn't -- I didn't mention Harvard Law School because I get in trouble for that, John, right, it's too snobby to mention that. But, OK, go ahead. Keep going.
BERMAN: It's OK. We don't mention that type of stuff around here, except occasionally.
Look, the president has been given advice to stop writing about the Trump Tower meeting. Would you advise him, as a lawyer, that that is good advice?
SCARAMUCCI: You know, listen, I think -- I think that's good advice because if -- if the president's right on the facts, and I take him at his world, and if Donald Trump Junior is right on the facts, as he elicited yesterday, then let the thing unfold the way it's going to unfold.
I think one of the -- one of the problems is, is when you're out there protesting, you don't have to be a Shakespearian scholar. But when you're out there protesting and the words doubt thus protest too much, it sends a signal to people that what -- why are you protesting? If you're right on the facts, you don't need to protest. And so I'm not one of the president's lawyers, but if I was one of the president's lawyers, I would say, listen, if you're right on the facts, and I believe that they are, I'll take them both at their word --
BERMAN: Well --
SCARAMUCCI: Let the investigation play itself out.
I think what has them riled up is that they -- they feel cornered and it's not clear to me that they're necessarily cornered as much as there's a fact-finding expedition.
BERMAN: Let me just -- Anthony, if I can just jump in here -- SCARAMUCCI: I'm sorry.
BERMAN: You say they're right on the facts and you take them at their word. But which facts and which word? Because in regards to both the president and Donald Trump Junior, that seems to keep on changing.
SCARAMUCCI: OK, so that -- that -- that's another reason why you shouldn't be talking, right? And so the facts, as I understand them, is that they did have a meeting. The meeting went nowhere. They've discussed that the meeting was to get information related to the other side. We can parse whether that's illegal or --
BERMAN: Are you OK with that? What do you think?
SCARAMUCCI: Am I -- am I OK with that? In hindsight --
BERMAN: You know, again, given your training, do -- do you think -- do you think anything illegal happened by holding that meeting?
SCARAMUCCI: I don't know if anything illegal happened because I'm not as close to the thing as the prosecutors or -- or the -- or the principals.
BERMAN: Do you know that they have it? Are you convinced that -- are you convinced, as the president has stated, that it was totally legal?
SCARAMUCCI: Listen, like I said, I will take the president at his word that it is totally legal, but --
BERMAN: But you don't know? You don't know that it was totally legal?
SCARAMUCCI: But -- but none of us -- actually, none of us know except for the principals that were involved and the prosecutors that are examining it. But here's the problem, when the ball is moving and the ball is bouncing and you're just way --
BERMAN: But they are moving and bouncing the ball. They're the ones moving and bouncing the ball.
SCARAMUCCI: I understand that. Well, that's -- that's the -- that's the point of the first question that you ask, stop talking, because you're trying to explain something that you don't need to explain. If you're right on the facts, you do not need to explain the situation. The facts will unfold the way they will. There's still, in my belief, in our country, a very fair judicial process. And so if you're right on the facts, let the facts unfold the way they're going to unfold.
What's happened here is people have sort of jumped the gun a little bit. The ball is bouncing all over the place and now people are saying, well, wait a minute, you're contorting the facts. And that's more damaging to your case.
And so, you asked me a question. You asked me what my legal advice would be. And my legal advice would be, fair and square, stop talking about it because the talking about it is getting people to question the facts of the situation. And so if you're right on the facts, the facts will unfold in a way that are favorable to you and you'll be better served not talking about it.
BERMAN: Let's listen to what Donald Trump Junior had to say about this on the radio with Laura Ingraham. He's talking about this meeting, again, where he was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton that was, quote, part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump. This is what he told Laura Ingraham just yesterday.
[07:10:07] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SON: That's not the premise that got them in the room. And then they started -- it was essentially, you know, a bait and switch to talk about that. And everyone has basically said that in testimony already. I mean, so this is -- this is nothing new.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: What he's saying there is the premise that got him in the room was the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton. Merely accepting that promise, Anthony, first do you think there's something legally questionable about that?
SCARAMUCCI: You know, I don't -- I don't -- John, honestly, I don't know the laws as well as some of the prosecutors or potentially Donald Trump Junior's attorneys.
I think in hindsight I think everybody agrees that it would have been way better off not to have taken that meeting. And in hindsight, it would have been better off to either ignore the overtures that were being made. But -- but the meeting was taken and now --
BERMAN: But can I say, Anthony, is it better -- better off because of what has happened since, because of the controversy that's ensued, or better off because it's simply wrong?
SCARAMUCCI: Well, it's better -- better --
BERMAN: It's wrong to accept a meeting with the promise of dirt provided by the Russian government without informing the authorities?
SCARAMUCCI: It's better off because any time you get towards the line of it being wrong -- again, I don't know if it's wrong or not wrong. We'll let the prosecutors decide that and the defense. But if you're up against the line, there's an expression in law school where sometimes things could be inside the letter of the law, but they're outside of the spirit of the law. And I think you're on the line there with this sort of a meeting.
But in fairness to Donald Trump Junior, things were moving very, very quickly. He probably wasn't as familiar with all of that stuff as before. There's a concept in the law called strict liability where in some cases you have to have what's called criminal intent to do something wrong. In other cases, if you just do something wrong, well then you're strictly liable for it.
BERMAN: Right. SCARAMUCCI: In -- and in this case, I don't think Donald Trump Junior had any intent of doing anything wrong. And so --
BERMAN: He did -- he did have an intent -- he did have an intent, though, to get dirt on Hillary Clinton that he was notified was from the Russian government. You do not believe that is wrong?
SCARAMUCCI: Well, I think -- I think that's where the -- I think that's where the facts are sort of distorting right now --
BERMAN: Is it wrong? Well, the fact is, we've seen --
SCARAMUCCI: Right, because he -- he doesn't --
BERMAN: Hang on. Hang on. Because we've seen the e-mail.
SCARAMUCCI: If you -- if you're telling me those are the -- John, if you're tell --
BERMAN: We've seen the -- hang on, I have -- I have -- the fact is this -- the e-mail says that he got from Goldstone that this information was part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump. That -- that's not ambiguous. That is part of the agreed fact.
SCARAMUCCI: I understand that. But the principles that he was meeting with were not -- as far as I understand, they weren't from the Russian government. And so if you -- if that -- if that e-mail said Russian government officials are coming to your office with Russian governmental information related to the campaign, I think that's different.
BERMAN: Well, but -- and I hate to harp on this stuff.
SCARAMUCCI: I'm not trying to parse it. I'm just trying to explain to you -- I'm trying to explain to you where I think --
BERMAN: I know you -- I know you're not, but I'm not trying to harp on this point, but that part is unambiguous. He was told, Donald Trump Junior, that this lawyer was coming with information, sensitive information, that is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump. That's in writing.
SCARAMUCCI: OK. And they -- so they had the meeting. And now it will be up to the prosecutors and the defense to determine what the legality was of that, assuming there isn't -- even if there is a -- we don't know what's going to happen there.
SCARAMUCCI: We don't know if there will be an indictment or not an indictment, John. But -- but you're --
BERMAN: And there's no precedent -- there's no precedent here. So I agree with you, we simply don't know.
SCARAMUCCI: You've asked -- you've asked me three questions that I want to answer quickly though.
SCARAMUCCI: Would I continue to talk about it? I would not continue to talk about it.
Number two, are the facts of the case completely and totally unfolded in front of all of us? It's not 100 percent clear. We don't know 100 percent what those facts are. Another reason not to talk about it.
And the third thing is, I would say this to anybody who's -- who's got an issue like this, if you're right on the facts, be patient. Any time -- you know, I'm in one of the highest regulated industries in the world. And any time we've had an issue with regulators, and thankfully our firm runs an airtight compliance organization, we stay patient because we believe is that the process, the judicial or the regulatory process, will be fair. And I still believe that about our country.
BERMAN: And, again, that would mean --
SCARAMUCCI: And I hope the Trumps do, too.
BERMAN: I understand what you're saying there, that would indicate that you think he should be more patient with the process, the special prosecutor.
I do want to ask you, because the president's lawyer -- and you have noted 100 percent correctly you are not the president's lawyer here. As far as we know, you're a friend who talks to him occasionally on the phone.
But the president's lawyer here, Jay Sekulow, who last year came out on television and said that the president did not dictate the response to this Trump Tower meeting, says now he was given bad information.
My question to you, again, as a lawyer when you hear that, bad information from whom? What questions does that raise?
[07:15:00] SCARAMUCCI: Well, listen, I think that would be very frustrating. I think what you -- what you want to do when you're a lawyer is you want to sit down with the principal and you want the principal to tell you all of the facts, even if they're not necessarily great facts. It's important for your lawyer to know all of the facts.
And so I think what sometimes happens in a situation like this, people get very, very defensive and they -- they start to remember things the way they want to remember them. You know, there's a -- there's a great legal expression about your memory and there being three sides to an argument. But sometimes people need to remember things the way they need to as opposed to the way they really happened.
And so I think Jay got caught in the situation where he was told facts. They were presented to him as facts. And they were not exactly accurate. And that's got to be very, very frustrating for a lawyer --
SCARAMUCCI: Because what you don't want to have happen, is you don't want to have your reputation and your integrity damaged by going out there and misstating something that you believe to be true. And so you think that's got to be frustrating for Jay. And so --
BERMAN: Do you think that the person giving him that questionable, or bad information as he said, was the president?
SCARAMUCCI: I don't know. I mean did Jay say it was the president?
BERMAN: He did not say.
SCARAMUCCI: I don't remember him saying that it was the president. And I haven't --
BERMAN: He did not say. But it seems to be a limited universe of people it could be, either the president or someone --
SCARAMUCCI: No, I respect that. You could -- you could make or surmise that it was the president. But it -- you see, what we're both forgetting about in this conversation, John, is human nature, OK? And so what ends up happening is, you don't think you've done something wrong. Someone's accusing you of doing something wrong. You get your defense mechanisms up and you start explaining yourself. And that typically works if you're fighting with your wife or you've been stopped by a police officer speeding or maybe in that case it doesn't necessarily work. But in a situation like this, those instincts are the wrong instincts. You have to go counterintuitively to your own instincts. You've got to say, OK, hold on a second, I know we're right on this, let's let the facts unfold the way that they -- they're going to unfold.
If you are wrong on it, by the way, and you are over the line of the law, talking about it is only going to make it worse. And so that would be the reason not to be talking about it.
BERMAN: Anthony Scaramucci, all the way from South Field, Michigan, this morning, we appreciate you being with us. Thanks, Anthony.
SCARAMUCCI: It's nice to be here. You're in the Cuomo zone, John, in the Cuomo zone.
BERMAN: You know, we've moved well past the Cuomo zone. I don't even know what zone we're in at this point, Anthony, but I appreciate it.
CAMEROTA: All right, meanwhile, we do have some breaking news to tell everybody about because firefighters in northern California are struggling to still contain or still struggling, I should say, what is now the largest wildfire in California's history. The flames have scorched nearly 284,000 acres. They've destroyed more than 100 homes and structure.
CNN's Dan Simon is in Lake Port, California, with all of the breaking details.
This is horrible, Dan. What are you seeing?
DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, this fire pretty much sums up California's wildfire season. This is the Mendocino complex fire. It's actually two fires, but they're treating this fire basically as one fire. As you said, scorching 284,000 acres. That's about the size of the city of Los Angeles. At this point, it's just 30 percent contained. You've got thousands of people who have been evacuated. About 11,000 homes are currently being threatened.
But the way this fire is being fought, we should keep in mind, that, for the most part, the flames are in the forestland. So at this point, they're not too concerned about homes going up. But as you're talk about hot, windy and dry weather, there is a concern that the fire could push into some of the populated communities.
John, we'll send it back to you.
BERMAN: All right, Dan Simon for us.
Again, the worst fire California has ever seen.
A just released transcript reveals more about the killer who carries out the high school massacre in Parkland, Florida, and that the shooter told investigators a demon in his head told him to burn, kill and destroy. He also said he tried but failed to kill himself two months before the massacre. The 19-year-old confessed to gunning down 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day. His attorneys have said he would be willing to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty, an offer prosecutors have rejected.
CAMEROTA: A deadly explosion is caught on video in Italy. Watch this. This man took video of the blast on his cell phone. First he thought it was just the fire, I assume, and then this tanker exploded. This was during a commute in Bologna. Officials say a gas tanker exploded after running into the back of another truck. Three people were killed in this.
CAMEROTA: I know. Between 60 and 70 others were injured. Some with serious burns. That's how big this was. The cause of this accident is under investigation.
All right, so, how is President Trump feeling today about the investigations that are focused, at the moment, on Don Junior and the president's former campaign chairman? Well, we just heard from Anthony Scaramucci. So we're going to discuss with two White House correspondents, next.
[07:23:53] CAMEROTA: Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci just gave the president some advice -- stop talking about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians that was promising dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Let's get reaction from CNN political analysts Margaret Talev and Brian Karem.
Margaret, that seems to be a consensus, which is, anyone who is -- has a legal mind says, you might want to stop tweeting about that meeting that Robert Mueller is looking into with Russians. But, as we know, the president -- this is the president's favorite form of communications, or one of them, Twitter. So the chances of him listening to that advice are what?
MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Probably pretty close to zero.
Good morning, everybody, from Bedminster.
Yes, no, I mean the president's up already on Twitter and he uses this medium to communicate with all of us when he feels compelled to say something. As we know, there is a number of things on his mind today. He's got this meeting with business leaders. But he's also going to be watching these -- the special election in Ohio and these primaries in some key states. And he's also certainly, along with the rest of us, going to be monitoring, one would think, what happens when Rick Gates returns again for a little bit more courtroom action in this case that has drawn all of us in because the detail in which Mr. Gates has been able to lay out what was happening, not with the Trump campaign but in his business with Mr. Manafort, is so compelling.
[07:25:20] BERMAN: You know, Brian, it was interesting because when we were talking to Anthony, he said he takes the president at his word, and he thinks that he should let the facts play out. But the question is, which word and which facts? Because when we're talking about the Trump Tower meeting here, both the president and Donald Trump Junior, it seems that they both keep changing.
BRIAN KAREM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, and Donald Trump suffers from the triple t's, terrifying Twitter tendency. So he's out there tweeting. And, you know, what Anthony said is accurate to that extent, tell him to quit tweeting. We'd all just give, you know, our -- probably an annual salary just to have him stop for just one day so we could have a break.
But, you're right, the facts are -- have dictated several different paths for us. Which fact you want to look at on any given day is a continuing problem.
I think Anthony pointed that out. But he also pointed out something that we have to keep in mind about the Trump campaign, and that was, at that time it was an entrepreneurial campaign. It was very -- they -- they said they got all the best people, but there weren't a lot of people that wanted to work with the Trump campaign. So they were kind of stuck.
So, I think he kind of got stuck with Manafort. And I think that's not something that's -- that's come forward too much. I think that when Manafort worked with him, it was because he was the best he could get at the time and then he got rid of him fairly quickly. So, we'll see. But, yes, I mean, we've been told, what, how many stories about what
happened during the course of that meeting. He didn't know about the meeting. He dictated the letter about the meeting. He didn't dictate the letter about the meeting. It was adoptions. It wasn't. It was never about Hillary. It was. You pick a day and you've got a different set of facts to work with.
And that was the other thing that Scaramucci said that's very accurate, you're going to have to leave it up to the prosecutors to sort it out. And I'll guarantee you I've known some of those investigators for 20 years. They're very closed mouth. We're not going to know what's going to happen until the indictments come down.
CAMEROTA: So, Margaret, one of the thing that the reporting tells us is that the president is understandably concerned about whether or not his son, Don Junior, is in any legal jeopardy. So Don Junior -- I appreciate that Don Junior is continuing to talk about this in public. He went on Laura Ingraham's radio show and he talked about how he fell for a bait and switch that the Russians had posed for him, promising dirt but then only talking about adoptions. I think that's interesting incite. I'm not sure how it helps Don Junior to say that he fell for this bait and switch from the Russians, which was really supposed to be about dirt on Hillary Clinton.
TALEV: I mean, yes, I think you're right to say the president is, of course, concerned about the fate of his son. He's close with his son. He loves his son. And everybody's swimming in very deep water right now.
Both the president and Donald Trump Junior both have sought to juggle these kind of two sometimes competing desires. And the one is to advocate for themselves in the court of public opinion to try to diminish the impact of the Mueller investigation politically, and the other is obviously the more important course of pursuit, which is the actual legal case and whether it puts either or them or any of their family or associates in any kind of jeopardy, and whether it ends up being confined to kind of other periphery of people.
It is very hard to advocate for yourself in the court of public opinion without making yourself vulnerable in a legal way because everything that you say publicly becomes part of a timeline that people can go back to and pick holes in. Then when the story changes so dramatically, it raises obvious questions. And so that's where we are.
BERMAN: Yes. I don't know how admitting that you wanted to eat the bait helps you if you're Donald Trump Junior. I just don't. He may be operating at a different level that I'm not understanding here.
KAREM: No, no.
BERMAN: Saying that I wanted to get dirt from the Russian government on Hillary Clinton seems to be a somewhat problematic admission.
KAREM: John, I think you understand it quite right.
BERMAN: Thank you, Brian. I appreciate it.
BERMAN: Listen, I want to talk about Rudy Giuliani. He's telling "The Washington Post" overnight that he's a day or two away from giving an official response to Mueller's team about the president sitting down for an interview. Dana Bash reported the same thing.
We understand this isn't going to be the final offer. Rudy saying this is just one more response here.
Is this really just all this delay tactic? Is this just, again, more words coming out of the mouth of Rudy Giuliani, noise?
KAREM: Well, you have to understand that it's to their benefit to try and keep this away from the public eye as long as possible. Probably wanting to delay it until after the midterm elections. So if you view it under that microscope, then, yes, absolutely, this is a delaying tactic to keep him from sitting down.
[07:30:02] I can't imagine that any attorney would recommend to the president to sit down with Robert Mueller. Robert Mueller will eat his lunch. He will call him on every factual error