Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Dems Step Up Investigations Related to Trump; Top Three Democratic Virginia Officials Engulfed in Scandal; Trump Touts Gains Against ISIS. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired February 7, 2019 - 07:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Democratic Party has no place for racism, full stop.

[07:00:07] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a stain on us, but we can come out of this in a positive light.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning and welcome to your NEW DAY. Alisyn is off. Poppy Harlow joins me this morning.

Great to have you here.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR; Good to be here.

BERMAN: Happening now, red line down. Either the worst movie title ever or the new reality facing President Trump.

House Democrats just launched sweeping new investigations into President Trump's finances and links to Russia. House intelligence chair Adam Schiff says they're looking into whether any foreign actor has financial leverage over the president, his family, his business or his associates.

Now, you'll remember back in July of 2017, the president acknowledged to "The New York Times" that being look at his money would be crossing a red line. Consider it crossed. And he is now calling the Democrats latest move presidential harassment.

HARLOW: In the words and the face of those words from the president, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is making it abundantly clear this morning that Democrats will not be intimidated by the president's State of the Union threat to end investigations as the battle between the president and Democrats comes to a head.

In just hours, House Democrats will hold hearings into the president's tax returns and tackle the administration's policy of separating families at the border. Looking ahead, sources tell CNN this morning acting Attorney General

Matthew Whitaker is undergoing significant preparation ahead of his scheduled testimony that begins tomorrow morning.

Let's bring in Margaret Talev, CNN senior White House correspondent for Bloomberg News and CNN political analyst; Garrett Graff, he has a new article out for "WiReD." Here is the title: "What Robert Mueller knows and Isn't Telling Us." And our chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

Good morning, everyone.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.

HARLOW: What did you say, "Red line down?"

BERMAN: Red line down.

HARLOW: That's Berman's take.

BERMAN: Starring Eric Bana.

HARLOW: Toobin's take is the red line is obliterated. But there's a key point here. And that is what did the president say? Remind us if the red line were crossed he would do what?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, remember, this whole issue came up early in the Mueller investigation where the president, in effect, said, not in so many words, that if Mueller starts investigating his personal finances beyond Russia, that would cross a red line. The implicit threat being if that happens, he would fire Mueller.

The people and institutions now investigating his personal finances include the House of Representatives, Adam Schiff's Intelligence Committee. The president is powerless to stop that investigation. It doesn't matter if he thinks a red line has been crossed.

HARLOW: Right.

TOOBIN: Because he can't stop that investigation. It's a huge difference from where we were --

HARLOW: Sure.

TOOBIN: -- a year plus ago where the president did and still does technically have the power to get rid of Mueller.

BERMAN: What's the likelihood, though, Jeffrey, that these investigations would turn up something that Mueller hasn't already? Is this just sort of political Mueller insurance that the Democrats are trying to buy into here?

TOOBIN: Also, remember the different dynamic. You know, we don't know what Mueller has found. I mean, Mueller is operating a grand jury investigation largely in secret. Congressional committees are designed to bring information to the public.

So while there may be some overlap, and I don't really know that there is, just how the information comes out and whether it comes out is very different.

HARLOW: Garrett, your piece, provocative headline there, "What Robert Mueller Knows and Isn't Telling Us." What is he not telling us?

GARRETT GRAFF, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, what has been so striking when you look at this -- the court filings that Mueller has put out, both in terms of sentencing documents and then the indictments including the Roger Stone one, is the silence, the conspicuous silence on what has been said in the conversations that Mueller is reporting on.

For instance, he -- in that Roger Stone indictment, in that amazing paragraph 12, lays out that a senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Roger Stone and talk about WikiLeaks.

And so, you know, there's Mueller saying that he knows about the internal decision-making process of the Trump campaign, but presumably, Mueller knows who directed him and what was said and how that conversation unfolded and hasn't actually told us that.

And that when you look sort of back across a year and a half of court filings, Mueller has been conspicuously silent about those conversations that have taken place inside the Trump campaign.

And just to add one thing to what Jeffrey Toobin was saying there, when you also -- one of the other things that has changed in this dynamic is you don't just have the Mueller investigation. Remember the Trump Organization, the Trump business finances is under investigation by the Southern District of New York. The federal prosecutors in Manhattan.

And that's an investigation that is moving far along, that has already seen criminal charges come against Michael Cohen. And, remember, where Trump CFO Alan Weisselberg and Michael Cohen are cooperating with investigators.

[07:05:19] So that red line of, you know, almost two years ago that Trump laid out has already been obliterated by prosecutors.

BERMAN: You know, Margaret, you had the reaction that Republicans have, the Democrats have, the journalists have. When Garrett said the Southern District of New York, the SDNY, you went, "Hmm." It's because -- it's because it does seem that everyone either involved with this, connected or reporting on it is looking at it, now believing that that might be where the most perilous action is for the president.

TALEV: Well, look. I mean, I think it's hard to sort of guess now who's going to have more of an impact, whether it's going to be Bob Mueller who's been at the sort of center of this or whether it will be the Southern District of New York. But the point is that the work of the Southern District of New York

goes on beyond Mr. Mueller's team's work and is also, to a large extent, outside of kind of the president's executive authority/control.

You know, and I think what you see going on in Congress, on the one hand, is no surprise, this is precisely what everyone was been expecting since Democrats took control of the House in November.

But the kind of the scope and interwovenness of it is notable. Normally, when you have split power between Congress and the president, and there's an investigation, you might look to the Oversight Committee to do the bulk of this work.

But we're looking at seven or eight House committees right now, all at least right now as of yesterday, appearing to be coordinating what they're doing quite well to sort of share power and responsibility and information.

HARLOW: And, Margaret, to your point, there are three committees, and three committees only that can get the president's tax returns, right? And up until the election they were headed by Republicans.

Now the House Ways and Means Committee headed by Congressman Richard Neal, Democrat. He has this power. One of the hearings is today. But it is important to note that the process of getting the president to release his tax returns to Congress has to go through the treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin.

TALEV: Yes, and you know, I think there are a couple of things to look at. No. 1 is can the committee get it. No. 2, can the committee release it to the public or what aspects of under what sort of bar or threshold.

HARLOW: Right.

TALEV: But there's another question, which is this was during the campaign, the president's tax returns would be a huge political story.

If the White House decided to just release the president's tax returns like tomorrow, other than it would look like him retreating from a line in the sand he had drawn, I'm actually not sure in the court of public opinion how much this would change voters' views on President Trump.

If it has any bearing or impact on the investigations, that's a different matter. But we can all assume that, if Robert Mueller's team needed those returns or wanted those returns, they already would presumably have access to them.

So this is to some extent, I think about prodding the president politically, testing him. To another extent about the possibility that lawmakers could find interesting points in there to guide their investigation. But a lot of the effect, I think, has -- has been potentially political.

And I'm actually not sure if it happened, what the political effect would be.

TOOBIN: Wait a second. I mean, wouldn't that largely depend on what's in the tax returns?

TALEV: Hundred percent.

TOOBIN: I mean, you know, it may be a big nonevent, or may be highly significant. The point is we don't know what's in them. And that's -- you know, so it may -- so, I mean, I guess, you know, it seems like you're almost assuming, well, the tax returns are benign and uninteresting.

HARLOW: Because if they show debt to other nations --

TOOBIN: They could show business dealings with -- with people that he is dealing with as president. Obviously, it could reveal financial relationships with Russia or people in the Middle East. I mean, all of that is stuff that is highly relevant and we don't know the answers to.

BERMAN: I do want to note --

TALEV: It could be hugely interesting, but just for the record, as a journalist, I'm definitely interested in seeing every president's tax returns, including this one.

BERMAN: I do want to note. I have David K. Johnson, a journalist, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, who has had a chance to actually at, one of the few people who has seen some of the president's tax returns. He's coming on later in the show.

He'll give us some insight as to the types of things that he thinks might be revealed, if and when -- and maybe it's when at this point. It's just a question of how, ultimately, Democrats get their hands on them.

Garrett, one aspect of the public -- the House hearings, I should say, is that they can be public; and you can get public witnesses and public testimony.

Who do you think might be the most interesting and/or politically precarious witnesses that the Democrats could call?

GRAFF: Well, I mean, certainly Michael Cohen seems pretty high up on that list. I mean, this is, you know, sort of the big moving target for Democrats early in these hearings.

[07:10:06] We've -- and in part we sort of think that he's probably pretty interesting in part, because the president is out there threatening him if he does testify. And, you know, we've sort of become inured to Donald Trump's obstruction and witness tampering because it takes place in public on Twitter.

But the fact that the president is discouraging one of his own lawyers from testifying before Congress should continue to trouble us. That was supposed to take place relatively early this month. It's been postponed now until later in the month due to -- and, again there is sort of one of those interesting phrases, due to the need for the -- to be sensitive to the Mueller investigation as it unfolds.

HARLOW: Let's also talk about a major story this morning, guys and that is what is happening in Virginia. I should say what is happening, Margaret, in Virginia?

TALEV: That's a good guess.

HARLOW: For people waking up we'll try to make this quick. You've got Ralph Northam, is he going to resign or not over wearing black face more than once. Then you have the attorney general, Mark Herring, another Democrat who now has come forward and said, "I wore black face at a party in 1980."

And you have the lieutenant governor, another Democrat, Justin Fairfax, who has sexual assault allegations against him from a 42- year-old professor, Dr. Tyson, in California.

And then the fourth in line to become governor, if they were all to resign, is a Republican.

Margaret, take away.

TALEV: Yes. So I mean, the political story in Virginia over last few years has been the movement of the southern state from red to purple and increasingly into blue. The legislature has been kind of the last holdout for the Republican Party, and now ironically, if it went down to the sort of third or No. 4 in this chain of command, it would actually be a Republican.

So I assume that the Republican House speaker is now scouring his own yearbooks to make sure that he's OK, as well. This is a stunning political story by all accounts has just total upheaval in Virginia politics if you're in the halls of the legislature right now.

It is also sort of underscored when Democrats, you know, have chosen to sort of underline and deal so swiftly and aggressively with their own members over issues involving, you know, racial discrimination or gender discrimination, treatment of women when you shine the spotlight, you might actually find a lot and there's a real question mark at the end of the story right now.

BERMAN: And Jeffrey, the bigger political question here is how will Democrats choose to handle this, both in Virginia and nationally? Will they hold themselves to the standard that they set, a zero- tolerance policy that they sort of set for Al Franken and others?

Or will they choose, because of political expediency, to adopt what has become, to an extent, the Republican standard, which is to say, "Well, we're just going to wait this out and look beyond this?" And there's not necessarily anything that's disqualifying?

TOOBIN: Berman, let me answer you with the three words you're never allowed to say on cable news: I don't know. I don't know what they're going to do. I don't think they know what they're going to do, because, you know, each situation is different to a certain extent.

I mean, obviously, the facts Matter. I mean, the yearbook photo is so grotesque and, obviously, was something that the governor advertised. One party went to a party dressed as Michael Jackson, which is he attorney general's [SIC] problem.

And as for the lieutenant-governor -- I mean, this is a highly credible accusation of assault. But we haven't heard his side of the story yet. He's hired the same lawyers --

HARLOW: As Kavanaugh.

TOOBIN: -- as represented Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. So you know, I think the process is probably going to slow down a little. I mean, I think none of these three public officials are going to leave immediately.

HARLOW: Yes.

TOOBIN: And, you know, I think maybe counting on the fact that our attention, we are the ultimate short attention span children, you know, those of us in the news media. And they may be counting on the fact that the circus will move on and they can hang in there.

HARLOW: Maybe. It's happened before, certainly.

Garrett, finally, it's not just Dr. Tyson's allegation now of alleged sexual assault. She -- we now know this morning she went to a Democratic congressman about it and there's an e-mail trail of that.

I don't know if Garrett can hear me.

GRAFF: Yes. Yes, and I think Jeffrey's right. I mean, this is a fast-moving situation, you know, political situation entirely different 24 hours now than it was yesterday morning.

And remember, just to add to sort of the confusion in this, the House of delegates, that Republican speaker who's in line, he's only the chair -- the head of the Republican House of delegates because of a tie vote last year at the House of delegates, that House speaker that's in line. He's only the head of the Republican House of Delegates because of a tied vote last year at the House of Delegates, where the House was tied.

And someone reached into a fishbowl and pulled out a name that gave the Republicans the majority in a tied election that let this House speaker turn in. So this is a very, very complicated and politically fraught situation.

BERMAN: All right. Jeffrey, Garrett, Margaret, thank you all very much.

HARLOW: Mixed messages again from the Trump administration on the war against ISIS. Really significant mixed messages here. Is the confusion affecting the safety of our service members? We will be joined by the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right. Welcome back. President Trump says America could have a very big announcement about the war against ISIS in just days. Listen to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States military, our coalition partners, and the Syrian Democratic forces have liberated virtually all of the Democratic forces have liberated virtually all of the territory previously held by ISIS in Syria and Iraq. It should be formally announced sometime probably next week that we will have 100 percent of the caliphate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right. So there's that. And then there's this. The secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, delivering a different message at the same event just a few hours earlier. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: ISIS remains a menace, one that is our generation's responsibility to stop. President Trump has called ISIS, quote, "bloodthirsty killers," end of quote, because it's true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: With us now to talk about this, and the implications, really, of this, former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

Good morning, Director Clapper. Where to begin? I mean, in your words here you say the president is in a fact-free zone on ISIS. What is the danger of that?

JAMES CLAPPER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, as in so many other things about this contrast between his view, his world view and his reality versus actual reality.

And the situation with ISIS is a classic -- is a classic example. ISIS has not been defeated. Yes, it's true that one of the accoutrements of the nation state that the caliphate had was territory. Well, reducing its territory and killing a lot of fighters that started in the last administration, and this administration just carried that out.

But, the fact is that ISIS lives as an ideology, which is very important. It has branches in other countries, most notably Afghanistan.

HARLOW: Right.

CLAPPER: So I think we're a long way from defeating ISIS. And the territory is just one measure of that. And importantly, as I said before, the ideology's still there. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

And this is kind of where we were in 2011 when we thought what was then called al-Qaeda in Iraq had been defeated. Well, that's what gave rise to what we now know as ISIS.

HARLOW: And your point about Afghanistan is a salient and important one, especially given what the president would like to do in terms of troop withdrawal in Afghanistan.

Why do you think -- is there any benefit to the president saying what he said yesterday, announcing what he says will be announced in a matter of days, why would a commander in chief do that?

CLAPPER; Beats me. And certainly, the obvious contradiction, Poppy, that you point out with Secretary Pompeo's statement --

HARLOW: Right.

CLAPPER: -- which I think is much closer to reality is a case in point. I couldn't help but wonder what were the coalition representatives who were listening to this --

HARLOW: Thinking.

CLAPPER: Who I'm sure to have a much different view to the extent at which ISIS has been defeated, so it's not useful.

HARLOW: OK. So there is obviously the contradiction between Secretary Pompeo and the president, but in terms of what that means for the safety and security of our service members and the confusion that it clearly just prolongs among our allies.

CLAPPER: Yes. I think, you know, I think manifestation of this was General Joe Votel, who's the commander of CentCom acknowledging that he was never consulted about the decision to -- the precipitous decision to withdraw. And depending on how this is managed, a withdrawal like this is not a trivial proposition.

HARLOW: Right.

CLAPPER: So it could clearly put at risk our troops, not to mention the Kurds, who have been doing the lion's share of the fighting and dying on our behalf against ISIS.

HARLOW: It's a very important point. And that's what Senator Angus King, who led that questioning with General Votel and had him admit to him in the Senate hearing this week that the president didn't consult him about this withdrawal. That is Angus King's concern, too, is the Kurds.

And of course, to remind everyone the safety of the Kurds was the red line. Our reporting is for James Mattis resigning, right? Abandoning them.

CLAPPER: Exactly. HARLOW: Director Clapper, if I could move on to North Korea, we now

have a date for the president to have a second summit with Kim Jong-un in Vietnam. It's going to be at the end of February. Is that a good idea for the president to meet with Kim Jong-un again?

CLAPPER: Well, you know, it's always better to talk, and in my mind, this is somewhat of a do-over from the Singapore summit. And what I hope is that something substantive will come out of this.

I was very interested in the speech made by the special envoy, Stephen Biegun, at Stanford about -- which read between the lines, would seem to indicate a more -- a more flexible stance than we've taken in the past.

[07:25:08] And I certainly hope, which I know won't happen, that the president afterwards won't profoundly overstate the results of the summit.

I think it would really be useful if he would take the opportunity to pose the question to Kim Jong-un what exactly do you need to feel sufficiently secure so you don't need nuclear weapons? And it would be a really good thing to have the answer to that question if we're going to lay out a, I think, a racial negotiating strategy.

HARLOW: Other than a change in rhetoric, and, you know, going from fire and fury to, essentially, "We're in love," or "fell in love," right, about Kim Jong-un. Has there been any substantive, real, tangible change in terms of denuclearization of North Korea?

CLAPPER: No, there hasn't been. And I would also suggest that the reason for the North Koreans moderating their behavior is not because of anything much we've said or done. It has more to do with the fact that they timely achieved what they consider to be nuclear -- a nuclear deterrent.

And so for the first time, they can come to the table not as a supplicant, which has always been the case in the past. I think denuclearization, which I think is very unlikely, is ever going to be achieved is going to take a long, long time.

And we're going to have to have an understanding of what the North Koreans mean by denuclearization. In their mind, this is a two-way street. It doesn't just apply, because we're telling them to denuclearize.

HARLOW: What will tell you finally, Director Clapper, that the second summit has been a success. Aside from rhetoric or the readout that we get, what actual signs are you looking for in terms of intelligence that will tell you, OK, that this was -- there was progress made?

CLAPPER: Well, I think if there is a public declaration of some sort of way ahead here, some step-by-step approach. And, again, special envoy's speech would indicate some flexibility there, that the North Koreans don't have to do everything before we'll do something.

Well, that is -- if that is the case, and if that's reflected in whatever goes on in the summit in Vietnam, I think that's a good thing.

By the way, one other point, Poppy, I'd make is --

HARLOW: Sure.

CLAPPER: I think Vietnam is a great place to have this because of the symbolism --

HARLOW: Yes.

CLAPPER: -- of a former enemy who now has positive diplomatic economic and military relations with the United States. And it could be the same for North Korea. A point I tried to make to them when I was there in 2014 and Secretary Pompeo more recently made that point.

HARLOW: Of course they should have noted that you led the diplomatic mission there to free those two Americans, Kenneth Bay and Matthew Miller.

We appreciate your expertise on all of this. Thank you so much, Director Clapper.

CLAPPER: Thanks for having me, Poppy.

BERMAN: A new study is raising a new concern about teenagers and vaping. Why one company is being accused of starting an arms race when it comes to nicotine. Our Dr. Sanjay Gupta with information every parent needs hear. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)