Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Trump Predicts He Will Not Have Good Relationship with British Prime Minister Should He Be Elected President; Hillary Clinton Suggests Husband Will Be In Charge Of Jumpstarting The Economy In Her Administration. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired May 16, 2016 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:51] ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone; I'm Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to "Legal View."

This might sound like a broken record, but every time the Republican Party starts to warm up towards its presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, something happens, a distraction of some kind. The latest being a "New York Times" piece taking a very deep dive into Trump's past with women. The author's interviewed 50 women in six weeks and what some of them had to say was not flattering.

Now, a twist; one of the women says "The Times" got her story wrong. That woman is a one-time Trump girlfriend named Rowanne Brewer Lane and she spoke with CNN's John Berman and Kate Bolduan last hour. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROWANNE BREWER LANE, FORMER GIRLFRIEND OF DONALD TRUMP: I don't like anything about the story. I'm very upset with the "New York Times" article because it was completely misleading. They misled me. They took parts of what I said in, at least a two-hour interview, that they did exclusively with me, and spun it and put a negative connotation on what I was saying. I'm very displeased with the way it came out.

They promised me time and time over again that the piece would not be a hit piece, that it was just merely each person's explanation of how they had interactions with Donald, what I thought of him and I made it very clear, many times, that I had a pleasant relationship with Donald and I never felt like I was being, you know, depicted as a piece of meat, or anything like that. I was never offended by anything that he had said. He was never anything more than a gentleman.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: You say misleading and they spun your words in a negative way. Did they get anything wrong or do you think -- or do you just not like the way it was depicted?

LANE: Well, they only took very small bits of my sentences, and put them in a way, like, for instance, when I said that Donald said, now that's a stunning Trump girl. My next sentence was, I was very flattered by that comment; and that's not what it says in the article.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BANFIELD: Okay; so you heard it first. We're also hearing the other side of the story. CNN spoke with the "New York Times" reporters who put together the piece, and did the interviews and the writings. Here is what they had to say regarding what you just heard.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BARBARO, REPORTER, "NEW YORK TIMES": I think we should talk for just a minute about the scene at Mar-A-Lago that Rowanne referred to, and that's - at the beginning of our story, because none of the facts are in dispute. She didn't have a bathing suit. She had just met Donald Trump. He asked her to put on a bathing suit, pulled out a drawer. She put it on. He expressed admiration for her appearance and brought her back out to a predominantly male group out by the pool and said she was a stunning looking Trump woman.

I think that story speaks for itself. We thought it was a powerful anecdote, that's why we put it in the story and there's some key context. Ms. Brewer Lane went on to date Donald Trump for several months, which is something we explained in the story; but the big picture here is that we're talking about a pattern of behavior, the way Donald Trump interacts privately with women.

The world knows how Donald Trump talks to women or about a woman from a stage or podium or Twitter or the "Howard Stern Show." Our goal was to pull back and saying, how does he interact in the office, with someone who he's dating, or trying to date? And that was the purpose of our story and that's why Megan and I spoke to dozens of women, who walked us through those interactions. Frequently, there was a power dynamic at play here, which we think is worth understanding as well. This is a very wealthy man with a lot of connections and influence and it's something I think hovered over a lot of these interactions.

BALDWIN: I believe Rowanne asked for an apology; what do you say?

BARBARO: We really stand by our story. We do believe we quoted her fairly [12:05:02] and accurately and that the story really speaks for itself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: We want to get more from CNN's Phil Mattingly and CNN Senior Media Correspondent and Host of "Reliable Sources," Brian Stelter. Woo-wee.

I thought we might have a break on Monday. We might actually just be able to talk campaign issues, et cetera; but there's something new again. The campaign, the Trump campaign has to be concerned about this. We are getting a flurry of responses.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Look, Ashleigh, no question about it. You just have to look at numbers as to why the pushback has been as strong as it has been. I mean, look, there has been a flurry of tweets. There were seven tweets yesterday attacking the story. There has been a bunch today. His the most recent talking about how the "New York Times" has put out a hit piece on him and, because of what we saw in the interview you just saw from the last show, that they have essentially, he believes, and his team believes, they have exposed the article as a fraud.

BANFIELD: This is the most recent one? Because there have been a couple of tweets this morning, already.

MATTINGLY: This is his most recent -- just last hour yes. He's had four today already. Seven yesterday, but they've really seized today on the interview with one of the central figures in the story, and the reason Ashleigh is, you just have to look at the numbers.

If you look at Donald Trump's favorability amongst women, in the general electorate, not Republican primary voters, in the general electorate, he's down in the 20 to 25-pecent range of people who have a favorable opinion of him. If he wants to win, he needs women voters to come to him. The pushback is so hard, is so extreme, because they recognize this hits him in a place that really, really hurts and a place that just rolls right into the wheelhouse for Hillary Clinton and their attack machine that they plan on deploying.

BANFIELD: So you saw that last one, and I want to put this in context because there's been several in a row today. What's coming forward today "the woman central to the failing @"New York Times" piece on me we have exposed the article as a fraud" and that followed "the @NewYorkTimes was so dishonest. Their hit piece cover story on me yesterday was just blown up by Rowanne Brewer who said it was a lie." He tweeted it, Brian Stelter, but he also called it in. He was really adamant to make sure that the tweet wasn't the only way he was going to try and knock down the story today.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT AND HOST, "RELIABLE SOURCES": This is revealing behind the scenes of how Trump tries to change or control media coverage of him. Only a few minutes after that interview on FOX this morning, this woman was interviewed on FOX in the 7:00 a.m. hour, Trump called into CNN's "New Day" control room. He wasn't going to go on air. In fact, we asked if he would go on air, our producers were asking him and he said he wouldn't go on air; but he said he wanted to make sure the producers of "New Day" had seen the interview on FOX, on the rival network, so they could cover the interview.

BANFIELD: He himself calling in?

STELTER: That's right.

BANFIELD: Not having his publicist or anyone else?

STELTER: Trump himself. Try imagining what that's like, when you're a producer, sitting in the control room, going through a normal interview and then Donald Trump is on the phone. I'm pretty sure past presidential candidates have not been calling in to television network control rooms trying to influence coverage.

The reality here, the producers of "New Day" had already seen the interview. They were going to cover it anyway. It was obviously newsworthy, but the fact that Trump himself was reaching out to CNN, and maybe other networks as well, we're still looking into that, I think reveals how intensely he tries to control coverage of him and his campaign. In many ways, this is, -- he's an instant feedback loop. He's watching television all the time and tweeting all the time and trying to manipulate coverage all the time.

BANFIELD: I can only imagine, Phil, as you look forward in the Trump campaign, he's been none too kind to the media. He's called us scum. He's caused some discomfort for a lot of those reporters who've been semi-threatened by supporters around the bullpen in some of his rallies.

MATTINGLY: That's right.

BANFIELD: I'm just wondering how it's going to be after this, now that he's tweeting about the "New York Times." He likes to call us all failing. At some point we're all failing, and at some point everybody fails. Even he fails, but he likes to point out that we're all failing.

What's going to happen after this? Is he going to seize on this or is he going to try to get rid of it, move on and pretend like it never happened?

MATTINGLY: It's actually a great question, because, again, what I've been taken aback by over the last 24 hours is now intensely he focused on this.

STELTER: Yes, it's unusual, isn't it?

MATTINGLY: Usually, he sees an issue, hits it, and then dismantles it.

BANFIELD: Right.

MATTINGLY: At times it's failing, you don't have to pay attention to the story; move on. Well, he hasn't moved on. A dozen or so tweets, doing what he did this morning on "New Day," he clearly recognizes this is a very, very dangerous issue for his campaign. So, how does he treat it going forward?

Now, if you're a traditional candidate, of which we know Donald Trump certainly is not, you try to move on as quickly as possible from the story. You try to get something else into the transom. Your advisors are pushing other stories around. You don't want this to be the thing that people are talking about every single day for the rest of the week. How does he try and change or distract? Well, he's become a master of that over the last six or seven months. So, I don't think there's a shortage of techniques he can pull out here but when and where and how will he move on from this?

STELTER: And to viewers I would say, read the story and decide for yourself. Oftentimes, candidates use attack in the media as a shield to distract from the story. In this case, we've heard some liberals, some moderates, not just conservatives but many people criticizing the story saying it's made out to be more than it is but read it and decide for yourself rather than just fully (inaudible) Trump's attack. BANFIELD: Yes, I mean, it's not as though it's an entire hit piece. There's a lot of people within the article who actually concur with Trump's positions and his behavior and --.

STELTER: It's really in-depth reporting.

BANFIELD: -- his demeanor and say there's nothing wrong with it. We had a great experience working for him.

MATTINGLY: That's right; six weeks the reporters spent on this, interviewed [12:10:01] more than 50 people. It was not just a one shot hit job. This was a detailed --

BANFIELD: Right, but he's mad as hell, you can tell.

MATTINGLY: -- well-reported piece.

BANFIELD: And I love the transom reference. Is he going to be able to sail out of this one? Phil Mattingly, thank you. Brian Stelter -

MATTINGLY: Thanks.

BANFIELD: -- as always, thank you very much. Appreciate it. A pause here because we're going to talk a little bit more about Donald Trump and the women factor after this break. There is so much more to dive in as well, like the VP picks.

There's a lot of reasons you pick a VP but what about third party candidates? And how about a new role for an ex-president? There's a lot of news being made this morning. I mean, we've got two primaries on the docket for tomorrow. Yes, this is "Legal Views," so I worked that in too. We're going to hit all these, the blue-ribbon panel when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Welcome back; as Donald Trump fires back at stories about his treatment of women, he is also trying to pick a running mate and deal with rumors of a potential third-party candidate that might be floating out there somewhere. Let's bring in the best and brightest to parse through all of this: CNN Political Commentator and Donald Trump Supporter, Jeffrey Lord, Senior Editor of "The Atlantic" David Frum joining us live; and CNN Political Commentator and Democratic Strategist, Donna Brazile. All right; we've got a lot of years of experience on the screen right now and I'm just talking about [12:15:00] you three, but I am really excited to get in to all of these topics that have hit, sort of, the news cycle this morning, and there are many.

David, I'm going to start with you; bounce off the a-block if you would for me. Right off the heels of that whole Donald Trump made up a phone call and pretended to be his own publicist story and he's saying it wasn't him, all of that, that hasn't even settled before the "New York Times" piece on the women came out. Do you think this will have an effect on him and why do you think he's really seizing on it and fighting this harder than other stuff? DAVID FRUM, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE ATLANTIC": Perhaps to distract from another catastrophic thing happened this weekend, which is the interview Donald Trump gave with Britain's I-TV, broadcast this morning on British time, in which he predicted he would not have a good relationship with the prime minister of Great Britain, the leader of America's most important strategic partner and one of the most important sources of U.S. intelligence on Earth.

I think what is happening and Trump is pushing back on the story, "The Times" story, this time with some success, this time it looks like the "Times" may have overstepped its evidence. So you may say so this latest catastrophically damaging story may not be as catastrophically damaging as it first looked, and that should distract us from all the other catastrophically damaging stories that have appeared just over the past two days.

BANFIELD: I want to agree with you but when I see those jaywalking stories, where Americans can't even name our own vice president, I'm not sure they know who David Cameron or Sadiq Khan are. So, that's the only reason I would disagree with you on that one.

And since, Jeffrey Lord, since you're laughing I'm going to pick you next. I want to play this sound bite from Ben Carson. He appeared on "The Morning Show," here on CNN, this morning and he was talking all about those rumors and the list of names floating out there that could be possible Trump VP picks. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. BEN CARSON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is something that is extremely undesirable to me, as is any government post, quite frankly. I believe that citizen statesmen can work from outside the government in a capacity where they can contribute to the wellbeing of the country.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So are you done running for office?

CARSON: I have no intention of running for office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: No intention doesn't mean done though. So, Jeffrey Lord, when you looked at the list, there was Sarah Palin on there; John Kasich was on there; Chris Christie on there. Trump came out quick to say, Marco Rubio is not a part of it but Marco Rubio had already said I have no interest. So that kind of left me to see Sarah Palin and Chris Christie. Am I looking the wrong way?

JEFFREY LORD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: Frankly, Ashleigh, I have no idea. I don't think anybody has any idea other than Donald Trump and Corey Lewandowsky, what's happening here; and frankly, that's sort of traditional for these things. Stories get floated about who's on and off these vice presidential lists and a lot of times, they're totally wild and totally inaccurate. So you referenced our age and being around here, I remember when Teddy Kennedy was a sure thing for George McGovern's running mate and unbeknownst to the public he already told them no. So, you know, I wouldn't bet on anything.

BANFIELD: All right; the next issue is that fear usually works well. Donna Brazile, I don't have to tell you that. You've been through a lot of campaigns and one of the latest things Donald Trump has brought up on the campaign trail is something about another 9/11 attack could be in the offing. So let me just read his words for you. He said, "Bad things will happen; a lot of bad things will happen. There will be attacks that you won't believe. They have cell phones, so they don't have money. They don't have anything. They have cell phones. Who pays for their monthly charges, right? They have cell phones with the flags, the ISIS flags on them. And then we're supposed to say, isn't this wonderful that we're taking them in?"

So this is obviously Donald Trump referring to migrants and in particular, Syrian migrants and the Muslim ban. It's been very popular with some but it's been very powerful for Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail and Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail; but I'm going to go back to that original statement. Fear works, doesn't it?

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes; and the flipside of fear is often anger and there's a lot of anger going around. Look, I disagree strongly with Mr. Trump on this matter because the people we are going to need to, not just defeat and destroy ISIS, but the people we need for intelligence, the people we need to help fight against those who would harm us, are the same people that he's demonizing and the people that we absolutely need in this so-called war to defeat ISIS. So I strongly disagree with him.

I don't think he is focused yet on what his policy really is, with regards to banning Muslims, temporary. He said, look, I make a lot of suggestions, which I respond presidents don't just suggest; but the point is that we have a candidate who's now being vetted by serious reporters across the country, [12:20:01] across the board on past behavior, current behavior, and future plans. This is the kind of vetting that I don't think Donald Trump was accustomed to in the primary process.

BANFIELD: So, David Frum, I want you to jump in on another issue. If Hillary Clinton is beatable in Donald Trump's eyes, she may not be beatable if there's a third-party candidate; and that is the big news headline that's come out in the zeitgeist in the last 48 hours, that Mitt Romney was having back room conversations with Nebraska Senator Ben Saff, a big critic of Donald Trump's, to mount a third-party effort to defeat Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. You have lived through the Ralph Naders and Ross Perots and you have seen just how much they struggled. Would this be any different this time around, because everything's different this time around?

FRUM: I don't think it's even going to happen because Mitt Romney cares a lot about the fate of down ballot republicans. He's trying to save them from the negative impact of Donald Trump on the top of the ballot. But I think as you work through it, a third-party candidacy would be even more damaging for the people Romney is trying to help and deserve help.

I want to add something to what Donna just said, and one reason why this David Cameron story is so important. Donald Trump is speaking to something true. I mean, this massive influx of Middle Eastern migrants into Europe over the last 1.5 to two years is a terribly destabilizing and dangerous fact. We're talking about a couple million people who have entered without authorization. No one knows very much about them. There's been a spurt of crime, of all kinds and there's serious terror threats.

If the West is going to defend itself, it needs the alliance structure that Donald Trump is doing so much damage to. The problem he identifies, needs exactly the solution that he's trying to discredit and destroy; and that's why this campaign is so wrenching for many of us who have been on the right center of American politics because even when Donald Trump points his finger at something true, he uses that in a way that hurts the West and hurts the United States.

BANFIELD: And I'm going to throw another monkeywrench into the whole thing and put out another name, another big name, another big, big name and that's Bill Clinton because Hillary Clinton made some comments about Bill Clinton possibly being sort of the eco-czar, the economic czar in her administration, were she to be so lucky. Here's how she phrased it; have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY) DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My husband, who I'm going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it, and especially in places like coal country and

inner cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Okay; Donna and Jeffrey, I'm going to get you both to weigh in on this. She walked this back a little later on the road. She was asked, would he have a cabinet role and she said - she wrinkled her nose and said no. So, for the extra emphasis, she said no. But, Jeffrey Lord, and I'm going to get you to share this time with Donna Brazile, if you would, do you think that that is a plus or a minus if Donald Trump is crafting his campaign message, to have a Bill Clinton in your back pocket?

LORD: Well I think it's a minus, and I'll tell you exactly why. The word she used there was to revitalize the American economy. Who's been in charge of the American economy for the last eight years? It's been President Obama and the administration she was a part of. So what she's saying is, our administration didn't get the job done, so I have to call it in my

husband. That, at best, is not a very good argument for her.

BANFIELD: That is a good argument. Donna, is it that or that you get a twofer?

BRAZILE: No it's not. Look, 22 million jobs created during the 1990s when Bill Clinton and my former boss, Al Gore, ran this economy. Over 14 million jobs created in the last 7.5 years. Remember, when the Republicans left, 800,000 Americans were losing their jobs each and every month. Can we do more to make sure that all Americans want to work, especially those working part-time can find a job? Can we do more to train people far 21st century economy? Absolutely; and I think Bill Clinton is an excellent, excellent person to put in this nonpaying role, where he can serve as an advisor to, I'm sure, to chair the economic council and others who could use his expertise.

Look, Bill Clinton is a tremendous asset to this campaign, no matter how you try to dice it and slice it. He is a very good, strong campaigner with a good brain and I am glad to see that he's out there, not just campaigning for his wife, Hillary Clinton, but also campaigning on behalf of every day Americans who want to get out of poverty and find a job. That's who Bill Clinton really is. (Inaudible).

FRUM: I would wager a contribution to the Clinton Foundation that the reason Hillary Clinton said that is because she saw the night before, a poll that showed while Bill Clinton has economic credible, she does not; and the reason she did this is it is a statement of weakness. It shows that she herself is not credible on economic issues.

BANFIELD: I have to leave it there.

BRAZILE: She will get there.

BANFIELD: I love you three. You are fantastic.

LORD: Thank you, Ashleigh.

[12:25:02] BRAZILE: I love all of you too.

BANFIELD: Thanks to all three of you, David Frum, Jeffrey Lord and Donna Brazile. Great, we'll see you again. This is going to be a long next couple of months, but thank you.

Another real important day of voting tomorrow, guys. CNN's going to have coverage throughout the day. Primary day in Kentucky and Oregon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:29:42] BANFIELD: We've got some breaking news this hour on Obamacare and contraception and conscience. The highest court, the Supreme Court, has spoken out on the rights and obligations of religious groups. Remember the religious groups that object to having any part of providing birth control for employees of theirs who are women and may be seeking that through their insurance? It's gone through the courts and our Senior Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, joins me now to explain this latest move by the Supreme Court, which, if you want to give it really simplistic parlance, is a punt.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Exactly.

BANFIELD: What happened?

TOOBIN: A unanimous punt.