Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

A Court Filing Hints of Future U.S. Charges Against Assange; More Than 600 People Missing in California Wildfires; Leadership Fight for Dems in the House. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired November 16, 2018 - 07:00   ET

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


DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Ban menthol cigarettes, flavored cigars, but basically that bottom one, as well, they don't want kids to have this marketed to them. They want to cut this down.

[07:00:10] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Sanjay, it's a big subject around my kids' school, no question about that. Thanks so much for being with us. Appreciate it.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good to see you.

GUPTA: Thank you.

BERMAN: Thank you to our international viewers for watching, and for you CNN TALK is next. For our U.S. viewers, WikiLeaks co-founder, possible charges. Could they be related to the Russia investigation. NEW DAY continues right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BERMAN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. This is eye-opening breaking news. Possible charges against WikiLeaks co- founder, Julian Assange. Is it connected to the Russia investigation?

In a filing unsealed in an unrelated case, prosecutors for the Eastern District of Virginia, included what appears to be inadvertent charges against Assange. A Department of Justice spokesperson later said the court filing was made in error and decline to comment whether there are existing charges against Assange.

U.S. prosecutors have been investigating Assange way back since 2010 when WikiLeaks began publishing stolen U.S. government documents. And in an indictment from Special Counsel Robert Mueller this summer portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic e-mails during the 2016 presidential campaign.

CAMEROTA: Speaking of Robert Mueller, CNN has learned that the president met with his attorney three times this week to discuss written responses to the special counsel. One of the president's lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, tells "The Washington Post" that President Trump and his lawyers have not decided whether to answer all of the questions. Giuliani says some create more legal issues. Meanwhile, midterm election updates: a hand recount is underway for

two races, including the hotly-contested Senate race between incumbent Bill Nelson and governor Rick Scott. The new deadline is Sunday at noon.

So we have a lot to cover this morning. Laura Jarrett, live in Washington. So Laura, tell us what we've learned overnight.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, good morning.

This remarkable development on Julian Assange was all discovered overnight buried in court papers in a completely unrelated case that was only recently unsealed.

But in their attempt to try to keep that other case under wraps back in August, federal prosecutors in Virginia twice they referenced charges against Assange. And here's what they said. I want to read it to you. "The complaint supporting affidavit and the arrest warrant, as well as the motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer avoid or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter."

Now, when asked about why Assange's name is popping up in this totally unrelated court filing, a spokesman for the federal prosecutor's office there in Virginia told me the court filing was made in error, and that Assange was not the intended name there. So this was clearly all unrelated. It was about a sexual exploitation case, and he wouldn't go any further about what exactly Assange was facing.

And so the precise charges are really unclear here, but seeking an indictment against Assange would be an extraordinary development, especially in light of WikiLeaks's role in releasing thousands of hacked e-mails from the DNC as we all remember in 2016 campaign and mounds of other defense materials from the Pentagon years before that.

So we wait to see what exactly will happen here, but prosecutors there in Virginia are not saying, John.

BERMAN: All right. Laura Jarrett, this is fascinating. Thank you very much for being with us.

Joining us now, White House correspondent Abby Phillip; CNN political analyst David Gregory; and our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, WikiLeaks is at the center of so much and has been since 2010. General Michael Hayden, who was here, says he's always assumed that Assange was under indictment for things dating back to then.

It has new relevance now. This has new relevance, though, since the charging documents -- and I just want to read this again -- against these 12 Russian actors over the summer from Robert Mueller. He basically said Russian agents worked through WikiLeaks.

Let me just read this. The conspirators, and he's talking about Russian intelligence -- used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization, Organization 1." That's WikiLeaks.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: At one level this is about the whole issue of collusion in the -- in the campaign. Did -- did the Trump campaign work with, know about, coordinate with WikiLeaks to disclose all those e-mails to damage the Clinton campaign?

That's under active investigation now and all the people surrounding Roger Stone. If WikiLeaks is under indictment, could that be related to a possible Roger Stone case in the Mueller investigation? There's also a big legal issue involving WikiLeaks, which is, is the receipt and distribution of classified documents a crime or is it journalism?

I mean, think about how many distinguished journalists at CNN, Bob Woodward has made a career of this, getting classified informations, then distributing it through "The Washington Post," through a book, through WikiLeaks, is that a crime? Historically, the Justice Department has not prosecuted that. How do they deal with that question as it relates to WikiLeaks? Not impossible but a hard question.

[07:05:21] CAMEROTA: It is definitely complicated. But it was not complicated, David Gregory, for Donald Trump when he was campaigning. I mean, now to listen to how much he touted WikiLeaks, it sounds as though it was a designed P.R. campaign. So just to remind everybody, listen to what Donald Trump said back then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart. You've got to read it.

Another one came in today. This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.

As I was getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks, and I wanted to stay there, but I didn't want to keep you waiting.

This just came out. WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: I mean, wow.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And look, a couple of things about President Trump and candidate Trump, you know. What he said today, yesterday, five minutes ago could change. And he could completely change his mind.

What he obviously was celebrating this during the campaign was that WikiLeaks was a source of opposition material on his opponent, Hillary Clinton. So he was happy to celebrate that and then we come to find out, you know, months later, he's president and his own secretary of state is, you know, talking about WikiLeaks as a -- as a --

CAMEROTA: Hostile actor. GREGORY: Yes, non-state actor that is hostile to the United States.

Look, from a kind of a spin political point of view, I could see a potential WikiLeaks indictment if there's others who are caught up in his orbit associated with WikiLeaks.

And the president could just try to distance himself from all that. Say, "Yes, those guys were all bad actors. It didn't reach me, but they're kind of all in it together." I could see that. Again, I think the president's comments about WikiLeaks up until now are -- could very quickly become inoperative.

BERMAN: I mean, he could try to do that. He could try to do it, but it would be incredibly disingenuous, considering the number of times he gushed over WikiLeaks during the end of the campaign, saying things as un-subtle as, "I love WikiLeaks." There's not much wiggle room there.

Abby, it's interesting. Because this news, breaking overnight. And it could be completely unrelated, but it comes after we know that the president's been holed up with his lawyers for parts of three days this week, trying to answer these written questions from the special counsel's team about Russian collusion. With his lawyers for three days, and it feels like that might be contributing to his bit of a dour mood. Yes?

PHILLIP: Yes. Absolutely. There's no question that this Russia probe has once again come back onto the front burner for President Trump. For weeks and weeks, he had been on the campaign trail, campaigning before the midterms.

We hadn't heard a whole lot about Robert Mueller, but the minute that the election was over he was back at it. And one of the reasons is because these questions and answers are now due to Robert Mueller.

And the president, in the first place, does not even think that this investigation is a legitimate one. So he is, you know, going up against his lawyers on this issue, meeting with them multiple times in a week, something that puts him in an awful mood.

And he doesn't have the added benefit of being out there, getting the adulation from his supporters. O this is all swirling around him. I think the timing with the Assange -- this information about Assange is coincidental. It doesn't seem to be related in terms of when we knew about it. But at the same time, the issues are interconnected because, as you pointed out, President Trump was the person doing the most to bolster WikiLeaks's standing in the public during the election at a time when they were apparently a part of an effort to release information about his political opponent.

So that issue is not going to go away. Whether it is because Robert Mueller is going to -- that's going to be part of the Mueller probe or whether it's because the president is the president of the United States and now is in charge of a government that is apparently seeking to charge Assange with a crime here, a crime that the president as a candidate, hailed as something that was so great for him personally and perhaps great for his campaign.

GREGORY: One other thing to throw in is another First Amendment question, and I think Jeffrey can speak to it, which is it doesn't matter, from a press freedom point of view, that the Russians might have been the source of all of this information and that they were up to no good?

TOOBIN: Well, maybe. But I mean, this is one of the many unsettled -- unsettled questions. You know, even at the time when Donald Trump was holding those rallies, saying, "I love WikiLeaks," people were saying, "What do you mean you love WikiLeaks?" It's a crime to steal peoples' e-mails. It's a crime to hack.

So, you know, it's not like this is --this is a new idea that WikiLeaks could have been involved in criminal activity, the question is, you know, what does the president say now? I agree, he'll just say, "Well, that was then. I didn't know the details. I was just looking at the -- what was produced." But you know --

[07:10:08] CAMEROTA: Well, back to the questions that the president is answering, and Rudy Giuliani, he spoke to Josh Dawsey from "The Washington Post" yesterday. Josh Dawsey tweeted about this, and I want to get your analysis on this.

Josh Dawsey said, "Giuliani tells me this afternoon that Trump and his lawyers haven't decided whether they'll answer Robert Mueller's questions, which are exclusively about events pre-election." Quote, "'There are some that create more issues for us legally than others,' Giuliani said."

TOOBIN: Well, this fight over these questions has been going on for literally a year. I mean, I cannot believe that this thing is still dragging out.

They almost scheduled an interview with Mueller at Camp David in January of this year, and here it is, you know, towards the end of November. You know, Giuliani has been asserting from the very beginning that Mueller wants too much information, that they have only agreed to talk about these collusion issues before the election.

The issue of whether the president will answer any questions about obstruction of justice while he's president, you know, the whole issue surrounding the firing of James Comey, that's unresolved. So this drama over what he answers and when is just -- I cannot believe Mueller has put up with this for all these months.

BERMAN: There are some issues that create -- there are some that create more issues for us legally than others?

TOOBIN: I mean, in fairness to Giuliani, I don't think he means, you know, that means, like, evidence of criminality by the -- by the president. I think he means, for example, relevance. We think, you know, some of these questions are irrelevant, and we don't want to answer them. We think some of them may cover privileged material, whether -- you know, whatever kind of privilege. I don't think -- I, you know, spent a lot of time with Rudy Giuliani. He's not going to acknowledge that the president --

CAMEROTA: The illegality, right.

TOOBIN: -- was wrong. But I mean, it might have been smarter politics to simply say these questions are also easy to answer, as the president has nothing to hide.

CAMEROTA: You think there's a smarter way that Rudy Giuliani could have framed something that he said? Wait a second.

GREGORY: The clearer point, too, is that there's obviously a lot of people who cooperated with the special prosecutor, including the White House counsel, who spent hours and hours with him. That could be why the -- behind some of these questions, and they don't know what they don't know about all of that cooperation, which is why they want to limit what the president actually says on the record to -- to Mueller.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And it is really striking, though, that even in this limited scope, it is -- this is actually a limited scope that they're dealing with, the pre-president period of time.

And even within that scope they're having trouble getting to a place where they're comfortable answering the questions. So I think to Jeffrey's point, it is remarkable that this has been going on for so long and that, even with this kind of fairly limited lane that they're in, they're still having trouble getting to a place where they're comfortable answering the questions.

So I think to Jeffrey's point, it is remarkable that this has been going on for so long and that even with this fairly limited lane that they're in, they are still having trouble getting into a place where they're comfortable not putting their client in, you know, legal jeopardy by answering certain questions.

And also, I'm sure the president is not being particularly helpful on this. Because as I said, he does not want to engage in this. He does not even think this investigation is legitimate, so it's got to be difficult to get answers out of him that will -- that will make his lawyers comfortable that they're doing their jobs for him.

BERMAN: As you and Gloria pointed out last night, this is the take- home, open-book part of the exam, and they keep on talking about perjury traps, possible traps as Rudy Giuliani said.

You went to law school. You were a prosecutor. Talk to me about the laws surrounding perjury trap.

TOOBIN: Well, perjury trap is a phrase that I do not understand. I've -- it's thrown around all the time. I don't know what it means. Just tell the truth and you don't have to worry about perjury, period.

Now, if your testimony conflicts with another witness, so what? That happens all the time. It doesn't mean somebody is committing perjury.

And in terms of how he's answering these questions, it's the easiest possible format for someone answering questions, because you're sitting there with your lawyers saying, "Well, can we defend this line? Can we defend this line?" I mean, it's not like where you're sitting there under oath, being asked questions you don't know how it's going to go, confronted with documents you haven't seen. You're sitting there with your lawyers preparing the answers. You really shouldn't be worried about perjury.

BERMAN: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, David Gregory, Abby Phillip, thank you very much.

Now new information on the horrific wildfires in California. The state-wide death toll has grown to 66. Well, the number of people still accounted for in the Camp Fire has doubled overnight and now stands at more than 600 -- more than 600 people missing.

CNN's Scott McLean is live in Paradise, California. That number is staggering, Scott.

SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It absolutely is, John. And seven more bodies were found yesterday, bringing now the total death toll to 63, and that's likely to rise, as you see, because the total number of missing is 631 people. That's more than double what we reported yesterday and the reason why is because authorities are going back to early 911 calls and police reports that were filed in the frantic early hours of this to try to find if they've missed anyone who was reported missing and not on their list.

[07:15:12] But when you have a mass evacuation of more than 20,000 people, well over 20,000 people, it's easy for people to get lost in the shuffle. And the sheriff admits that, look, many people likely don't know that they've been reported missing and are likely safe and sound. That is certainly good news.

The priority for most people here is simply finding a place to stay, finding a roof over their head. Many people have resorted to staying in their cars or in tents. We found a little tent city outside of Wal-Mart in Chico yesterday where many people were staying. And we're not just talking about adults; we're talking about families.

I met a mother with her 7-year-old daughter staying in their car. She's not only lost her home. She's also lost her job as a home care worker in Paradise, because well, there's no one to care for in Paradise anymore. I also met a grandmother who was staying with her 9-year-old grandson in a tent. And temperatures are frigid overnight. We're talking low 40s. They said you simply could not put on enough blankets.

I asked both of them if they had any interests in going back to Paradise ever. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELI KINGERY, LOST HOME IN CAMP FIRE: Last year's fires, it circled around Paradise, and now it went -- started in Paradise. I just kind of feel like it's a target. For fire. LAURA WHITAKER, LOST HOME IN CAMP FIRE: So many of the people that

loved Paradise really want to rebuild Paradise. It will never be the same. We lost something that we can't get back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCLEAN: The 9-year-old, Eli, does not want to go back, but his grandmother, Laura, does. The president will be here tomorrow, and he will have no shortage of folks just like that to talk to -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Oh, my gosh. Just listening to that boy talk about his life, his past, his future, he is sort of poetic in a really plainspoken way. Thank you so much for sharing that family's struggle with us.

OK. There's a new so-called squad in Washington, and they have big plans for change. So will they support the old guard Democratic leadership in their first vote? The congresswoman-elect who made history in her state joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:21:31] CAMEROTA: Newly elected members of Congress have spent the last two days in Washington getting their congressional orientation. The new Democratic members are also getting ready to make a major choice. Will they support Nancy Pelosi as their House speaker?

Joining us now, we have Democratic Congresswoman-elect Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts. She is the first black woman from that state to be elected to Congress.

Good morning, Congressman-elect.

AYANNA PRESSLEY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: You have had three days to get acclimated, so let's dive right in. I'm sure you know your way around the joint.

PRESSLEY: Yes, I have answers for everything. Three days.

CAMEROTA: Very good. OK. Do you support Nancy Pelosi as the next House speaker?

PRESSLEY: I'm uncommitted. But I do want to say this. There's no zero sum game in any of this. I have deep respect and admiration for Leader Pelosi, the role that she's played in our most recent elections, the role that she played in the ACA. And I do maintain that many of the attacks against her have been sexist.

I am new to this body, and I'm looking forward to sitting down to meet with her to talk about her vision and -- and after we've had some time to talk, I'll make a decision. It's not clear at this time if there will be any other candidates. Right now she's the only declared one, and I'm looking forward to sitting down with her. So --

CAMEROTA: As we understand it, you are sitting down with her today. And so what can she say to win you over and sway you? What -- what are you wanting to hear from her?

PRESSLEY: I don't think it's an issue of winning over. It's just a matter of fact that we're getting to know one another, and I want to talk about some of the priorities, the bold legislative priorities that I'm hoping to see right out the gate. I'm very appreciative of -- and see merit in HR 1, in the initial discussions to prioritize voting rights, which is so important, especially in light of what we see happening in Florida and Georgia right now. Ethics reform, campaign finance reform.

All of these things, I think, will help to strengthen and restore the American people's faith in democracy.

However, I also think that we have a mandate from this electorate, given the majority makers who ran on very bold platforms and visionary policies and systemic change, to also consider some of those things.

CAMEROTA: Well --

PRESSLEY: And gun violence remains one of my top priorities.

CAMEROTA: And I'm sure it does hers, as well, but you do diverge from her. Your position, I believe, diverges from her on a couple of key issues, namely ICE, the future of ICE and impeachment about President Trump. So what do you want to know about -- what will you do about those differences of opinion?

PRESSLEY: I work with many people that we are not in 100 percent of alignment on every policy issue and priority. We all want to get this country moving in the right direction.

And again, we are emboldened in that we are walking in a Democratic majority. And I'm excited to get to work and see what we can accomplish together.

I would also add that I'm considering this within the context of a larger slate of leadership. It's one of the reasons why I'm supporting Congresswoman Barbara Lee out of California as Democratic caucus chair. We've never have had a woman of color in that position.

So you know, I am meeting with the candidates for every leadership position and talking with them about their vision and some of my priorities. And after I've deliberated and I'm fully informed, I'll make an informed decision. I think that's reasonable, and that's fair.

CAMEROTA: Yes, no. We appreciate your candor in this. So you are open to voting for Nancy Pelosi?

PRESSLEY: Of course. Of course. And again, at this time, she is the only candidate that has put herself forward.

CAMEROTA: What about Marcia Fudge? Sorry to interrupt, but we heard from your fellow Massachusetts lawmaker that he supports Marcia Fudge. Would you support her, as well? From Seth Moulton. [07:25:26] PRESSLEY: I'm not aware that she is a candidate. I have tremendous respect for Congresswoman Fudge. She is a woman with a strength of conviction and who has -- who has represented her constituency and her district in Ohio very well. And I'm proud to serve with her on the Congressional Black Caucus.

I have not had a conversation with her and neither have I met with Leader Pelosi. But again, at this point, there is one candidate that has put themselves forward, and I look forward to meeting with her and having a discussion about the future of this country and our Democratic values and our policy priorities.

Again, I'm hoping that we will come out of the gate being bold and aspirational. That is the way, I think, that we most of all, restore the faith of the American people, is that we are not taking our time in and I hope we are not taking our time in being bold and aspirational and making changes in their lives right now.

CAMEROTA: And does that boldness include impeachment? Do you think that's a top priority?

PRESSLEY: I think impeachment has always been on the table, and again, the fact that we have a Democratic majority means that we can offer that checks and that balance.

And so many of the things that we've been talking about in our caucuses have included oversight and how important it is that not only we're providing an offering that oversight, as a body and that accountability, but also that we can -- that we are intentional about moving the country forward.

BLITZER: But I mean, look, I'm pressing you on this, because you know that there are so many Republicans and voters who say that is a distraction. That will become mired in a mess. We're not looking for gridlock; we're not looking for more endless investigations. And so I'm just trying to gauge in terms of your priority list, will you press for investigations and impeachment?

PRESSLEY: My priority list right now is getting acclimated to my new -- my new role and hopefully serving on committees that will help me to address system inequalities and disparities in the Massachusetts 7. I'm hoping to serve on the Education and Workforce Committee and also Judiciary.

To your point, Judiciary, given the subpoena power and investigative reach of that committee, allows us to be that check and to be that balance.

So again, impeachment has always been on the table. Is that something that I'm leading with or leaning in on at this time? No. Because I think there are a lot of other things that we can address in the space of oversight and accountability right now. And there are things I want to see in HR1 or have some assurances that we will be taking on as a body, that are issues of consequence to this country and specifically to my constituents: infrastructure chief amongst them, gun violence, prevention, criminal justice reform. I'm very encouraged that there does seem to be some bipartisan

appetite there. And continue to build up on the good work of my colleague Hakeem Jeffries out of New York who was able to get passed a bipartisan bill on prison reform. So these are some of the things that I'm prioritizing and I'm looking forward to getting to work on.

CAMEROTA: Congresswoman-elect Ayanna Pressley, we look forward to hearing about your meeting with Nancy Pelosi today, as well as the rest of the agenda. Thanks so much.

PRESSLEY: All right. Thank you for having me.

CAMEROTA: Thank you for being on NEW DAY.

PRESSLEY: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: John.

BERMAN: Right. The recount in Florida is done. The machine recount is done, and now the hand recount will begin. The new race to the deadline with a Senate seat hanging in the balance, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)