Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Mueller to Reveal New Details Today on Manafort & Cohen; Bill Barr, Former Attorney General, Considered to Replace Sessions; Sources: Trump Expected to Name Heather Nauert as U.N. Ambassador. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired December 07, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're all anxiously awaiting what exactly the special counsel says.

[05:59:11] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After President Trump fired Comey, top FBI officials viewed Trump as a leader who needed to be reigned in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president's worst instincts continue to haunt him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Trump is expected to name Heather Nauert as his new ambassador to the United Nations.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This would be the least experienced U.N. ambassador in the history of the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is commendable that the president could potentially nominate a second woman. We should give her a chance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Friday, December 7, 2018, 6 a.m. here in New York. Alisyn is off. Erica Hill joins me.

We are here, which is news in and of itself this morning. You may have heard this building was evacuated overnight after a bomb threat was called into our offices. Law enforcement came, checked things out, and we're back to work. Thanks so much to them, as always.

So one note on the timing. Before the building was evacuated, the president put out a statement that read, "Fake news, the enemy of the people." It was not the cause of the threat. That came before his statement. He didn't seem to know about the threat.

But what is clear is that, while this building was empty, with law enforcement making sure it didn't blow up, there was this statement out there from the president attacking the press. So the best response to that and the threat, now and forever, is to report. So now the news.

What could be a pivotal day in the Mueller investigation, by the end of this day, we will know more, potentially much more, about where things stand. Two sentencing memos will detail the extent of Michael Cohen's cooperation and ongoing investigations. What has he been telling them about the president's business ties to Russia.

The Mueller team will also file a document spelling out the lies they say Paul Manafort told that torpedoed his plea deal. The key question here, was he lying about things having to do with the Trump campaign and Russia.

There's more. CNN has learned that, in the days before Mueller was appointed, right after FBI Director James Comey was fired, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and top FBI officials viewed President Trump as a leader who needed to be reined in.

Sources say they discussed a range of options, including Rosenstein wearing a wire, which he later denied. The sources say then Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe took the extraordinary step of opening an obstruction of justice investigation.

HILL: Now, this is by no means a quiet Friday. It's not just all that that we've covering. But President Trump expected to name State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert as a U.S. ambassador to the United Nations today. She, of course, will replace Nikki Haley.

The former FOX News host is relatively inexperienced when it comes to international diplomacy. So could she be in for a tough confirmation?

And a big Oscar stunner overnight. Comedian Kevin Hart stepping down as host of the Academy Awards. This comes, of course, just two days after getting the job.

The reason, well, he refused a demand from the Academy to apologize for past anti-gay tweets. The uproar that has everyone in Hollywood talking this morning.

Let's begin, though, with the Mueller investigation. Let's bring in CNN senior political analyst John Avlon; former CIA counterterrorism official and CNN counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd; and CNN White House correspondent Abby Phillip.

A lot to get to today. We're expecting a lot, obviously, to come out. Abby, I just want to start with you in terms of what we're hearing from the White House is so much expected to come at us today, because this is the deadline for these memos. When it comes to both Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, the White House is quiet and even some reporting that they're not really planning much of anything, even ultimately when there's a report. What are we hearing this morning, Abby?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Erica. I don't think anyone should really expect the White House to have much of a plan when it comes to anything that's coming out of these court filings, whether it's today or any other day, really. The strategy for several months now from the White House's perspective

has been to let President Trump take the lead on how to respond to Robert Mueller. President Trump alone is the person who is really directing the P.R. strategy, the communications strategy around responding to these issues, and you're hearing also from his attorneys, but I think, primarily, the tone is being set from the top.

Now, a lot of White House officials are fine with that, because I think they don't really want to be in the business of sort of dealing with the kind of legal ups and downs of this case, especially when they don't have full transparency into what might be coming down the pike.

But the problem for President Trump is that he often gets himself into more trouble when he is the person tweeting things like -- like it is brave of Roger Stone to not want to testify in the Mueller investigation.

President Trump is not often his best advocate when it comes to giving himself good legal advice, and I think that there are a lot of people in the White House who just -- just hands off on this situation. There's no controlling the president's tweets at this point.

BERMAN: Hey, Phil, if we can, again, I think the big thing today is that, by the end of today, we will know things we don't know right now about the Mueller investigation, specifically in regards to Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort.

You're looking at this very closely. You know what these documents are like. What do you think we might know by tonight?

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: There's a couple things that I'd be looking at. Let's look -- let's look at two categories. One is money, and two is Russia.

The significance of the Cohen document, I think, is his obviously long-standing relationship with the family and the fact that we already know he dealt with dirty money. So are there going to be suggestions that his dealings with dirty money reach individuals in the White House, including either the president or his family?

Now, the problem with that, of course, is we saw one of the big -- one of the big, most interesting aspects of what we've seen this week, is there's still ongoing at least three criminal investigations. So if the investigations on dirty money from Mueller is still ongoing, a lot of those documents on Cohen are going to be redacted.

[06:05:14] I would say it's different on Manafort. He's already been found guilty on dirty money charges here where I live in Alexandria Courthouse in Virginia.

So why is he holding back? Why did that plea bargain get withdrawn?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the problems that Manafort is having with Mueller don't relate to his unwillingness to talk about money. That's about Russia, any involvement of the campaign with WikiLeaks, and so I'm looking for something different on the Manafort document. Is there a reference to Russia?

HILL: And that will be interesting, even just that one word, Phil, if we see that, if we see that one word, "Russia," that will tell us something different. It's also important to point out Paul Manafort versus Michael Cohen and Michael Flynn, very different. Not only in the terms of the way they've approached this, but in terms of what we're hearing from the president on it.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh, I mean, the president has come out and encouraged maximum sentencing for Michael Cohen. If the Flynn treatment is any indication, Cohen seems to have been very open and willing. He's had a major change of heart from being willing to take a bullet for Donald Trump from saying he really wants to tell the truth and come clean. There will be a lot of redactions.

I think Phil makes a good point that Manafort could be different. Because you rarely see this kind of an agreement fall apart in the spectacular fashion with which he did.

But I think, you know, as we look for Russia, we look for follow the money, the point Abby is making and reporting today is stunning. I mean, the atmosphere in the White House is, despite this being a known unknown, the Mueller report is coming. These things are coming, there's no plan. The quote in "The Atlantic" today is extraordinary.

It's Jesus take the wheel but scarier.

That's the attitude, strategically, inside the White House today. That should not give anyone any confidence.

BERMAN: So the other bit of CNN reporting -- and I think this is important -- that came out overnight, then the building was emptied after it, was that Andy McCabe, Phil, who was then acting FBI director in this interregnum, the period between when Comey was fired and Mueller was appointed, the FBI opened an obstruction of justice on the president and the administration. What do you need to have in order to take that formal step?

MUDD: You've got to have probable cause that says, "I'm not just curious about this. I don't just see smoke. I see something that's significant enough, especially related to the president of the United States, that leads me to open a criminal investigation.

When you're opening a case like that, you don't have to have proof that the crime was actually committed; but you have to have a step that says, for example, when we did counterterrorism investigation, something beyond "I think this guy kind of sort of looks dirty." I'll tell you, this one surprised me a little bit. It didn't shock me, but opening an obstruction of justice case when you don't even have a sitting attorney general against the president, boy, that tells me why you need senior leadership at the Department of Justice. That's a huge step, John.

BERMAN: Can I say, does it surprise you because you think McCabe was freelancing beyond the scope of his authority or surprised you because the reasons he did so or that someone could think the need was so dire that they would do it?

MUDD: I think both. I mean, the need -- you're coming on the need being dire. I mean, we're talking about a criminal case against almost a brand-new -- almost a brand-new president of the United States. I mean, how much more serious can you get?

The other thing I'd say is my experience in government is the hotter things get, the more intense things get in the city, the cooler you've got to get. Some of the impression you get around the swirl of Comey's conversations with the president and his removal by the president, the swirl around the department and the FBI, is guys, we've got to cool things off when it gets so hot, because the workforce is going to look for leadership that takes it really calm, cool and collected when things are that tough at the White House.

PHILLIP: What I think it also adds, though, is a little bit more context around why the president has been so upset about Andy McCabe, upset about the Justice Department. It is really profound, the degree to which the president was feeling almost like his own government was trying to overthrow him, especially in these early days. And I think now, just given what Phil is saying about the significance and the severity of that kind of step, you can see, if the president knew about it, you can see why he was so paranoid, frankly, about the people he was surrounded by within his own government.

Now that being said, I think one of the problems here for President Trump is we don't know all about why these individuals felt it was necessary or felt that they had a justification, perhaps, to do this.

And I think if we get more clarity as to what was really going on in those early days that caused so much alarm among the senior rankings of Justice Department, I think it will tell us a lot. It will either tell us that maybe they were justified in their concern or it will tell us maybe they were justified in their concern, or it will tell us that maybe President Trump was justified in feeling like there were people within his government who were going beyond this scope of their jobs and taking extraordinary steps to undermine his presidency.

[06:10:11] But I think it's really -- that's an extraordinary thing to learn about the president and tells us a lot about why he has been so angry for so long about his Justice Department.

HILL: Go ahead, John.

AVLON: I agree that it may shed a great deal of light about why the president was so obsessed with Andrew McCabe, if in fact, he knew about this.

But I think we need to be careful about giving credence to the deep- state conspiracy theories. Law enforcement in general and FBIs in particular is not known as a liberal bastion that seeks to undermine executive authority.

If, indeed, these actions were taken, as we're reporting, that's because there was a real concern that seemed urgent about the new president and potential obstruction. This is not nothing anyone would do lightly, or from a partisan or political basis.

And I think that's what the president -- remember, the president is trying to feed, and undermining the credibility of independent organizations like law enforcement and the judiciary and the free pass that exist to hold him to account.

That has to do with the president's own state of mind, someone who remember, he chanted "Lock her up" about his political opponents, not about the questions, I think, should actually exist about the integrity of these institutions.

BERMAN: OK. Abby, we're going to -- we want to get one more topic in here while we can, because it's a big one, and it has to do with a big change in the cabinet.

PHILLIP: A potentially big change in the cabinet. So we're hearing, of course, about Bill Parr, possibly, being appointed as attorney general.

And -- and Phil, I just want to start with you. Just curious to get your thoughts on that one, because obviously, this would not be the first go around. He is well-known in Washington.

MUDD: This one surprises me a little bit, because as you said ,you have somebody who's well-known in Washington. He's well-known for conservative views, including on the Mueller investigation, but he's not known as somebody who's been particularly close to the president.

And for a president who has suggested, especially with the acting attorney general now that he wants somebody in the seat who's going to follow his lead. This man, I don't believe, is there to do that. I think he should be viewed positively, and I would also say everybody who wants to critique his views, the president has a right to nominate a conservative, but there's a different perspective.

When this lawyer goes in and he hasn't seen any of the Mueller evidence, and Mueller lays out in front of him, I suspect he's going to step back, if he's nominated, and say, "Whoa, this is more significant than I anticipated." He hasn't seen the evidence yet.

BERMAN: I think it's really interesting, in a week where we celebrate the life of George H.W. Bush, President Trump is thinking about appointing his attorney general, nominating his attorney general, Bush's last attorney general, to be his attorney general.

Politically speaking, that might be a shrewd mood, particularly because Barr has said things that are in line with some of the things that President Trump has said, Abby.

You know, Barr defended the firing of James Comey. He criticized the Mueller team for some of the people's political donations who were on that investigatory team and also talked about saying that he thinks there's perfectly good justification to investigate the Clintons for some of the things they've done.

So he has those statements out there. I can see what the president likes about them.

PHILLIP: Yes.

BERMAN: But what Phil says, you know, there's probably something to that, too, which here's a guy who's a professional. He may not take orders if they're purely political.

PHILLIP: Yes, I think definitely, he has now a record of having said things and written things that the president would, frankly, really like about what he wants the Justice Department to do, which is investigate Hillary Clinton, perhaps, having some skepticism of the Mueller probe.

But I think Phil is right. When he -- if he does get into that job, it is always about what they actually see when they're in that role that might change their perception of what is going on.

But I will also add that you're -- you're absolutely right about the timing here. George H.W. Bush being laid to rest this week, a lot of people in the administration actually saw Bill Barr this week at the funeral. He was at the National Cathedral.

And also, I was interested to see that a Democrat, Patrick Leahy, was asked about this. He saw Bill Barr at the funeral. He thought it was a great idea for President Trump to pick him.

And I think that is probably the best sign that this administration can have, because they have to get this -- this individual through a very deeply-divided Congress, very deeply-divided Senate, and even though Republicans have more seats, I think they will want to have someone who is going to have a slightly easier path. This is going to be a very difficult confirmation process. And if Democrats are saying, "Well, I might not like everything that Bill Barr says, but I do think that he's a professional and that he's a real person that has credentials for the job. That's a good sign."

BERMAN: Last words, John?

AVLON: I just think it is a surprising pick and a solid one. It may get bipartisan support, and it's someone who's an institutionalist, however conservative he is, so kudos to the president.

BERMAN: I bet you Pat Leahy didn't know his positions on the Mueller investigation.

AVLON: I think you may be right about that.

BERMAN: When Pat Leahy came out in support of him, I bet you he didn't know. His staff probably called him shortly after, but we'll see where that goes.

All right. President Trump set to name a new ambassador to the United Nations, as well. Is Heather Nauert qualified, who's currently a State Department spokesperson and a former FOX News anchor. Is she qualified for this job? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[[06:18:41] HILL: Sources tell CNN President Trump is expected to nominate State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert as the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as early as today. This morning, some lawmakers already raising questions about her qualifications.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Our foreign policy is a mess and the president was laughed at in his last speech before the U.N., and I'm not sure anybody would advise him to correct all his mistakes is to put a "FOX & Friends" anchor as our top ambassador to the United Nations. Heather Nauert, you know, has been at the State Department. So it's not as if she has no experience, but she has no experience as a diplomat. She has no meaningful experience in the government.

And she is clearly not qualified for this job, but these days, it seems that the most important qualification, is that you show up on Donald Trump's TV screen. And if you're successful in that endeavor, then you seem to be a top candidate to get a whole bunch of top positions in the U.S. government.

HILL: So there's one take. We are back with John Avlon. Joined, as well, by "Washington Post" opinion columnist Catherine Rampell; and senior writer and analyst for CNN Politics, Harry Enten.

John Avlon, I would comfortably venture out on this limb in saying that is not the last we will hear today in terms of assessment of Heather Nauert's qualifications or lack thereof.

When it comes to international diplomacy, how big of a -- I mean, how big of a concern, legitimately, is that, if she could be facing a Senate confirmation?

[06:20:07] AVLON: Well, international diplomacy is literally the job of the U.N. ambassador.

HILL: Kind of important.

AVLON: So it's right at the top.

Look, Heather Nauert would be a great choice to be, for example, the next White House press secretary. Choosing her as U.N. ambassador makes no sense. Put it in the context of previous U.N. ambassadors. I mean, you're talking about Jean Kirkpatrick, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright, Adlai Stevenson.

These are folks, by and large, who have diplomatic and foreign policy backgrounds. Heather Nauert does not. And being a spoch (ph) for the State Department is not the same thing. And I think, given the fact we have so many open ambassadorships around the world, given the fact that the foreign policy is rocky in this administration. This does not send a sign of confidence or competence for this job. It says optics matter more than experience.

BERMAN: I think it's a lot going on here all at once. One of the things -- and full disclosure, I worked with Heather Nauert at ABC, and I think she's a really solid reporter. It's a different question about whether or not you should be the -- America's chief diplomat to the United Nations.

Catherine, the administration seems to want to diminish the role of the ambassador to the United Nations. And in a certain respect, diminish the United Nations.

CATHERINE RAMPELL, OPINION COLUMNIST, "WASHINGTON POST": Well, that's always been the case, right? That Republicans don't like the U.N. They don't want to give as much money to the U.N. They don't think think that they are a respectable organization, et cetera.

I mean, I guess in some sense, given the -- you know, the take about how little experience she has, I guess it's a good thing if her role is more diminished. U.N. ambassador is not always a cabinet position, and so maybe having someone who's less experienced, having less power, I guess, is a good thing and that's the best positive spin I can put on this.

But yes, it certainly seems like she was chosen for this job because Trump trusts her and not because she has any experience or -- or expertise in this subject.

HILL: And I think you bring up an interesting point, too. So there's also this push for this not to be a cabinet-level position anymore, which would -- which would be in keeping with past administrations past -- Republican administrations.

But it's interesting to look at it, too, in the context of, OK, so if President Trump likes how she does on television, likes what she does in her current job with the State Department as a spokesperson, is there the chance that, perhaps, this is more of -- I'm putting her here, but I'm going to have other people behind the scenes doing a little bit more of the work.

And I'm going to send her out as my messenger. I mean, politically, that is rocky, perhaps, Harry, but it may be sort of what we've been seeing in terms of a political move from this president.

HARRY ENTEN, SENIOR WRITER AND ANALYST, CNN POLITICS: Yes. But I don't really understand it as a political move insofar that the president's approval ratings on foreign policies lag well behind today's approval ratings on the economy.

And this is the type of move that, in my mind, doesn't actually -- doesn't actually say to the American public, "Hey, you've got a guy in charge that you can really trust, and I'm going to appoint the best people to positions. I've, in fact, going to appoint someone that I trust, one of these -- I'm not going to say a lackey, but someone who's in my backyard and I like very, very much, not someone who has a lot of foreign policy experience.

BERMAN: Your comment there, Harry, reminds me you're here.

ENTEN: Hi, how are you? BERMAN: And that you're an expert on congressional elections, and there is one that is still outstanding and perhaps more outstanding than it's ever been. And that's North Carolina 9. Major developments overnight, where the Democrat, Dan McCready, un-conceded in this race in the face of stink, frankly. Just a stench of fraud in this district. Tell us what's happening and what you see.

ENTEN: Yes, right. You said that he has unconceded. Not that I think that particularly matters, because at the end of the day, the state board of elections determines whether or not Mark Harris, who claimed to be the winner and a lot of networks said was the winner. Look, there is a lot of allegations of election fraud, and I believe very credible allegations. There are weird absentee ballot, sort of patterns that we're seeing.

We have people who have admitted on camera that they ballot harvest. That is that they delivered absentee ballots for other people, and that's illegal in the state.

We have people who said that, "Hey, there are people that came to my door and said, "Oh, you just need to fill out a few races. You can leave out the rest of the ballot and seal them. We'll take care of it for you," which is very suspicious.

And then it's not just in Bladen County. It's also in Robinson County where there are a lot of absentee ballots that were requested but not returned. Just a lot of funky patterns that are going on there. And the North Carolina state election board has its work cut out for them, as they try to determine whether or not there was, in fact, fraud.

One other thing: there is, of course, a shady character behind all of this in McCrae Dowless, who has a history of doing this type of thing going all the way back to the primary in 2016 and well before that, as well.

AVLON: yeYes, that seems to be his specialty. That's what he seems to be hired for. And it's one consultancy that supported the Harris campaign.

But the problem isn't only the sort of general.

It's -- this may have tainted the primary, as well.

HILL: Yes, and the Republican Party knew about it.

AVLON: That's right. So where do you begin? Do you redo the primary, too, or just the general? This is chaos. And it seems to be that they knew about it. This guy was a problem actor, and if you look at the ballot, this is absolutely absentee ballot fraud. That's just what the numbers show.

So what's the recourse, because it does not seem that there was a free and fair election in North Carolina?

[06:25:05] RAMPELL: I think the Republican Party should be calling at least for a redo of the general, maybe the primary, as well. I mean, there's no way that Harris takes office without his -- his win being tainted.

The right thing to do, if we are, in fact, a democracy, which allegedly we still are --

AVLON: We are.

RAMPELL: -- is to say, "We're going to have a race. We're going to count the ballots, and the person who actually won the most votes gets to hold this office."

Apparently, this is controversial now.

BERMAN: What happens if there is a new vote?

ENTEN: Well, I mean, if there is a new vote, we know that turnout on special elections generally tends to be lower than it is for, say, a general election as we just had in November.

But the fact is, a lot of people that had their either, you know, votes messed with were African-Americans. And to me, that could point to a very large African-American turnout in this special election. A lot of upset of African-Americans who would vote very strongly Democratic if there were, in fact, dispatches.

HILL: We also -- I mean, as you pointed out and as we're talking about here, too, in a lot of cases in that primary had to deal with absentee ballots, mail-in ballots. So how does that work? If we're doing the election all over again, let's say this is what we do, how is that taken into account?

ENTEN: I mean, look, there will be much more rigorous looking over of these absentee ballots. And you know, I should just go back to the point that John made, and that is Dowless's candidate in a 2016 Republican primary won, like, 96 percent of the absentee by mail vote.

This time around with Mark Harris, who is -- was backing, like 98 percent of the absentee by mail vote. These are ridiculous patterns.

And I am not somebody who generally likes to scream fraud. I'm very, very cautious with this. I'm the type of guy who believes that JFK was killed by one man and one man alone. But the fact is, if you look at the numbers and you put all the evidence together, it's very clear that something very fishy went on. And I believe the case for election fraud is very, very strong.

BERMAN: Talking about almost impossible math there. Look, I think at this point, there is momentum to something happening there. This is not over.

But there is a race that is over, finally. We're talking about California 21, where another Republican member of Congress lost overnight. David Valadao conceded the race to T.J. Cox. Now, full disclosure, CNN and every other media organization declared Valadao the winner on election night, but as more votes came in, as is the law in California, it flipped. I mean, this was a wipeout, Catherine, just a wipeout for Republicans

in California and a 40-seat gain for Democrats nationally, which is big.

RAMPELL: Yes, there was a question about whether there was going to be a blue wave. I think we have answered that question, particularly in California. It was just a bloodbath there for -- for incumbent Republicans. And it doesn't make, you know, a Republican hold over future policy look particularly, you know, auspicious at this point.

AVLON: The Republican -- the California Republican tradition has been ripped out by its roots. There's functionally not a Republican Party in California right now. It wasn't just Orange County and demographic changes. This is inland. And this is -- this is stark. The 40-seat, also the highest turnout in 100 years for a mid-term, this is a big election.

RAMPELL: And that is nationwide.

AVLON: That's right.

RAMPELL: Nice turnout.

AVLON: And yes, Mr. President, Republicans gained a seat or two in the Senate.

ENTEN: All right. I would just add, look, the House popular vote is up to an 8.6 percentage point margin for Democrats. That's higher than the Democrats won in 2006. It's higher than the Republicans won in 2010 or 2014 or 1994, with high turnout. It was Donald Trump that drove this, and Democrats rode Donald Trump to a House majority.

BERMAN: Catherine, Harry, John, thank you all very much.

I have something for you. A winter storm that could wreak havoc for a large part of the country.

HILL: Thanks, John.

ENTEN: Something else.

BERMAN: We'll have the -- the non-Harry Enten forecast next.

HILL: Also ahead, an uproar over Kevin Hart's tweets and statements in the past, leading him to step down as host of the Oscars. It's the story that has Hollywood and, frankly, a lot of folks beyond Hollywood buzzing today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)