Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Congress Seeks Interviews With Cohen And Other Mueller Witnesses; CNN Reality Check: Competing Wine Health Studies Cause Confusion; The Untold Story Of The Titanic's Discovery; Trump's Legal Peril Grows As Prosecutors Flip Tabloid Publisher. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired December 13, 2018 - 07:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:31:49] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN has learned that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees want Michael Cohen to come back to testify before Congress before he goes to prison, and he's not the only person who has spoken with Mueller's investigators who could be called back to speak to lawmakers.

This all comes as federal prosecutors -- they struck a surprising immunity deal with the publisher of the "National Inquirer" over hush money payments to silence accusers of Donald Trump before the 2106 election.

I want to bring in Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell. He is a member of both the House Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for being with us.

Michael Cohen, yesterday --

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA), MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Good morning, John.

BERMAN: -- thank you -- was sentenced to three years in prison. It was nine counts -- nine felony counts. None of them, though, to be clear -- and they included financial crimes and they included campaign finance violations -- by my reading, none of them had any connection to Russian collusion, did they?

SWALWELL: They did, and one of them was for lying about questions surrounding Russia collusion. And if you lie and you keep prosecutors from being able to find out the truth, you can't then say oh well, you didn't find anything Russian collusion. I mean, you only lie because you have a consciousness of guilt.

And I think we learned a lot more and the Mueller team knows a lot more now about what the president knew at the time about Russia's intent on the business side and political side to help him.

BERMAN: So, if you get Michael Cohen back -- which Michael Cohen says he will. Michael Cohen says he will cooperate and you will soon be in the majority, so the House Intelligence Committee can certainly do it now -- what will you ask him?

SWALWELL: Well, I expect we've seen -- and I wasn't alive in June 1973 but I know the history of John Dean coming before Congress.

BERMAN: Yes.

SWALWELL: He was described as the person who knew during Watergate where everyone and everything went.

And I think Michael Cohen, as someone who lived in Trump's three worlds -- personal, political, and financial -- he knows where all the bodies are buried.

And so, I think a come-clean moment for the American people to understand what candidate Trump knew about Russia's intentions to do business with him during the primary and the general election, what candidate Trump knew about Russia's offers to help him with the dirt that they were offering and whether the candidate knew about it. And then also, whether the candidate was instructing Michael Cohen to lie and cover up about what they were doing at the time.

I think that would all be instructive for the American people.

BERMAN: Do you have any proof at this point that Michael Cohen was instructed to lie?

SWALWELL: No, but --

BERMAN: OK.

SWALWELL: -- we have -- we have heard from his attorney that there's much more to tell and he wants to tell it once the Mueller investigation is over.

BERMAN: By the way, I do want to note that you said you weren't born in 1973. I took that as a comment that I am old, so you will now be treated as a hostile witness.

Congressman Swalwell, Adam Schiff, who will be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee -- he thinks now or he's raised the possibility that we all need to reassess whether a sitting president can be indicted. This is DOJ guidelines suggesting that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

You're a lawyer. Do you think that that is something that should be reexamined?

SWALWELL: Well, I believe that a president can be indicted, constitutionally. Now, what the DOJ does, that's their own guidelines, but I don't think DOJ guidelines should allow a president to run out the clock by being reelected. And right now, as I understand the statute of limitations, if Donald Trump is reelected he will escape indictment.

[07:35:02] So I think Congress could pass laws that say any person if they're not being indicted because of a DOJ policy -- that you could pause the statute of limitations.

But, John, I think the larger issue here is you may have a president who may not only be compromised by the Russians and Saudis financially, but he may be acting erratically because he has possible criminal exposure waiting for him when he gets out of office. And I don't think you want any president in that position.

BERMAN: So you, again, are part of the incoming majority. Where do you put these investigations? Where would you rank them in terms of your priorities, starting January second?

SWALWELL: Well, my priorities are to collaborate on infrastructure, the Dream Act, reducing gun violence, and reducing the cost of prescription drugs. We have an oversight responsibility and I think a shining light where there are offenses and abuses, we now can put a balance of power on that.

So, John, that means filling in the gaps with what we know about Russia -- not because we're prosecutors but because there's a 2020 presidential election coming and Russia is still intent, as Gen. Mattis said last week, on undermining our democracy.

Also, getting the president's tax returns, not because we're curious or for any palace intrigue, but because we want to know if his financial interests are driving policies abroad and at home that affect the American people. So we should only do things if the president's actions are affecting people and their everyday lives, not just to get a pound of flesh. I don't think you're going to see that.

BERMAN: You brought up 2020. You have said that you are considering a run for the Democratic nomination. You told Kasie Hunt you do see a path. What path for you, Congressman?

SWALWELL: Well, I'll be -- I'll be in New Hampshire on Friday, John. You should come with me and you'll see, I think, the same path, which is that Americans want to go big, do good, and be free. And I think the only way to do that is to embrace new ideas, new energy, and new leaderships, just as we did by electing 27 new members of Congress in their 40s and under in this last election.

And so --

BERMAN: New ideas -- new ideas and new leadership. I -- there are those who will point out it's ironic that you're talking about new ideas and new leadership given that Nancy Pelosi, just yesterday, basically secured her position to be the next Speaker of the House and the House Democratic leadership will be Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn.

Is that new ideas and new leadership?

SWALWELL: Well, I think if you listen to the statement that she put out yesterday she said that she sees her speakership as a bridge to the next generation of leadership, and I think that bridge will be completed when we elect a new president in 2020.

And my prediction, John, whoever Democrats nominate -- whoever beats Donald Trump is going to be a page forward for us and not a page backward. BERMAN: I want to read you something that Cher said about you. Cher says, who is a Democrat and supported Hillary Clinton in the last election, "I would love to see Biden being nominated with someone young -- Kamala Harris or -- I can't remember what Swalwell's first name is."

SWALWELL: We don't need her to remember the first name. She got the last name, John. That's the hard part.

BERMAN: All right. Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you for being with us. Appreciate your time this morning.

SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks, John.

BERMAN: Erica --

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Scandal on campus. We'll look at why an Ivy League university has fired three professors. That's next.

BERMAN: Plus, new revelations about the Titanic. The Cold War secret beyond the shipwreck's discovery, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:42:07] HILL: Republican Sen. James Inhofe purchased tens of thousands of dollars of stock in a defense contractor after pushing the Trump administration for more military spending. Inhofe is chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee. His financial disclosure report lists a purchase of between $50,000 and $100,000 in Raytheon stock.

President Trump recently agreed to a Defense budget of $750 billion for 2019 after a meeting with Inhofe and others.

Inhofe's communications director claims the senator's financial transactions are handled by a third-party adviser and that he had no involvement, claiming the senator told his financial adviser to reverse that transaction once he became aware of it.

BERMAN: Dartmouth College says it has fired three professors named in a federal sexual harassment lawsuit. Seven women who are suing Dartmouth's trustees for $70 million in damages say the professors turned the school's Department of Psychology and Brain Sciences into a 21st century Animal House with female students subjected to rape and sexual harassment.

Dartmouth says it took careful and rigorous actions when students came to them with complaints and will implement a sweeping plan to fight sexual harassment when students and staff return in January.

HILL: Regulators in California want to tax text messages. The California Public Utilities Commission is proposing a new surcharge which would help make connectivity accessible to low-income residents. So the idea here is it would make up for lost revenue that the state used to receive from a tax on voice calls. The exact charge, we're told, would vary based on the carriers. The Commission is set to vote on that measure January 10th, although I believe it's a flat fee. It's not per text message because I would be bankrupt.

BERMAN: Look, it's like the worst headline you could ever have.

HILL: Yes, it is.

BERMAN: Taxing text messages is like taking air for people right now. We're going to charge you every time you breathe.

HILL: Good luck with that.

BERMAN: Yes.

So, you've probably heard red wine is good for you. That's what I've chosen to believe.

HILL: I'm with you.

BERMAN: You've probably also heard it's bad for you.

HILL: Not listening.

BERMAN: I've chosen not to believe that.

John Avlon cuts through the confusion in our reality check -- sir.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right.

So look, it's holiday party season and it's a safe bet they'll be some wine involved. In vino veritas, they say, but what's the veritas about wine, actually, because one day it will kill you, the next it will save your life, according to studies.

The studies will give you whiplash if you look at them together or as comedian Ellen DeGeneres put it --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELLEN DEGENERES, HOST, NBC "THE ELLEN DEGENERES SHOW": A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: But wine lovers, take heart because a brand new study from the American Medical Association says the so-called Mediterranean Diet -- skip red meat for fish, butter for olive oil -- along with the occasional glass of red wine will cut your risk for a whole bunch of nasty things, particularly heart disease and stroke.

And this was a big study tracking 26,000 women on the Mediterranean Diet for 12 years. In the end, they determined the diet, including moderate amounts of red wine, cut women's heart disease risk by as much as 25 percent. So that's the good news. But, back in the it'll kill you camp, in August, the medical journal "Lancet" said that no amount of alcohol is good for you -- not even a little bit. Defining that little is, as you guessed it, our humble 4- ounce glass of wine.

[07:45:11] It found that in 2016, alcohol accounted for nearly three million deaths contributing to everything from alcohol-related cancers -- which I did not even know were a thing -- to tuberculosis, to violence, traffic accidents -- even drowning and fires. It's enough to make you swear off the booze forever.

But hold on because back in April there was another study in the very same journal that says modern alcohol consumption actually cuts the risk of a heart attack. That study's a bit schizophrenic, however, because it also says that each glass over the weekly recommended five could cut one half-hour off your life.

Before you imagine your bartender is the Grim Reaper, just a year before, another study found that a glass of red wine a day for women and two for men cut the risk of heart attack by as much as 30 percent. And yet another study found a moderate amount of alcohol lowered the risk of type two diabetes by as much as 40 percent.

That's five studies in a little more than a year that don't agree with each other. One barely even agrees with itself.

So when it comes to wine, what's actually good? Well, we don't definitively know, at least in a one-size-fits-all way. Everybody's different.

Doctors say if you've abstained so far, keep it that way. There's no need to start drinking now unless possibly, you've been indicted. However, if you're a vino lover, try to stick to just one glass of red wine with dinner.

You can be inspired by the surprising news that even Keith Richards has potentially given up drinking after a lifetime of legendary excess, instead indulging in just an occasional glass of wine. And while I'd never counsel anyone to follow the Rolling Stone guitarist's plan for lifelong health, it seems that even Keith Richards has belatedly discovered this bit of classical wisdom -- all things in moderation.

And that's your reality check.

BERMAN: I mean, that seems to be sort of the borig (ph) --

AVLON: Sorry.

BERMAN: -- answer to the end here to what was, I think, a fascinating --

HILL: Yes.

BERMAN: -- and very exciting argument you're making there. But it's basically you can drink, just don't drink too much. AVLON: Yes. But look, but I -- but I got to admit it's Keith Richard's chaser. It's Keith Richard's endorsed moderation, John Berman.

HILL: Wait, wait, wait. So this whole ploy for your reality check was just because you wanted to talk about Keith Richards? Am I following that?

AVLON: Well, that's a -- I mean, that's a longer story -- you know, "Exile on Main Street."

No, it really is -- it's the holiday season. All these studies are just damn confusing. We thought we'd try to get to the bottom of it and least --

HILL: Yes.

AVLON: -- slice and dice them for you.

HILL: No, I like it and I was a little worried that we weren't going to be friends afterwards John because I didn't know what you were going to come up with at the end. But the fact that we can still have wine together --

AVLON: We can.

HILL: I mean --

AVLON: Throw on some Stones, break out a bottle of red wine.

HILL: Next round's on me.

AVLON: There you go.

BERMAN: It turns out "Ruby Tuesday" is actually about drinking red wine in moderation?

AVLON: True story.

BERMAN: All right, John Avlon -- "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" -- I appreciate it.

That's your reality check.

HILL: I don't know that I can follow that.

BERMAN: I don't have any other --

HILL: I got -- I got nothing else.

But we do have this. A Russia connection in the mission to find the Titanic. The legendary explorer who found the ship is now allowed to talk about it. He'll tell us more, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [07:52:08] HILL: In 1985, oceanographer and Naval Reserve commanding officer Robert Ballard stunned the world when he found the Titanic. The real story, though, behind that mission remained a highly- classified U.S. government Cold War secret for decades. The good news for all of us this morning, it is a secret no more.

So joining us to tell the whole story is Robert Ballard. It's great to have you here.

ROBERT BALLARD, MEMBER OF TEAM THAT DISCOVERED TITANIC SHIPWRECK, American OCEANOGRAPHER AND MARINE GEOLOGIST, FORMER U.S. NAVY OFFICER: It's nice to be here.

HILL: This is fascinating. So the headlines were great at the time. We find the Titanic, this is amazing. That was all, though, sort of a ruse.

I mean, you wanted to search for the Titanic but you couldn't get funding. And so, you go to the Navy and you say hey, let's find the Titanic. And they say they have a better idea -- they wanted you to find two nuclear subs from the 60s.

BALLARD: Well actually, we knew where the subs were. What they wanted me to do was to go back and not have the Russians follow me because we were interested in the nuclear weapons that were on the Scorpion and also, what was the nuclear reactors doing to the environment.

So they did not want the world to know that and so I had to have a cover story.

HILL: And so this threw them off because it's great -- the Titanic -- but that's not really what we want.

BALLARD: Well, and I had press aboard --

HILL: Yes.

BALLARD: -- that were totally oblivious to what I was doing at the time. I had all sorts of other people on the ship that were not in the room when I was down at the Scorpion.

HILL: Which is amazing. So you found the Scorpion. You find the submarines and then you only have 12 days left to find the Titanic.

BALLARD: Yes. I had embedded in my team naval intelligence officers and one who had reported directly to my boss, Admiral Ron Thunman -- Vice Admiral Ron Thunman, who said do my job first and then this officer next to you will say when you're done. And when I -- he said I was done I had very little time left. But I'd learned a lot from mapping the Thresher and Scorpion that told me how to find the Titanic.

HILL: So were you confident, though, that that was enough time?

BALLARD: No. HILL: And yet, you beat the odds.

BALLARD: Yes, we were down to the very -- we have the exhibit now at National Geographic --

HILL: Yes.

BALLARD: -- that tells that -- not only the story.

But then I had to go back a second time and that as the real scary time because now were they going to follow me because we had to go back --

HILL: Yes.

BALLARD: -- to not only the Titanic but to then go inside the Scorpion.

HILL: Right. And so, were you followed?

BALLARD: We did our job.

HILL: You did your job?

BALLARD: Yes.

HILL: You can talk about this now.

BALLARD: Some of it, yes.

HILL: Some of it -- why, because you've done a number of other missions -- what, some 30-odd? You can't talk about any of those?

BALLARD: Well, I can talk about finding the Bismarck, I can talk about a lot of other things. But I can't --

HILL: Not the details.

BALLARD: I cannot talk about my other Navy missions, no. They are yet to be declassified.

HILL: But, so why has this one been declassified?

BALLARD: Ask the Navy --

HILL: Ask them.

BALLARD: -- because they didn't tell me. And when the phone started ringing, National Geographic called and said Bob, you didn't tell us this.

So that's why we're doing the exhibit because they've -- we're fessing up.

HILL: So you're fessing up now. I found it really interesting -- your reaction to finding the Titanic because you wanted to find this and that's a moment of elation. This is what you've been searching for. But your mood quickly changed.

[07:55:03] BALLARD: Yes. When we found the Titanic we naturally were very excited because it was -- it was a tough job. We got at the -- scoring the winning goal at the buzzer. But then someone looked up at the clock and said she sinks in 20 minutes because it was -- it was 2:00 in the morning. She sank at 2:20 -- and we felt embarrassed.

And it was like a wall switch that we just were hit by it, you know. I was not emotionally attached to the Titanic until I found it and it spoke, and it's very powerful. And then we made a promise that we would never, ever take anything from the site, which we never did.

HILL: Which you haven't.

How do you feel about the fact that things have been taken and there is still such interest here?

BALLARD: Well, there's presently in court on where these artifacts that were taken by the salvagers. We're hoping they go home, back to the U.K. where they belong. But the judge will decide that in Norfolk in the next few days, actually, so stay tuned.

HILL: We will stay tuned for that.

When you think back on everything that happened for you when you were able to find these -- well, to get to these submarines, as you point -- knew where they were -- and all the other stuff that you can't talk to us about. But someday, we're waiting for the phone to ring and you'll call us and let us know.

It's interesting, too, as we're watching this -- as all of this is playing out when we're at a distinctly different time than we were even just a few years ago when it comes to U.S. relations with Russia --

BALLARD: Correct.

HILL: -- and it's sort of remarkable to learn about some of these things as we're watching all that play out.

How much of that goes through your mind?

BALLARD: Well, in the Cold War we were busy and the fact that casualties were some of our submarines, particularly the Thresher. So, yes, it's a Cold War that has now started again.

HILL: Yes.

BALLARD: And I thought it was over, but we're back.

HILL: Do you think that will keep us from being able to talk to you about some of your work?

BALLARD: Probably.

HILL: Yes.

What would you like to see -- what would you like to be written about the Titanic because people are still so fascinated by it?

BALLARD: Well, you know, it was amazing how to this day people's fascination -- it just -- it was -- touches everyone's button. I mean, whether you're -- it's the Edwardian era.

HILL: Yes.

BALLARD: The stars at the time were the wealthy -- the Astors, the Strauses that were on the Titanic. It was the largest moving object of the time in the world. It was so straight out of Hollywood.

I mean, just -- Jim Cameron, who is a good friend, obviously -- he was the first one to come into my office after I found the Titanic and he says I want to do a movie about this.

And so the point is that it just affects everybody. Every generation, as we're doing right now with our exhibit at National Geographic, rediscovers the Titanic. It's such an amazing story where there were villains and there were heroes and all of the above, and it will never, ever go away.

HILL: It is fascinating and your part of this story has just renewed my own fascination, as well.

Great to have you with us. Thank you.

BALLARD: Good to be here.

HILL: We look forward to learning more about those secret missions.

Just ahead, a surprise deal between prosecutors and a tabloid publisher. It spells more legal peril for the president. Let's get to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I would be extremely nervous. People around the president are going to prison.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a snake who betrayed the president, who secretly recorded his own client.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: AMI would purchase the story and front the money, but would be reimbursed.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: Allen Weisselberg is now cooperating. Nobody knows where the money has gone better than he does.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: The Justice Department needs to reexamine that you cannot indict a sitting president. JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Behind the scenes,

he's seething about this and referring to Michael Cohen as a liar.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am hopeful that Michael Cohen will have that moment to tell the American people what he knows about Donald Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

BERMAN: Good morning and welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Thursday, December 13th, 8:00 in the east.

Alisyn is off. Erica Hill joins me. It's like halfway through December already.

HILL: How did that happen?

BERMAN: I don't know. Not much is happening.

HILL: It's been kind of quiet.

BERMAN: Yes, not at all.

This morning, President Trump -- he's in legal jeopardy. That is what many of our analysts say and you will hear them say it this hour.

In just the last 24 hours, the president's situation has changed, perhaps considerably, and it's all thanks to the "National Enquirer." Federal prosecutors say that AMI, the publisher of the "Enquirer," has flipped on the president. In a non-prosecution deal, the tabloid admitted to making a $150,000 payment to silence a Playboy Playmate's claim of an affair with Donald Trump.

The legal language in the documents is clear. They say AMI made this payment "in cooperation, consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion of one or more members or agents of a candidate's 2016 presidential campaign" -- the Trump campaign -- "to ensure that a woman did not publicize damaging allegations about that candidate before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence the election."

They did it to influence the election. Who knows what else the company has already or will soon tell prosecutors?

This all comes after the --