Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump Orders U.S. Withdrawal from Syria; Trump A.G. Pick Criticized Mueller Probe in Memo. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired December 20, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have won against ISIS. Now it's time for our troops to come back home.

[05:59:32] SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: To say they are defeated is an overstatement and is fake news.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't like spending America than a penny than we have to in the Middle East.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, we're going to back you up if you veto this Bill.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: Shutting down the government over Christmas is a terrible idea.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: I'm sick of the games. Most importantly, the American people are sick of the games.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Thursday, December 20, 6 a.m. here in New York. John Berman is off enjoying his life, and John Avlon has pulled the short straw. And you're here with me.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST/ANCHOR: Also enjoying my life with you this morning.

CAMEROTA: So glad to have you. We have a very big show, because there is growing bipartisan outrage over President Trump's abrupt decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria.

The president claims that ISIS is defeated, but experts beg to differ. And they fear that he will create a power vacuum. Five senators sending a letter to the president asking him to reconsider.

One of those senators is his staunch ally, Lindsey Graham, who called the decision, quote, "a disaster and a stain on the honor of the United States." A senior administration official tells CNN's Jake Tapper that the president's decision is, quote, "a mistake of colossal proportions," and the president fails to see how it will endanger our country, end quote.

And the unilateral approach is already rippling through the region. Diplomatic sources from two countries say they were not consulted or informed and have described the news of a planned withdrawal as a total surprise.

AVLON: Don't forget: it was Trump who took Obama to task for telegraphing military moves, even calling Obama the, quote, "founder of ISIS" for pulling troops out of Iraq and creating the space for ISIS to come to power.

Meantime, the Senate passed a stop-gap funding Bill to avoid a partial government shutdown. If passed by the House and signed by the president, it will keep the lights on and the government humming through the holidays, until February 8. Democrats ensured the measure does not include a dime for the president's border wall.

So as they regain the House, have Democrats essentially prevented Trump's signature campaign issue, the wall, from ever taking shape.

CAMEROTA: All right. Joining us now if our impressive panel. We have CNN law enforcement analyst Josh Campbell, former FBI agent who was embedded with military special operations NCIA teams abroad; a former top advisor to the National Security advisor, Sam Vinograd; former White House press secretary for President Clinton, Joe Lockhart; and Matt Gorman, former spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. It's great to have all of you here this morning.

Sam Vinograd, you were in the National Security Council when President Obama made the decision to pull troops out of Iraq, and you this morning feel like you've seen this movie before; and it doesn't end well.

SAM VINOGRAD, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Alisyn, when I was at the White House, history and intelligence books, both classified and presidential, used to make their way into the Oval Office. And the intelligence and the history on ISIS is clear.

ISIS did not exist in 2011 when we withdrew from Iraq. Its predecessor did. But ISIS was able to vastly gross in numbers -- grow in numbers to take the city of Fallujah and to strike U.S. assets and interests around the world, because the United States withdrew; and the Iraqi security forces could not keep combating it.

So when we look at Syria today, if U.S. forces withdraw and the local forces don't have the capacity to fight an ISIS resurgence, we're just repeating the same lessons that we should have learned all over again.

AVLON: It's fascinating stuff. And there was chaos in the halls of Congress and, apparently, the Pentagon. This was diplomacy by tweet or withdrawal by tweet.

Matt, you know, you had a campaign in for the NRCC in the course. You said the Republican agenda was cut taxes, kill terrorists and confirm judges. Good line.

MATT GORMAN, FORMER SPOKESMAN, NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE: Yes.

AVLON: Do you think that President Trump knows more about killing judges -- killing terrorists than -- than the generals?

GORMAN: Well, certainly, I think some of these senators might disagree, especially ones like you mentioned, Lindsey Graham, who's been a staunch ally, Bob Corker, Marco Rubio and others. I think they objected, also, to the fact, as you said, finding out via tweet. And not through consultations to the White House.

Look, I think this is something where they view it as not only destabilizing Israel in the region but enabling Russia, Iran, and a couple of other countries that we really don't have great relations with.

AVLON: So is that a mistake?

GORMAN: We'll see. I think -- you know, again, I think anytime you're not involving Congress, especially ones that are supposed to be your allies on your side, I think it's something that, you know, you probably made a mistake, yes.

CAMEROTA: Let's hear from Senator Lindsey Graham, how strongly he felt about this yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: They did the honorable thing to come to our aid to help destroy the common enemy of mankind, ISIS. We have been dishonorable. This is a stain on the honor of the United States. I hope and pray the president will reconsider this.

To those who say we have defeated ISIS in Syria, that is an inaccurate statement. They have been hurt. They have been degraded. And I give the president all the credit in the world for changing our policies regarding the fight against ISIS, but I will not buy into the narrative that they have been defeated.

To say they're defeated is an overstatement, and it's fake news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: No, Senator. No, it's not fake news. The president's not a newscaster. If you don't like what the president's decision is, just tell him that. Just say that.

[06:05:07] I mean, sorry. Not everything can be the media's fault today. This is -- that was Lindsey Graham, I guess, Joe, getting as close as he can to telling the president that he's making a big mistake.

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. This was a mistake on multiple levels. First on the basic blocking attack way of running the government. You have to consult with Congress; you have to consult with our allies. There is a process. There is a process for a reason.

It's a mistake on timing. This is a huge gift for Russia. Vladimir Putin has his annual press conference today. He will stand there and crow at America's expense.

CAMEROTA: He will love this idea.

LOCKHART: He will love this idea. And -- and he -- and it feeds into this idea that somehow Trump is doing Putin's bidding.

AVLON: Let's play that sound from Putin, because we got it from the presser this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): President Trump announced that he will be withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria. As far as ISIS is concerned, I agree more or less with the president of the U.S. We -- and I have spoken about this before, have really achieved substantial changes with regard to the militants in Syria and have beaten the forces in Syria. As far as the neighboring regions are involved, and Afghanistan, in other countries moreover.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LOCKHART: And I think it's -- Sam has talked about what a big foreign policy mistake this is. It's a mistake of temperament from Trump. He has done this on a whim. He's done this because he doesn't like how the news is covering him right now.

So he's putting our national security at risk, pulling out of fighting ISIS, because he feels the news cycle is not working for him. That is -- that's an unpardonable mistake.

AVLON: Well, but you know, his -- he might see it as bringing home troops home for Christmas. I think the problem is the way this was done, right? There are no normal channels, no.

And Josh, once again, we see the president there seemingly on the same page as Vladimir Putin and not his own generals. You've spent time in Iraq. You've dealt with ISIS.

Do you share the senator's concerns that this is going to create a new vacuum that will exacerbate and embolden ISIS?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: So first, I wasn't in Iraq. I served overseas in various places, fighting foreign fighters. But I think the most important thing is here, when I was in the FBI, we were briefing senior military officials, FBI or CIA officials. You always started with the bottom line up front.

The bottom line up front is ISIS has not been defeated. So again, I repeat. ISIS has not been defeated. The American people cannot be manipulated into believing that we've stumbled into some great success.

I think what happened, and to Joe's point, is that I've long been convinced that there's some binder on a shelf in the White House with all the things that they can pull out to distract any time the news isn't good. And I think they were flipping through and said, "Well, let's say that we defeated ISIS." It's not true.

I think the president doesn't understand the world. I don't want to be overly critical, because I long for the day I can come in here and celebrate a national security success. All right. We want the country to succeed; we want it to be safe.

But I think what we're seeing here is politics at play. I've sat across from extremists. I've sat across from sympathizers.

ISIS is not territory. ISIS is an ideology. ISIS is an idea. And so to go out and declare victory and do it in this kind of ham-handed way where you're doing foreign policy via tweet, you're doing a -- you know, a video in the Rose Garden where you're not being asked questions, it's a publicity stunt; it's a campaign.

I think at the end of the day it's going to make us less safe. Because you look at how our allies are responding. They're not very happy. Had the British foreign office coming out, you know, in a very diplomatic way, but saying that this is not true.

CAMEROTA: But I mean, on the flip side, if you believe as the president does and so many people who voted for him, that we can't be the world's police officers forever, what's the alternative? To stay in Syria, to have troops in Syria forever.

VINOGRAD: We are not the world's police officer when it comes to Syria. We're part of a, I think, 73-nation coalition that's fighting ISIS in Syria. We're not going it alone there. We are doing a small part of the mission on the ground and supporting the other military functions that the other coalition members are doing.

But look, the president's prerogatives to make a decision, even if he disagrees with his generals. I saw President Obama do this on issues like Syria. And the president could decide to withdraw troops from Syria because he just feels like doing so.

The problem is that the way this decision came out makes us look even weaker abroad. We look so disorganized as a government, and it looks like the president is so responsive to the media leak about a decision that he makes foreign policy by tweet.

Our government looks disorganized, and we have Vladimir Putin giving an annual press conference today, celebrating our decision because he is now administrator in chief in Syria. He is working with our allies on the future of Syria while we no longer have real skin in the game, and we're out of his hair.

[06:10:00] CAMPBELL: And I would just say that not only do we look disorganized, but we are disorganized. If you look at -- I read this backgrounder briefing that the White House did with the press yesterday, and talk about a rollout without a plan or a strategy.

You actually had reporters, and you can sense their frustration, you know, going through this call, where they're asking the White House questions. And they're saying, "Well, we would refer you to the Pentagon."

And at one point, a reporter said, "The Pentagon is referring us to you."

And so it's this back and forth and I mean --

VINOGRAD: Which is not how it usually happens.

CAMPBELL: No, that's not how it happens. So we are disorganized.

AVLON: That's a canary in the coal mine of chaos, to be honest. But Matt, there's also a contradictory element here, because during the campaign, President Trump criticized President Obama pretty intensely for the vacuum created by the withdrawal for Iraq. I think we've got sound on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: See the way the ISIS was created in the vacuum left by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama out of Iraq. Obama took us out with Hillary Clinton to create this incredible vacuum. ISIS was formed.

She created ISIS, really; came out of the vacuum. She and Obama created it through the vacuum. Take a look at Iraq. She gave us ISIS because her and Obama created this huge vacuum. And a small group came out of that huge vacuum, because we have never been in Iraq, but once we were there we should have never got out the way they wanted to get out.

AVLON: Doesn't this, Matt, just create a new vacuum?

GORMAN: Well, I think Republicans, that's why they're so critical, is that they're using -- they view it as using political timelines to dictate military strategy. That was always the one thing when we talk about the NRCC or other places. We usually hang our hat on the fact that people approved of what we were doing to defeat ISIS, defeat terrorism overseas. And I think what we're seeing here is Republicans kind of being critical, because they view what happened during the Obama years happening now.

CAMEROTA: And so Matt, I mean, what about Joe's point, that President Trump did this seemingly so abruptly, catching the Pentagon unawares, that it was to change the news cycle?

GORMAN: Well, I think, certainly, as you mentioned before, having troops come home for Christmas is always a nice visual. And that was a nice news story to have.

CAMEROTA: Why didn't he alert the Pentagon, if that was his thinking?

GORMAN: But whether or not it's done in the right way, consulting Congress, consulting the allies, that group remains to be seen. I think that is why a lot of the reason the Republican senators have a problem with this right now.

AVLON: We've also got shutdown politics happening overnight. And we're hearing, you know, Senator Cornyn seems very confident, that this is all going to go the president's way and the Congress's way. The president will sign it.

Joe, do we have any evidence at this point that the -- that the president is actually going to follow through on this? Does he have any other options?

LOCKHART: Yes, I think it's likely he will sign it. But there's a wildcard here, which is Trump. And he's always a wildcard. And I think, you know, if you look at the political problems that Syria and the shutdown present, Syria has gotten a lot of attention but don't forget the shutdown.

The base hates the fact that there's -- he's caved on no border wall. You had Ann Coulter calling him gutless yesterday. You had Mark Meadows, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, saying, "Our base is enraged. We won't put up with it."

Trump is very susceptible to whatever the last thing he heard is. So I don't think it's out of the question that he'll sign it. What this -- there's two things that this whole fight demonstrates, though. That he has lost leverage with Congress. He is not able, like he was in his first year, to go in and lean on them. They were paying no attention to him over -- over the last time.

The second is, we are beginning for the first time to see some cracks in Republican support. Over in the Senate, it's over Syria. They're outraged. My guess is they'll calm down.

Over in the House, though, I'm not so sure. But this border wall was a huge deal for them. They spent years talking about it, and then to have Trump walk away from it, it may be the beginning of this crux, and if if that is the case -- I'm not saying that it will be -- but it is the case, it is an entirely different dynamic which is way, way bigger than the Democrats taking over the House.

CAMEROTA: Because we know that the president is susceptible to whatever the last person in the room has told him, I am closely monitoring "FOX and Friends" this morning. And I have it here on my TV that I keep down here, because for real -- I'm not joking.

If -- if FOX says, "Don't sign that C.R." --

LOCKHART: Exactly.

CAMEROTA: -- if FOX says, "Bad idea, you're going to lose the base," I think that he might be convinced not to sign it.

LOCKHART: And that goes to the problem that we have with our government right now. Just how the founders intended it. And that goes to the problem with our government right now, we don't

know that. We don't -- the world didn't know, as of this time yesterday, that we were pulling out of Syria. The government doesn't know at this time this morning whether it's going to be open tomorrow.

CAMPBELL: I mean, these are human beings we're talking about, as well, so we're talking about policy. We're talking about strategy and funding.

But, you know, the dichotomy here, where we're talking about the military and bringing them home from Christmas, which by the way, isn't going to happen before Christmas. It's five days from now, but we're not going to redeploy these forces, as a talking point.

But think about the government employees. And I know that, you know there aren't many -- I would say among knowing a lot of Republicans, they don't sit at home and think, "OK, I wonder what the bureaucrats are thinking today?" These are people going into the holidays that don't know if they're going to be able to go to work the next day.

VINOGRAD: Or get paid.

CAMPBELL: And so we have to -- we can't lose sight of this isn't just money we're talking about; it's about human beings.

[06:15:13] CAMEROTA: Matt, you talk to folks in the White House. Is there going to be a shutdown or not?

GORMAN: Well, I think we're far from out of the woods yet. I mean, obviously, the Senate approved it. The House is still a wildcard, as you said before.

You know, the Freedom Caucus was getting up there last night, telling President Trump, {"Don't cave on the border wall."

CAMEROTA: And he is susceptible to those things. He could apply for it.

GORMAN: And again, I think the most powerful person right now is whoever is controlling the remote control at the White House, you know, is it going to be, you know -- could he walk away from this like he did before. We saw it where it passed both houses of Congress, and he got up there and said, "I'll do it this one time, but I won't do it again." So we'll see. Farr might woods (ph). Farr.

AVLON: He did say he was not going to sign this kind of Bill again. These are your guys in the Freedom Caucus. If the president indicates he'll sign it, do you think they will support it in the House, or do you think they may try to vote against it?

GORMAN: I think their leverage is rapidly decreasing, because the Freedom Caucus has very little leverage in a House minority. So they didn't get it done, as you said, with two years in the majority. They're certainly not going to get it done with Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House. Everyone becomes the Freedom Caucus, essentially in the House minority for Republicans. So they lose their leverage very quickly when we go from majority to minority.

CAMEROTA: OK, fascinating day. We will see what happens as the hours unfold. Thank you very much, panel.

The man poised to oversee the Mueller probe had harsh words, we now know, for the investigation just a few months ago. There's this newly-surfaced memo; and it puts Bill Barr's attorney general nomination in possible jeopardy. So we'll read that to you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:20:13] AVLON: A newly-released memo could complicate William Barr's nomination for U.S. attorney general. In a memo from June of this year, senior justice official Barr rights, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's obstruction investigation is, quote, "fatally misconceived" and that President Trump's actions with ex-FBI Director James Comey do not constitute obstruction of justice.

Let's bring back Josh Campbell, Joe Lockhart. And joining us now, former federal prosecutor, CNN legal analyst Laura Coates. Great to have you here on set.

All right, guys. This is big news. Because Barr had been praised, even by some senior Democrats as being a responsible establishment choice, but we didn't know about this memo. It's really new information. And it indicates that Trump's gravitational pull towards Barr may not have been because of his credibility but because he thought he had his back on obstruction.

Laura, how does this affect the nomination going forward?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: First of all, think of the arrogance who would have an unsolicited 20-page memo that says, "I think you need to hear from me. Nobody asked my opinion, but I think you need to hear from me anyway. I'm going to tell you all of the reasons why I think that this person has been grossly irresponsible."

And this person should not be able to interrogate the president; and I'm going to presume that I know the full parameters of Mueller's actual probe. He is focusing primarily on obstruction of justice. We actually don't know if Mueller is as -- is as a fan and zealous advocate for that issue as he believes he is.

But I think this is going to have an impact. Because somebody who is already confirmable, having already held this seat, now calls into question whether he would have to recuse himself, whether he would be truly impartial or whether he could give appearances that he already knows what he wants to do about a case he is yet to actually hear information about.

CAMEROTA: You are so right. How could he be impartial when he offered this 20-page missive unsolicited.

I also like to your point, where he says, "I realize I may be in the dark about many facts, but I hope my views may be useful." I'm going to press on, regardless of the fact that I don't know the facts. Here's -- here's the paragraph that is getting attention. Joe,

"Mueller should not be able to demand the president submit to an interrogation about alleged obstruction. If embraced by the department, this theory would have potentially disastrous implications, not just for the presidency but for the executive branch as a whole and the department in particular."

He cannot be impartial. I mean, can't we just conclude after these 20 pages of his thoughts that he will have a problem pass Congress.

LOCKHART: Yes, I think he's given a large gift to the Democrats who are going to have a hard time opposing him, because he does the lead in credentials. He's served in the role before. He has, you know, many of the legal experts to talk about this case, have said good things about him.

Democrats can now make this about getting him on the record to recuse himself. And that is a big victory for Mueller. Mueller -- what Mueller doesn't need at this point is he gets near the end, hopefully near the end, he doesn't need someone to come in and start micromanaging him and limiting him.

The arrangement they have with Rosenstein, by all accounts, allowed him to do what he thinks is best, and Democrats will hammer him on this. My guess is he'll become attorney general, but I -- my guess also is the only way he gets that done is by agreeing to recuse himself.

AVLON: Interesting prediction. Josh.

CAMPBELL: Yes, so I would -- I look at this a little less critically. I'm holding fire right now on this particular decision now. I've been very critical of the president's approach to the rule of law. Obviously, he's you know, been trying to undermine it since he got into office.

But when you look at Mr. Barr, and he obviously has a distinguished track record, there have been people coming out, you know, praising his -- his past, I wonder, going back to Paul Manafort, remember when he came on the scene, this was the tactic that he used. I'm going to send a little memo and kind of tell you my thoughts. And, you know, that's kind of my way to get in the door. Maybe, you know, he knows that that's a tactic that works for this president. You submit information. If it's something that alliance, his world view, then maybe he'll listen to you.

CAMEROTA: How can it be impartial if this was a job -- if this was a job interview?

CAMPBELL: That's what it gives you. So when we sit down in the confirmation hearing, what we -- what members have to ask him, whenever you submitted this, were you doing this, hoping to get a job so that you could act on behalf of the president in this manner? That's going to be a key question. We can't rule out the recusal, because that's a key point. LOCKHART: And my guess on this is he wasn't trying to audition for the job, my guess is. And the only reason that I question this is the White House is terribly disorganized. An organized White House would be out looking for constitutional scholars, looking for you know, eminent people in the legal community to write things.

I mean, when we went through impeachment with President Clinton, we had a whole slew of constitutional scholars writing things, sending things to the Justice Department, making an intellectual and legal case. And that doesn't necessarily mean they all wanted jobs. They were just, you know, providing some support for us.

The -- my only hesitation on this is, you know, this is the White House who announced we're pulling out of Syria without telling the pen Pentagon. So -- so that will be an interesting question. But I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he did it as, you know, campaigning for the job.

[06:25:09] COATES: Well, first to define which job? Do you mean as private counsel for the president of the United States, who it looks like they need help?

LOCKHART: Either, yes.

COATES: Or for attorney general?

I think there is an issue, though. While recusal may seem imminent for somebody like him, who's already weighed in, in unsolicited fashion, he actually is very different than Jeff Sessions. And the regulation that required Jeff Sessions to recuse himself was based on the substantial relationship between himself and Trump, and that he may have actually had a part of the ultimate investigation.

This person has offered his insight, however unsolicited it may be. But he's not somebody who'd be tied to the investigation who wouldn't truly have the same stake that Jeff Sessions would have. And it could ultimately be that they say, well, is the fact that he will have this hint more than a hint of impartiality going to be enough to require and demand you recuse and for me to actually follow that guidance? That's going to be up in the air.

CAMPBELL: I think one important point, though, is you look at this and again, you know, trying to look at silver lining here possibly. When you think of all the people in the president's orbit, he actually writes and admits that he doesn't know facts. And so that's actually a step forward, right, someone who knows he doesn't know.

CAMEROTA: Baby steps. I like this. I like this.

LOCKHART: A bar against lower and lower and lower.

COATES: It's down here, Josh.

CAMPBELL: Yes, I'll take it. But if you think about the Mueller investigation, right, there's so much we don't know that continues every single day. And so I imagine, again, silver lining, possibly, you know, being an optimist, he said -- say he gets into office he's going to realize in his first briefing if he doesn't recuse with Robert Mueller that there's so much there.

We know the way the direction is headed. This was written as legal guidance based on, you know, the actions that he could see from afar as a private citizen. I think it's going to be very different once he actually gets in that seat.

CAMEROTA: OK, so speaking of something very different, a different take on it once you get into the position, is Donald Trump's take on campaign finance laws.

So there was -- he had been on CNN in 1999 about how familiar he was, Laura, with campaign finance laws. And of course, this calls into question the payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels where he -- they're claiming that they are not breaching any campaign finance laws.

So listen -- get in the time machine and listen to Donald Trump in 1999.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I'm the biggest contributor.

LARRY KING, FORMER CNN HOST: But what about reforms?

TRUMP: Well, it's a very complex -- you know what? It's a very complex thing. As an example, I'm allowed to give $1,000 to every senator, right? You know how little that is? It's -- this was 20 years ago, $1,000.

Now I love it because, you know, I'm capped out at $1,000 a senator, and they all love me for it. You know, I give them $1,000.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: That seems to be a narrow interpretation of knowing everything about campaign finance laws, Laura.

COATES: It's amazing how you find this stuff. I mean, to think about putting your foot in your mouth and not even realizing what it would have the impact later.

One of the key things for campaign finance criminal prosecutions is about what your intent was and whether you were aware that what you were doing is going to be criminal. You know there's actually a cap of how much you can actually contribute, and you're aware of that. You're aware of the fact that there actually are these laws that say you have to disclose, in some form or fashion, because you want to be part of the public record.

And yet now, he's claiming that this not only was an issue that his lawyer was trying to orchestrate, but in many ways, is no big deal if he actually did this. He's well aware, and that statement, combined with the statement on the back of Air Force One and Giuliani's statement, et cetera, also contributed to this idea he intended to actually do, and maybe he really is individual No. 1.

AVLON: Ignorance is no defense. And you mentioned Rudy's tweet on the subject about how this isn't a crime, because members of Congress themselves aren't implicated. And we have that.

CAMEROTA: We need to read that. I think that's really a good one.

AVLON: All right. "The payments to Daniels and McDougal do not violate the law. Congress has spent millions settling sexual harassment against members, which are not reported as campaign contributions. Why aren't those congressmen under investigation?"

CAMEROTA: I was so confused by this, because wait a minute. President Trump sexually harassed Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels? I thought it was consensual.

AVLON: Yes.

CAMEROTA: The argument that he's using brings up more questions.

AVLON: Also, they're in Congress, so it probably isn't context.

LOCKHART: There's a whole other layer of denial, because he said it wasn't sexual, because it never happened. But that's -- put that aside. He's -- you know, Rudy, for a lawyer, doesn't seem to know a whole lot about the law.

These were not people running for office. These were people who were sitting in office. And by the way, they've changed that law. It's so outrageous --

CAMEROTA: That's right. When it came to light, they immediately changed it.

AVLON: Just a few weeks ago.

LOCKHART: Just a few weeks ago. But it -- it goes to the point of, you know, Rudy will say anything. And we -- my thing is maybe for the new year's we can just stop listening.

CAMPBELL: Well, and if you look at their statements, I've identified a pattern here. I mean, we all have. Whenever they engage in this criminalesque whataboutism, you always pivot back to the first thing, because you know they're trying to distract you. So when they say the president broke the law, they say, "Well, what about Congress? They do it, too." Always go back to the last thing. You'll be smarter for it.

AVLON: Because of whataboutism. All right. Thank you, panel.

Coming up, a new Popeye's promotion is ruffling some feathers. We'll tell you who's slamming the plan to get flyers bring "emotional support chicken" on a plane. It's what we've all been waiting for.