Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Government Shutdown Continues; Analysts Examine Possible Government Funding Bills Acceptable to President Trump. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired December 24, 2018 - 8:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: I don't think even Santa can bring us a bipartisan agreement on this one. And Jess, no one is winning here.

JESS MCINTOSH, CNN POLITICAL9 COMMENTATOR: We had a bipartisan agreement on this one. We actually did something last week that was really, really rare in Trump's Washington. We had a bipartisan agreement to keep the government open over Christmas so people are not working without getting paid over the holiday. I think that piece matters more than is getting enough attention, that as these airport lines are getting longer, TSA is there, doing their jobs for no money.

So we had a bipartisan agreements. We actually had two bipartisan agreements last week with criminal justice reform going through. And instead, unilaterally the president torpedoed all of that and his own good news cycle because right wing media was saying mean things about what he had done. It was really that simple. There are no more adults in the White House, and it's just him listening to the TV and reacting to it.

JOHN AVLON, CNN ANCHOR: Charlie Dent, you served as a Republican Congressman for many years. Are things indeed getting worse among your colleagues? And is, in fact, the president's fealty to right wing media partially to blame for this shutdown?

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, John, I have to tell you, I am just amazed. I believe it was on Saturday there was a meeting between the president and two leaders of the Freedom Caucus, Meadows and Jordan. And I just thought what a rebuke of the House Republican leadership. The president is not negotiating through the leaders on this thing.

And the whole point is this whole shutdown is so completely unnecessary. There are 12 appropriations bills. Five of them have been already signed into law in September. And of the seven remaining, six are teed up and ready to go. They could be passed today. There's one bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, that is still being debated over the wall funding, and that could simply be kicked into the new year, into February. This is so easily averted.

The party that makes the policy demand owns the shutdown. And so I think on the Republican side, this is just a fight they cannot win, and they know it. Nancy Pelosi has no incentive to negotiate with Republicans between now and her swearing in day on January the 3rd. Her position only gets stronger. So I don't understand the point of this thing. It makes absolutely no sense.

HILL: As we look at this, the president, we know, I believe it was December 11th, the Oval Office meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Listen, Democrats got one thing they wanted out of the meeting, for sure. They got the president to say on camera, I will own the shutdown. The president, of course, now is not owning the shutdown, Joe, which probably could have been predicted as well. He is calling it the Democrats' shutdown.

As we just heard from Congressman Dent, there is no real incentive for Democrats either to give in here. but could there be a win for them if they did try to advance this in a different way moving in? Not do what everybody is expecting from them but come January 3rd, extend even perhaps a little bit even more of an olive branch?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't know that an olive branch, certainly is not warranted here, but politically if they could show bipartisanship, you can't negotiate with someone who thinks he's winning, and Trump thinks he's winning this fight. And in a sense, he is winning this fight because he only cares about his base. And as Jess, properly pointed out, the deal collapsed because Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity didn't like it. As crazy as that sounds, it's true.

So my view is I think the Democrats need to find something else that they want to help Trump save face. We talked a little bit last week about I think the biggest concern for Democrats, which is Trump will shut down the Mueller investigation by firing Mueller. They could certainly go to Trump now and say in return for some border wall money, let's pass the bill that Senator Coons has been pushing that will protect Mueller and make sure it doesn't happen. I'm very concerned he is going to fire Mueller.

HILL: Could the president really get behind something like that?

LOCKHART: If he could say, If he could say I got my border wall money, I could talk to his base, yes, I think he might. But we do need some new idea, because right now there are no incentives to either side because both sides think they're winning this. Democrats are actually winning it. Trump just thinks he's winning it.

AVLON: And to Joe's point, while that may sound like a modest proposal, on NEW DAY last week Marc Short said he would advise the president to take that deal, which is sort of interesting. But Jess, let's talk about a deal, because I think it's general acknowledged as Charlie Dent just said, Democrats have far more leverage here. Republicans don't. So what kind of deal would you advise your fellow Democrats to take, either before the new year or after January 3rd when they come into power in the House?

MCINTOSH: I want to make sure it stands on the principles that they are currently talking about. Saying that the wall is immoral is important. It is not just that it is bad, expensive policy that we were never supposed to have to pay for. It's actually wrong. So if we come in being able to say this is what we stand for, we want to do right by the American people.

[08:05:03] There are so many investments that we need to be making in our country that we are simply not able to do right now because the Republicans have hamstrung the entire government towards the agenda of one guy who doesn't know what he wants and doesn't know how to get it even if he did. So I just want to make sure that they're coming in from that point of view, knowing that they're in the right, knowing that they won decisively in November. If America actually wanted this border wall, we would have seen a different outcome in November. Republicans were not shy about calling for that as their chief agenda item.

AVLON: So are you therefore saying that the 1.3 or 1.6 being offered by Democrats currently, you would not counsel your fellow progressives to support that?

MCINTOSH: Since that's where they decided they needed to be when they offered the first resolution, that makes sense to me. I would certainly hope that that money goes towards things that actually secure the border. We know that we need more technology down there. We know we need more resources down there. What we don't need is a gigantic wall. And I think most rational-thinking adults in Washington are aware of that as well.

HILL: So Congressman, we heard, too, Mick Mulvaney just over the weekend, saying that the president is open to other immigration discussions, is open to other immigration solutions, but as you point out, isolating the rest of the Republican Party for the Freedom Caucus over the weekend, what are the chances that there is actually, do you think, a discussion about other ideas, other immigration solutions that are happening right now at the White House?

DENT: My guess right now is there's probably zero discussion about a deal between now and January 3rd. What I do think, though, After January 3rd, when the Democrats take over the house, then I think you'll get into some serious negotiating.

Here's what they should negotiation. If I were the Democrats, I'd say, OK, you want some border security funding, Mr. President? I'd say, OK, well, we want the Dreamers. And we had a deal -- there was a deal before, a bipartisan deal, the president kind of undermined that one. But I would put that back on the table. Joe just mentioned maybe the Mueller protection bill, which I introduced in the House actually with Pete Welch. And so yes, they could put those things on the table and see how much they can get. But I think a few billion dollar for border security is a small price to pay for Dreamers and maybe the Mueller protection bill. So if I were the Democrats I'd start negotiating probably after the new year.

HILL: So bringing that back, we should say, because as we pointed out, that has been on the table.

DENT: Bring it back, correct. Restoring it, because that was always -- correct.

AVLON: And that's always been a priority for Democrats. Joe, you are the veteran of some serious shutdown fights that had massive ramifications. But you're saying basically that right now both sides are dug in because they both think they're winning. And yet the government is shut down. And it looks like it's going to go through the new year. And so there's a question of if folks think they're winning, and they're assuming no one is getting hurt. I want to read a quote by Congressman Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania. Quote, "Who's living that they're not going to make the next paycheck?" He's saying that hey, it's no big deal. Even if you work for the government, you don't need that money. I'm guessing that some of Mr. Perry's constituents may feel differently. But if that's the attitude in Washington, where is the urgency?

LOCKHART: I think the urgency is when one side realizes they're not winning. And that's how these things play out. Both sides go in with their talking points. They think they're right. And then over time, sometimes it takes 24 hours, sometimes it takes three weeks. It took Newt Gingrich three weeks to figure out in 1995 that, boy, I'm losing. I need to get out of here. My speakership is in jeopardy here.

And it's a callous way of discussing it as both sides think they're winning, but politically that's the dynamic. But you're exactly right, there are people who are losing. And when you look at this country from around the world and we can't light our Christmas tree because we're having a fight, we look like morons.

AVLON: That's the key point. We look weak and we look dumb. And it's inexcusable. This is a Christmas shutdown, and you're going to get a go fund me page for citizens to go light the White House Christmas tree.

LOCKHART: You're right, the system loses. The process of faith in government loses. But the reality is both sides are dug in, and one of the sides has to come to the point where they realize this is not working. We need to change. Then an idea will materialize.

MCINTOSH: The fact that it's the third of the year -- we've never shut down a government three times in a year. Hitting a milestone like that is not something that we're proud of. Nobody likes that idea. So it just makes it even tougher to get out of it. It becomes intractable. But it's not really both sides. It's Republicans and Democrats versus Trump and Sean Hannity.

AVLON: And Charlie, let me press you on that point, because the major shutdowns we've seen over the past 25 years, Clinton and Obama, Republicans in Congress pushing up against a Democratic president.

[08:10:01] These three shutdowns, as Jess just pointed out, have occurred with Republican unified control of Washington. What is the message that the Republicans aren't getting about governing that they're doing this to themselves and the country?

DENT: Well, I think Republicans have to be very sensitive to this point, that this is not simply about a government shutdown at this point. There seems to be a real concern about the crisis in the White House, with the resignation and the repudiation of Mattis, of the Trump doctrine on foreign policy. I think there are a lot of people who believe there's a crisis. When we look at what's happening with the Syria, the very abrupt, precipitous pullout in Syria, Mattis' resignation, the government shutdown, it just feels like wheels are coming off the wagon, that there's really no real good path forward. And there seems to be a crisis of leadership.

And I think as Republicans we have to step up and say we are the party of order, discipline, stability. And that's not what's happening right now. We have to be about small "c" conservatism right now, and not this lack of -- this anarchy and chaos that is so disruptive and is causing the markets to tank. It's causing all kinds of problems right now. So I think we have to look at this much more broadly than just a shutdown right now, because shutdowns come and go. And this one will end, too. And as I said earlier, the party that makes the policy demand owns the shutdown. And so right now the Republicans are owning the shutdown, at least the president, I should say is owning this shutdown. And so there's an easy way out. That's the sad part about this. This is so easy to solve.

HILL: Just to push you quickly on one thing you said about basically needing to hear from more Republicans and more Republicans stepping up, speaking out, that hasn't happened. There are rumblings behind the scenes. Except for folks who are retiring, there are not a lot of people who are willing to stand up and say, Mr. President, this is wrong. Here is what you need to do. So do you believe that this is going to change things now?

DENT: If I were a Senate Republican right now, I would be furious. They had an agreement last week. And the Senate passed a continuing resolution to fund the government into February, only then to have the president reverse himself. So these senators put their necks out to pass a funding bill. It wasn't a hard vote, in my view, but the point is there was an agreement, and now the agreement has been tossed aside.

And so I think the Senate Republicans are the ones who are probably going to speak the loudest at this point. I think they've been speaking up pretty much about this whole Mattis situation and Syria, many of them. But you're right, there needs to be a greater conversation.

The House, unfortunately, because of the election, the midterm, many of the, I'll say the more moderate, pragmatic, centrist members of the party, many of them were defeated. And so the House Republican conference I think has become more Trumpian, more pro-Trump than it was prior to the midterm.

LOCKHART: And it's going to get worse for the Senate because the first thing Nancy Pelosi is going to do is pass the bill the Senate passed. And then senators are going to have to face the decision of, am I going to now vote against what I voted for? It's going to be I was for it before I was against it.

AVLON: I think you just gave us the Christmas gift of an end game. Thank you very much, Joe, Jess, Charlie, thank you very much for joining us. President Trump ousting his departing secretary of defense two months

early. What message is it sending to our military and allies around the world? We discuss, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN AVLON, ANCHOR, CNN: Defense Secretary James Mattis' resignation letter to President Trump promised to stay in his post through the end of February in the interest of a smooth transition. But sources tell CNN, the President is mad about coverage of his resignation, so he's forcing him out next week.

It comes after Mr. Trump's sudden decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan. Joining me now is former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark and CNN national security commentator and former Republican House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers. Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us.

General, let me start with you. CNN reporting that the abrupt decision to withdraw from Syria that started this cascading events occurred after the President spoke with Turkish President Erdogan and essentially said, "Take it, it's yours. We're out."

Turkey is part of the NATO coalition that you once led. How concerned are you about this process or lack thereof and the essential giving - seceding of influence to Turkey and presumably other actors in Erdogan's orbit?

WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER GENERAL: Oh, I am very concerned because there doesn't seem to be any strategic rationale for the decision. And if there is no strategic rationale for the decision and you have to ask why was the decision made? I can tell you that People around the world are asking this and some of our friends and allies the Middle East are asking, did Erdogan blackmail the President? Was there a payoff is or something? What is it? Why would a guy make a decision like this?

Because all the recommendations were against it and it looked like that all the facts were against it, too. We're not quite finished with ISIS. We're not taking a lot of casualties over there. The Kurds have been reliable allies. So why do this right now? And this is the matter that is of most concern or should be of most concern to us is what does this say about the foreign policy of the United States? That we're not reliable? That we make strategic decisions based on no strategic logic?

So kind of person is driving the helm? That is the issue, but this is a political issue, not a military issue. Jim Mattis took a political post in this administration. His job was to support the President of the United States when all the chips are down. He couldn't do it. He left. Trump has now replaced him. All of that is in accordance with the way it should be. It's the policy that's wrong.

AVLON: Right, and the process. Mike, speaking of politics, this resignation of Jim Mattis seemed to raise objections from Republicans in the Senate and the House in a way that we haven't really heard during the Trump era, where generally disagreements have been kept below board. What have you been hearing from your former colleagues? Because it seems like there's a deeper level of concern reflected in this strategic decision?

MIKE ROGERS, NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR, CNN: Well, I think this one is going to leave a mark on the President, for a whole host of reasons. And if you read that Mattis letter and I think this is why Republicans are getting so concerned. It was broader than just Afghanistan and Syria. It was that for sure. I think that was the tipping point.

But if you look back, Mattis was the one who had to go to Japan and reassure our allies after kind of the giveaway to North Korea on troop discussions there and training exercises. He immediately left for Japan to try to fix that problem. Pulling out of the INF with the Russians and now the Russians running around, saying this is going to cause a nuclear problem, which could have been okay if there was a strategy to follow it. But there wasn't and Mattis was the one who was trying to put this all back together and then abandoning our allies and alliances in both in Syria and Afghanistan, I think was probably the last straw for General Mattis.

[08:20:05]

ROGERS: Those Republicans who are the in National Security space see this as a significant problem because, you know, listen, our safety and security is dependent on allies and allegiances around the world especially in tough neighborhoods, and so when you're willing on a whim and not consult with anyone to undo those alliances or to leave people - and it was announced by the way, John, on day that the Kurds were engaged in a major offensive.

Again, once that was completed, it would have led to more stability in Syria. It was announced that day, when they had troops moving out in combat, contacting with the enemy. Again, I think, all of that together was probably too much for General Mattis, as it should have been. And Republicans are now looking at this saying "Hey, we're going to need to be more engaged in this National Security effort and let's try to put some strategy around some of these decisions."

It's more important than - certainly, the President is more important than a party, it's certainly the - it is the heart and soul of the United States strategy to make sure that we're safe in the long run.

AVLON: General Clark, Mike just mentioned the Kurds, and I as we discussed the alienation or abandonment of allies, that's what you're hearing most of, I mean, Mattis expressing real concern not only about the honor of keeping our commitment but that our Kurdish allies who we have been training and fighting with may be being set up for a slaughter. How concerned are you about that?

WESLEY: I'm very concerned about it. But the Kurds have lived in a tough neighborhood for generations. We've been supporting them since 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, so it's been almost 30 years of strong U.S. support. They're going to have to find other friends and allies. They're going to have to work their way through an accommodation.

And this is what groups in the region do and what the United States had going for it is the reputation of reliability, consistency that we were going to be there through thick and thin. The decision on the spur of the moment as the President made undercuts all of that. And as Mike was saying, it's not just a decision that affects the Kurds. That kind of decision sends a message around the world, to South Korea, to our allies in NATO, to Japan. When the going gets tough or for whatever reason that no one can understand, suddenly a tweet comes out, the policy has changed.

This is a really dangerous time for the United States and foreign policy because of this.

AVLON: Well, and Mike, I mean, the countries that benefit -- Turkey, the Assad Regime; Iran, Russia -- that's all well known. And it sets up a sort of paradoxical balance of power in the region with the U.S. withdrawing, but I want to turn attention to another great power and news that got a little overwhelmed in the chaos of late last week, which is the Justice Department indicting two Chinese nationals for cyber hacking 45 businesses and the personal information of more than 100,000 Navy personnel.

Now, you worked in law enforcement before Congress. I know this sort of thing didn't always get the attention it does, but tell me what your concerns are about this kind of Chinese hacking that we see persistently and the administration's attempt to push back on it more aggressively than we've seen in the past?

ROGERS: Yes, this is one thing that the Trump administration is getting exactly right. They are pushing very hard against Chinese economic espionage. Unfortunately, it does get lost in the headlines. The Chinese have ramped up their ability to steal intellectual property of the United States. It is breathtaking, over a trillion dollars of lost intellectual property over the last decade plus, to the Chinese, and what that means is they're stealing business plans, taking them back and certainly, the intellectual property of a product, repurposing it and competing against U.S. companies. That's why this is so significant.

It may be not cost you a job today, but it will cost you a job in the future. And the sheer level of effort on Chinese espionage against - targeted against the United States is unbelievable. It's not just cyber hacking. It's also human intelligence and espionage efforts here in the United States and you're noticing a large number of indictments from where we're catching Chinese spies operating in the United States.

This is a huge and significant national security threat that I don't think we have completely got our arms around. So we're going to have to continue to push back. That hacking that you saw allows their intelligence officials to understand Navy personnel in a way that any counter intelligence - I used to be an FBI guy - any counter intelligence agent would love to have. Because now that means, I can profile you and figure out a way to try to recruit or compromise you. This is really dangerous stuff. AVLON: It's a big deal, all right, Congressmen and General, thank you

very much for joining us on "New Day" and Merry Christmas.

WESLEY: Thank you.

ROGERS: Merry Christmas.

[08:25:00]

ERICA HILL, ANCHOR:CNN: President Trump directing his Treasury Secretary to call execs at U.S. banks in hopes of stabilizing the volatile markets? New details, breaking details extraordinary move, next.

Breaking news this morning out of the White House. CNN has learned President Trump has been pressuring his Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin over concerns about the markets, the Dow of course having its worst week in a decade. The President, we understand, also remains upset with Fed Chief, Jerome Powell, whom Mnuchin recommended for the post.

The President blaming Powell for the drop of the stock market, which looks set to possibly drop again when it opens just about an hour from now. CNN chief business correspondent Christine Romans joining us now with more.

There's also these questions of these phone calls that Steve Mnuchin made from Mexico over the weekend to heads of top banks to sort of try to reassure them. Could these two be connected?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Oh I think so. I mean, I think the Treasury Secretary is under intense pressure from the President because the President has tied his own fortunes to the fortunes of the stock market. How many times have we heard him talk about the Dow is up 25%, it's the best stock market in the history of mankind.

And now, you have the Dow last week that was the worst week since the financial crisis.

[08:30:00]