Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Source: Rosenstein to Leave Justice Dept. After A.G. Confirmed; Court Fillings Reveal Manafort Shared Internal Polling Data with Russian Operative; Trump Pushes for Wall, Dems Demand Government Reopen. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired January 09, 2019 - 06:00   ET

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


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[05:59:21] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Wednesday, January 9, 6 a.m. here in New York. And we do begin with breaking news in the Mueller investigation.

A source tells CNN that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave the Justice Department in the coming weeks once a new attorney general is confirmed. Rosenstein has been overseeing Robert Mueller's Russian investigation for more than a year now ever since Jeff Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein has been a target of President Trump's on Twitter. President Trump recently reposted an image of Rosenstein and other DOJ officials behind bars.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So with Rosenstein gone, it means that the Mueller investigation will be overseen by people who have expressed open and public hostility to at least some of the probe.

And this news come at the same time as a major development. A direct link between the most senior levels the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence.

Lawyers for former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, they inadvertently revealed that Manafort shared internal polling data with an associate tied to Russian intelligence. So does this constitute collusion?

And about last night. The president's Oval Office address making the case for the border wall. "The New York Times" called it "a nine- minute speech that made no new arguments but included multiple misleading assertions." "The Times" also reported the president didn't want to give the speech in the first place, because it wasn't change any minds. So was he right?

This as the government shutdown enters its 19th day.

CAMEROTA: All right. So much news, so let's get right to the breaking news with CNN crime and justice reporter Shimon Prokupecz; John Avlon; and former federal prosecutor Laura Coates.

OK. Laura, let's just just right in. So Bill Barr is expected, his confirmation hearings are expected to begin January 15, which means that a confirmation vote, at the earliest, would be in February; and that's when Rod Rosenstein would exit. So what is your take on all this news?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's not surprising that Rod Rosenstein may be at his wit's end with -- with the Justice Department, especially given his track record and his conversation with the president of the United States.

What is surprising is that he would leave the Mueller investigation in the hands of somebody who has already been quite adamant and quite outspoken with his views about Mueller and overstepping his bounds. One would think that Rosenstein would feel very reluctant to do so, given the fact that at his last open press conference, he spoke about the idea of how the American people, once they have all the information, will feel very, very trusted -- trusting of the Department of Justice and that they should feel confident that whatever is found was evidence-based.

Now, when you have him leaving, you wonder is it in good hands? Will Mueller's probe be able to go in a way that's unfiltered, unfettered? Will it be able to continue in its way?

The other side, the optimistic part of it may say, Alisyn, "Look, maybe the reason Rosenstein is able to leave is because he feels that, by that time, the Mueller probe may be concluded or in a position to no longer be derailed by anyone, even if they have viewpoints that are outspoken to date.

BERMAN: It seems impossible that Rod Rosenstein was going to stay there forever. But what this does signify is the complete turnover of oversight of investigation to people who have expressed open and public hostility to at least some parts of it.

Matt Whitaker is the acting attorney general. On this very network, he said that, you know, the investigation could and should be shut down by other means.

And Bill Barr, who is a former attorney general, John, has also pointed out that he thought the firing of James Comey was justified. There are a lot of people who made that case, but this is a guy who could be the next attorney general.

He has also made the case -- and this is full-screen 401 here -- that Mueller should not be able to demand that 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."

Basically, again, Rod Rosenstein, who has had oversight and allowed the investigation to go on, leaves. People who have expressed the willingness to curtail it enter.

JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: This sets up a real race against the clock. Rosenstein is saying is, is he wants to leave around the time Barr comes in. Barr's confirmation hearing begins next week. We can expect if it goes smoothly, and by the way this also dramatically increases the pressure on that confirmation hearing and the questions he'll receive about that extensive memo he wrote with this broad decision of executive power. It rachets up the timing and pressure because Mitch McConnell has refused to allow a vote on the so-called Mueller protection bill.

This means, as you've said, once Barr comes in, as he presumably will in around a month and change's time, that the Mueller investigation could be in jeopardy. So does it increase pressure on getting documents out? What does Rosenstein know that makes him comfortable to leave at this time? Or is it simply a deference to Barr, a respected former A.G., who may -- you know, should be inclined to pick his own deputy.

CAMEROTA: Shimon, some of the reporting out there this morning -- this from ABC -- says that Rod Rosenstein had always planned to leave. That he wasn't going to do this permanently. He was going to give it -- he had always planned, I think, to do this for two years. That time is up. So maybe he does think that the investigation will be in good hands.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. And he would know that, right? He's the man overseeing this investigation, so he certainly would know when this is coming to an end. And there is a lot of word that this will be coming to an end sometime, perhaps, around February. And that is when he plans to leave.

We certainly have always gotten the sense that Rod Rosenstein wanted to see this investigation through. That is, he wanted to see the Russia investigation to its conclusion. So this could mean that he now knows that there's going to be an end game here shortly, and therefore, he's comfortable enough to leave once this investigation is over.

[06:05:11] The other big question here is the report. What eventually happens with this report? It now go -- will fall in the hands of the new attorney general and perhaps the new deputy attorney general, whoever that may be. That's going to be an important position, as well. What happens to that report? Does it ever get public? Does the new A.G. try to suppress it in any way? That is going to be a big topic of discussion going forward.

Look, a lot is happening as this Russia investigation comes to an end, and certainly, a new A.G. will be overseeing whatever fallout there is. And also other parts of this investigation that have been sent out to different attorney generals across the country, certainly parts of it in the New York office of the Southern District.

BERMAN: One last point on this subject. The confirmation hearing next week for Bill Barr, it just raises the stakes for that. This is a public hearing over several days. You need to watch this, people, to hear the questions that he will be asked about his views on the investigation and how he answers them. That will be huge.

CAMEROTA: And I do want to point out one more thing, because had he been publicly in favor Robert Mueller. So Bill Barr, while he has said that he believes there should be limits, and you read how he doesn't think that the president should be subject to interrogation about obstruction of justice, here's something else, P-403.

This is Bill Barr talking about Robert Mueller when he was appointed. "His appointment is good news for those concerned over the troubling way the investigation was handled over the summer and fall, as well as the many government leaks," Barr told this news organization. He added, "I'm confident that Robert Mueller will keep his eye on legitimate areas of inquiry and not let this degenerate into a sprawling ceaseless witch hunt to get something on the president's associates."

So in May of 2017, John, he felt very good about Robert Mueller.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's funny he said the word "witch hunt," because of course, that's been the president's constant refrain.

I will say that a lot of conservatives at the appointment of Mueller praised his professionalism. In fact, he did come from a Republican background. That chorus has dwindled among conservatives to a precious few. So the pressure is ratcheted up, and this is a race against the clock.

BERMAN: And that statement came before he wrote a 20-page memo. He wrote a 20-page memo --

CAMEROTA: The unsolicited memo.

BERMAN: -- outlining -- the unsolicited memo, outlining why he thinks the Mueller investigation should be curtailed.

Laura, if I can, I want to get to the other major breaking news over the last 24 hours.

COATES: Sure.

BERMAN: Which is this inadvertent revelation. I guess inadvertent. to me it seems impossibly inadvertent.

CAMEROTA: It's vertent.

BERMAN: That Paul Manafort's lawyers revealed that Paul Manafort had delivered private polling information to this man, Konstantin Kilimnik, who has known ties to Russian intelligence. Your reaction?

COATES: I mean, why would anyone possibly think, John, that there was collusion between a top campaign official and someone linked to the Kremlin?

I mean, what could probably have given anyone that impression, but for the fact that they actually were able to provide polling information to a nation that had not only Internet trolls, who were trying to have and sow division in the United States of America and thinking about ways to most effectively be able to influence an American election. I mean, you have a direct link here really for the first time.

And keep in mind, Manafort was not charged for his conduct related to things that happened while he was the campaign chairman in those Virginia and D.C. cases. They alluded, and they were tangentially, in many ways, related to his finances; and you could bridge a gap between his finances and, of course, what he was doing on the campaign.

But this is probably the most direct link they with right now to two things. No. 1, that there was a polling pipeline of information going on. And No. 2, that there was a Ukrainian peace plan that was being crafted while Manafort was overseeing the RNC -- RNC convention when they actually had a change of tide when it came to the Ukraine, Ukrainian peace plan and Ukrainians role with Russia.

And so you've got this link of collusion here. And while you talk about being inadvertent, you know, unfortunately, to err is human. To be a lawyer is sometimes human in many respects. It happens far too often in terms of people having inadvertently disclosed information. But at this high level, you're right: it's absolutely shocking.

But what's more shocking is that Manafort said, "Well I may have inadvertently lied to the Mueller probe and their team, but I didn't inadvertently give information involving polling data to people who are linked to the Kremlin."

CAMEROTA: Shimon, this is huge. I mean, it's just huge, because for all of the questions over all of these past months about collusion, here is -- now we know, because this redact -- this -- what was supposed to be redacted wasn't redacted, that Robert Mueller believes that the Trump campaign chairman handed over polling data to the guy who is connected to Russian intelligence.

[06:10:03] BERMAN: It's more than that. It's Manafort's lawyers admit that he handed over polling data.

CAMEROTA: Right. Great point. And it was all supposed to be redacted, so now we know. So in other words, Robert Mueller isn't leaking this. This was a mistake. And so what else is the definition of collusion, if not this?

PROKUPECZ: This is probably the clearest sign we've yet seen that, during the campaign, information that was secret to the campaign, polling data, internal polling data, was being shared with the Russians. For all intents and purposes, this probably went all the way up to the Kremlin, to Vladimir Putin.

The man that he was sharing this information with, the FBI has said, is part of Russian intelligence, has deep reaches into the Kremlin. This is a man -- his name is Konstantin Kilimnik -- that Paul Manafort has had business dealings with. This is a man that has been charged by the special counsel's office and, in the court papers, they say that he has ties to Russian intelligence.

What reason and what purpose would Paul Manafort have for sharing polling data with the Russians? The only plausible reason is that during this time, during the 2016 campaign, as we know from the Mueller investigation and indictments, that the Russians were launching their own social media campaign: obviously, targeting specific communities, demographics, areas of this country.

Did they in any way use any of this information that Paul Manafort provided them in their social media campaign? We don't know. And that is certainly something, I'm sure, that the Mueller team has been looking at. And if that is the case, that is a complete game changer and will definitely, definite change how everyone views this entire investigation.

AVLON: Sure. And that is the most direct contact we've seen. And remember, it comes against a backdrop of Paul Manafort hotly denying there were any contacts between him or the Russians.

And, you know, this individual Kilimnik is Manafort's long-time business partner in Ukraine, when he was working for the pro-Putin candidate in those, you know, hotly-contested elections. So the real question will be what did they do with the polling data?

But the fact that it comes against that -- those denials that we've seen for so long, and that pattern of people in the Trump orbit denying any connections with Russians and then being confronted with facts just adds more fuel to the fire. But this is the most direct contact.

BERMAN: We also know where Paul Manafort wanted some of that information to go.

AVLON: That's right.

BERMAN: He wanted Kilimnik to give it to this man, Oleg Deripaska, who was good friends with Vladimir Putin.

AVLON: Yes.

BERMAN: So he wanted it to go to the highest levels near Putin.

And when everyone's calling this the most direct contact between the Trump campaign and Russia's intelligence, the Russian government, only there is one other contact that became apparent yesterday, which is Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was the Russian lawyer at the Trump Tower --

AVLON: Yes.

BERMAN: -- meeting. We now know, because of a court filing yesterday, that prosecutors believe she is directly tied, directly tied and worked in coordination with the Russian government in other scenarios.

And I want to leave you all with this statement from President Donald Trump in February of 2017 about contact with Russians. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Laura, that's just not true.

COATES: Well, it's just not true any longer, although he could -- he could kind of go, "Well, I said to the best of my knowledge. I didn't know about Manafort."

But what we do know is that there were several people, even Natalia Veselnitskaya in that Trump meeting who -- you remember, the e-mail that got Don Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort to arrive is because they promised information from the crown prosecutor in Russia.

Now we know from yesterday's hearing and yesterday's obstruction of justice charge against that adoption lawyer that she not only had ties, but she worked in cahoots in her new pleading, involving a money-laundering scheme, worked in connection with somebody who was a prosecutor in Russia.

So you know that every time somebody has denied, this kind of false amnesia about their connection with people in Russia, it always turns out to be false. And Mueller and the team has evidence.

CAMEROTA: These Mueller bread crumbs are starting to turn into a sandwich, if you take them all together.

AVLON: A Mueller sandwich coming down the pike?

CAMEROTA: Yes, that's right.

AVLON: Someone's ordered a Mueller sandwich.

CAMEROTA: Thank you. Thank you very much.

In just hours, President Trump will once again meet with congressional leaders in the situation room to resume those negotiations over funding for his proposed border wall and reopening the federal government, which of course, has been shut down now for 19 days.

This comes after the president made a direct appeal to Americans last night in a fact-challenged prime-time address from the Oval Office.

CNN's Joe Johns has been following it all. He is live at the White House with more.

What's the latest, Joe?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

The president's Oval Office address was, essentially, a sales pitch, complete with campaign themes notable for a couple things. He did make a number of false and misleading statements. He did not declare a national emergency.

The question now is whether he changed any minds that would help build his wall on the southern border or reopen the parts of the government that are closed.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TRUMP: This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul.

JOHNS (voice-over): President Trump appealing to the nation to support his long-promised border wall, painting a dark picture of undocumented immigrants, and accusing Democrats of leaving the country vulnerable.

TRUMP: How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?

JOHNS: Democratic leadership firing back, accusing the president of fear-mongering and urging him tend to the shutdown that has left 800,000 Americans unsure of when they'll receive their next paycheck.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.

JOHNS: Both sides appearing no closer to compromise, with President Trump falsely claiming Democrats wanted a steel wall.

TRUMP: At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall.

JOHNS: And insisting that Democrats do not support border security, even though the House voted in favor of $1.3 billion for border security and technology last week.

The president also making this false claim about funding for the wall.

TRUMP: The wall will also be paid for indirectly by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.

JOHNS: But the new deal has not been ratified, and there's no guarantee it would generate revenue or that Congress would earmark it for the wall.

President Trump backing up his dire warnings with grizzly stories of crimes blamed on undocumented immigrants.

TRUMP: Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country.

JOHNS: But Border Patrol statistics show that illegal southern border arrests are near the lowest point in almost 20 years. And multiple studies have found that, as immigration has gone up, crime has gone down. One Texas study found that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.

The president also pointing to the opioid epidemic as part of his pitch.

TRUMP: Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border.

JOHNS: While these statistics are true, the majority of heroin that comes across the border is smuggled through legal points of entry, meaning that a border wall would likely do little to help.

Democrats quick to pounce on the administration's credibility issues.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Sadly, much of what we heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice. The president has chosen fear.

JOHNS: The president's speech comes amid signs that patience for the shutdown among GOP senators is wearing thin, with multiple Republican lawmakers now signaling that they favor reopening the government as border negotiations continue.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These are people who work hard and they deserve to know that they're going to -- to be paid.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHNS: The president heads to Capitol Hill today to attend a traditional Tuesday policy luncheon with Republicans. On Thursday he's expected to fly down to the southern border for what is likely to be another sales pitch for his wall.

John, back to you.

BERMAN: All right. Joe Johns for us at the White House.

Another new development on all of this. Overnight, "The New York Times" reporting the president never wanted to give this speech to begin with, because he didn't think it would change any minds. So was he right? New signs of breaks in Congress, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:22:29] BERMAN: In just hours, President Trump will meet with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill before meeting with bipartisan congressional leaders in the situation room to resume talks on funding his proposed border wall.

Last night, the president made his pitch directly to the American people, in an address that was riddled with things that were not factual.

Joining us now, former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton, Joe Lockhart; former White House director of legislative affairs under President Trump, Marc Short; and our very own John Avlon.

Marc, "The New York Times" reported overnight that the president was saying he never wanted to give this speech to begin with. He was convinced it would not change any minds. So make your best case that what we heard from the president last night changed minds. MARC SHORT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it was good the

president delivered the remarks he did. I think being able to outline a broader vision of what we need for border security was important and not singularly focused on the wall.

But I do believe that -- that, probably, at this point the two sides are pretty well entrenched, and it's going to be difficult to change minds on Capitol Hill. But I still think it's important for the president to speak to the American people and to make his case, as he did last night.

CAMEROTA: Joe, the president focused a lot on the opioid crisis, as he should; as he promised he would as a candidate; as so many American families, my own included, are affected by this. But he made claims that were not true.

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure.

CAMEROTA: So most of the heroin that comes from Mexico comes through legal ports of entry. It's hidden in tractor trailers or in passenger cars. So a wall is not going to fix that. These are legal ports of entry.

You know what would fix that are those density meters that people have called for, including John Kelly, chief of staff. So the president said that his ask to Congress includes new technology that would help detect that; more agents; more medical personnel to treat the humanitarian crisis. That's what the Democrats want.

If they could somehow get past the border wall, this is exactly what is needed. If we're actually going to fight the heroin coming in, that's right. But that was a sentence in his speech.

LOCKHART: Yes. You know, listen, I think that when you look at this speech, it's the definition of being disingenuous. The -- you're exactly right on the opioid crisis, this having nothing to do with it.

What's going on at the border is actually working. And Joe Johns piece we saw that we're at historic low levels. In the early 2000's there were 5,000 Border Patrol agents. There's now 22,000. That part is working.

What the Democrats, and not just the Democrats, Democrats and Republicans have agreed in both the House and the Senate is we need more money for other things.

[06:25:07] CAMEROTA: Because the drug part is not working. We all agree on that, that the drugs coming in is not working.

LOCKHART: The humanitarian crisis, a lot of this has been created by the policy of separating children from their families.

You know, but all of this is -- is about politics. There are two things that struck me. I've never seen an Oval Office address that was both preceded and followed by a text from the president of the United States saying, "Please donate to my campaign because of this speech." Because of this -- of this speech.

CAMEROTA: He was fundraising off of it.

LOCKHART: Yes. He was -- he was certainly fundraising off it.

The second thing is, no one's mind was changed last night in the public. This game is about the United States Senate and the Republicans. They are beginning to peel off.

So the real question: that's why the real important thing today is that caucus lunch --

CAMEROTA: That he's meeting with Senate Republicans.

LOCKHART: Can he hold Senate Republicans together? That's what matters here.

BERMAN: And we saw two addresses last night: one from the president, one from Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Not a bravura performance, by the way.

However, the most important statements may have been from Lisa Murkowski, you know, the Republican senator from Alaska, who says she doesn't think that we should shut the government down while passing these appropriations bills. Senator Caputo -- Capito from West Virginia saying the same thing, John.

AVLON: Yes. Look, we are two days away from this being the record -- the longest shutdown in American history. And that's the big problem that the senators are beginning to feel that pressure because there's no good reason and no clear exit ramp.

The reason the president was saying privately, as reported by "The New York Times," that he didn't think this would change any minds is the speech wasn't designed to. He talked about a crisis of the soul, a crisis of the heart, but this was an American carnage speech, designed to demonize undocumented immigrants and rally the base around him. And to a degree unlike anything we've ever seen.

And unfortunately what's also intentionally being obscured is the fact that study after study after study has shown that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes per capita than native born Americans. Can't say that enough in the context of fear mongering that we're saying seeing from the office. And the fundraising off it.

So we'll see if Republicans, you know, keep feeling the pressure. The problem is, as the president plays to the base, Congress and the Senate isn't comprised solely of people whose constituents are from the base. And there should be an opportunity to build a broader argument, a broader, comprehensive deal. But the president seems disinterested in that.

CAMEROTA: So Marc, it was funny last night. The president -- you know, the president's broken his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. OK, so that's over. People -- he doesn't really talk about that anymore.

Last night he said the wall will pay for itself, which I thought was a funny pivot away.

And so, again, today, with those Senate Republicans who are getting uncomfortable with the government being shut down, will they move off of the wall? Will they start to finally talk about all of this bigger plan proposal?

SHORT: Well, look, I certainly hope they do, Alisyn.

Yesterday when you had me on the show, we talked about the fact that -- that the administration's asked for more judges and has asked for more ICE agents, has asked for additional resources that haven't been provided. And that is -- that is the broader message I think he made.

And, you know, in all candor last night, when I was watching the post- speech coverage from CNN, they were saying these are all things that Democrats support. And that's patently false. I was in the room when we asked for more judges and Democrats said no. I was in the room when we asked for more ICE agents. This was before Democrats in the midterm decided that they wanted to abolish ICE. And they said no. I was in the room when they asked for more detention beds, and Democrats said no.

So, yes, they've supported him before he was president but they've opposed every element of that and that's the broader point security message the president should be giving.

I do think at this point the two sides are pretty well-entrenched, and so I'm not sure it's going to change any votes in the Senate right now.

BERMAN: Let me just follow up on a couple of things you just said. One, you do concede that the Democrats would agree to $1.3 billion in additional funding for border security --

SHORT: Yes.

BERMAN: -- that doesn't include the wall. They did agree to that much, and many have indicated on our show they would agree to more that if it did include a wall. You concede that point?

SHORT: Absolutely, John. But I will also tell you that they supported fencing before Trump was president.

BERMAN: I understand that. I understand that. But I'm just trying to figure out where we are and where we go from here.

You also made a point -- and I listen to every word you say very carefully. One of the first reasons you said the president's speech was effective is because it focused on other things besides the wall. And what I'm hearing there, perhaps from you, someone still close to the administration, who worked very, very hard inside the administration, is there room for a deal, then, over the next few days? An agreement on areas besides the wall? If Democrats and the president sit down and say, "OK, we'll make it

$2.5 billion but not for the wall," do you think that the White House would agree to that over the next few days?

SHORT: I think not right now, John. I think the reality, again, is -- is that the administration should have made this case earlier on, that this is what border security's been asking for.