Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Broadway Legend Carol Channing Dies at Age 97; Interview with Mark Sanford. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired January 15, 2019 - 08:00   ET

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Last year, you'll remember, Barr sent that controversial 19-page memo to nearly all of President Trump's lawyers, we now know. It was critical of the special counsel's probe and concluded that the president's firing of FBI director James Comey would not be obstruction of justice. So many Democrats now pledge to make that memo the centerpiece of today's hearing.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And overnight, another major headline. The "New York Times" reports that several times last year the president said privately to aides that he wanted to withdraw from NATO. Do you know who would love the U.S. to withdrawal from NATO? Vladimir Putin. And of course this comes as we learn that President Trump tried to conceal details of his meetings with the Russian leader, even going so far as to confiscate the notes taken by an interpreter.

We have a lot to talk about. Let's begin with CNN's Lauren Fox inside the hearing room on Capitol Hill where there will be confirmation hearings for William Barr shortly.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: That's right, John. In just a little over an hour Bill Barr will take the seat behind me and he will unfold his confirmation hearings to be the country's next attorney general.

Here's how the hearings going to go. First the newly minted committee chairman Lindsey Graham will begin reading his opening statement. After that the top Democrat on the committee, Dianne Feinstein, will read her opening statement. Then Bill Barr will be sworn in and he will make some opening remarks.

Two significant developments we expect this morning in those remarks. First, Bill Barr who will oversee the Mueller investigation will say that the Mueller investigation should be able to continue its work. Then he'll say it is in the best interest of Congress and the president for the findings of that investigation to be able to be released to the public. But don't expect Democrats to take that for an answer. They're going to have tough questions for Bill Barr this morning.

But Bill Barr has been in this hot seat before. Back in 1991, he was confirmed to be George H.W.'s attorney general. And just to give you a sense of how different the politics are than they were back then, back then the Judiciary Committee confirmed him unanimously. Then there was a simple voice vote on the floor. Expect a much tougher hearing this morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. John? BERMAN: Lauren Fox for us in the hearing room where all the action

will take place very shortly. Lauren, thanks very much.

Joining us now is Alberto Gonzales, former attorney general and White House counsel for George W. Bush. He's now the dean at Belmont University College of Law and the author of "True Faith and Allegiance, A Story of Service and Sacrifice in War and Peace." Thanks so much for being with us. We've actually had a chance to talk about William Barr already. There have been new revelations since our last discussion. Not only did he write a memo outlining why he did not think an investigation into certain kinds of obstruction of justice was valid, but we've now learned that he shared that memo with the president's lawyers, even holding discussions with Jay Sekulow and the Raskins about this, a discussion about presumably defense strategy, yet now he's sitting in a confirmation hearing to oversee the very investigation in which he discussed a defense strategy. Is there a conflict of interest there?

ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know if there is a conflict of interest. It obviously raises questions, and I'm sure members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to probe into this. It is unusual. It's not something you normally see before an appointment to be attorney general of the United States. Of course, at the time there was nothing inappropriate about sharing that kind of information, sharing his own personal views to members of the Trump team. But obviously it has created some challenges that Mr. Barr will have to navigate in his confirmation hearing.

BERMAN: You said it raises questions. What questions does it raise for you?

GONZALES: The question would be whether or not he has prejudged certain aspects of the Mueller investigation, the validity of the authority and the power, the scope of the investigation, and whether or not it creates an appearance of a prejudgment calls into question the impartiality perhaps of the person who is overseeing the investigation. So these are things that obviously are never good in connection with a high-profile investigation of this nature.

And so one of the challenges that Bill Barr will have today is to reassure the American public and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that in fact he is impartial, has an open mind, as he's going to state publicly, pledge that he's going to allow the Mueller investigation to come to its conclusion.

BERMAN: You said one of the questions you have is whether he has prejudged any aspect of the case. By definition hasn't he prejudged at least one aspect of the case, that the president can't be guilty of obstruction under the guidelines that he laid out?

GONZALES: Perhaps. I have not read the memo, but of course at the time the memo was written Bill Barr was unaware, I'm sure, of various aspects of the Mueller investigation. He will now be privy to all aspects of the investigation. And that may change the analysis. We just don't know at this juncture. BERMAN: Last time we spoke you suggested William Barr should go

through the process with the attorney general's office, the Justice Department's ethics lawyers, determining whether or not he should recuse himself from this investigation. Do you still believe that to be the case?

[08:05:14] GONZALES: I think in a case like this that is such high- profile and there is so much interest in this case and this investigation, I don't know why he wouldn't do that. Quite frankly, I think it would be reassuring to the American public and to the members of Congress if in fact he could say, I took this matter to the career professionals at the Department of Justice and they have given me the OK. They believe it is totally appropriate for me to be totally involved in this investigation, because, again, these rules exist not for the individual. They exist to protect the institution, the Department of Justice. And so for that reason, I hope that he would do that.

BERMAN: Do you think he needs to make that promise as a voter? And you'll be watching this hearing along with the rest of us. As a voter, do you think he needs to make that pledge today in these Senate hearings that he will go to the ethics lawyers at the Justice Department and he will abide by their recommendation?

GONZALES: I don't know if he needs to make that pledge. I think what he should pledge is that he will have discussions with senior leadership at the department as to whether or not it would be appropriate, it would be necessary for him to do so.

At this juncture, again, he doesn't have all the facts, and without having all those facts, it may not be appropriate to pledge, because at the end of the day he's also the attorney general. His responsibility is to oversee all of the work of the department. And you don't want to step aside unless it really is prudent and based upon the recommendation of the career officials at the Department of Justice.

BERMAN: There are some other legal matters I would love to discuss with you in the limited time we have left. One of the stories that has come out over the last couple of days is that President Trump met with Vladimir Putin several times and in some cases -- in one case in particular -- he asked for the interpreter to turn over his notes. He confiscated the interpreter's notes when the interpreter was the only other person in the room. You of course were White House counsel. Do you think it would be appropriate for Congress to seek those notes or seek to hear from the interpreter -- there are two of them in the case - themselves?

GONZALES: I think we need to find out what transpired in those conversations. Obviously, they are very serious separation of powers considerations from my perspective. We also worry whether or not does that set a dangerous precedent with respect to future presidents having conversations either with or without notetakers. I have less concerns about -- obviously there is no separation of powers issues if we talked about Bob Mueller who is in the executive branch trying to get access to those notes. But I think there are serious separation of powers issues perhaps with respect to Congress wanting to get their hands on those notes.

BERMAN: That's an interesting idea. You think Robert Mueller has a right to go after those notes or the interpreter if he wants?

GONZALES: Again, I don't know whether or not -- how it might relate. There may be an obvious connection, obvious because we are talking about perhaps conversations with the leader of Russia. But, again, because we are talking about an investigator within the executive branch, the same separation of powers considerations would not exist vis-a-vis Congress wanting those notes.

BERMAN: Former attorney general of the United States Alberto Gonzales, thanks so much as always for being with us.

GONZALES: Thanks for having me.

CAMEROTA: All right, let's bring in CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, your thoughts on everything you've just heard? Jeffrey. Hi, Jeffrey. Hi. You know what, if --

BERMAN: I'll give you my extensive thoughts. I thought it was a masterful interview. I thought the questions were dead-on right.

CAMEROTA: I wasn't listening to the answers. The questions were so thought-provoking.

BERMAN: What's interesting is that Alberto Gonzales has been in that chair before. He has had gone through the confirmation process to become attorney general of the United States. He knows the situation William Barr will be in. And he wants Barr to make assurances to the Senate and to the American people about what he will do in this investigation.

CAMEROTA: So you really were listening to the answers?

BERMAN: I was, in this case.

CAMEROTA: Jeffrey? Wow. Jeffrey is really taking liberties with being here at a particular time that we told him to be hear.

BERMAN: I think Jeffrey Toobin is building the anticipation for his appearance on this show so that we know exactly how important he is. Not that that's ever been in any kind, any kind of question. He's here. Jeffrey Toobin, you're here. Great to see you.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I'm sorry. A little technical malfunction here. Live television, baby. It was a little problem with my earpiece, but it's all good now, all beautiful.

CAMEROTA: So we are talking about Bill Barr, a subject you know very well. I just don't understand how the people who interview him today, obviously the senators, Democrats and Republicans, how they are supposed to know which Bill Barr will be presenting himself. Of course, he'll say that he'll let the Robert Mueller investigation go forward to its logical conclusion. He said that in his prepared remarks. [08:10:04] But that stands in stark contrast to what he said in the unsolicited 19-page memo where he basically questioned the legitimacy of looking into obstruction of justice.

TOOBIN: One thing you will certainly hear from Barr is that that memo, that 19-page memo, dealt with only one aspect of the Mueller investigation. It is specifically addressed to whether the president could be investigated for obstruction of justice for the firing of James Comey, which is an important part of the investigation. But it is certainly not the whole thing. So Barr will say, I had a legal question about part of the investigation, but I wasn't questioning Mueller's integrity and I wasn't questioning his overall legitimacy as prosecutor. On the other hand, who writes a 19-page unsolicited memo unless you feel pretty strongly about something?

CAMEROTA: Or you are auditioning for a job and you want to either be on President Trump's legal team, since our new reporting is that he sent it to many members of President Trump's legal team, or you want to be attorney general and you want the president to know your position on obstruction of justice.

TOOBIN: Right. And it worked. I think it would be very hard to believe that this unsolicited memo didn't play a part in Donald Trump saying, yes, this is the guy I want. Bill Barr is not exactly someone who was involved in day-to-day politics. He had been largely out of politics for 20 years. He got himself back in, I think, largely through this memo.

Now, it is true that attorneys general, like all cabinet members, they have views about things before they become cabinet members, and there is nothing inappropriate about that. The question is, is this memo and the opinions expressed in it somehow disqualifying? It's worth remembering there is a Republican majority in the Senate. There are no Republicans who expressed any misgivings about Barr. So he's going to get confirmed. The only question is, how much will he be beat up in the process by Democrats?

BERMAN: Jeffrey, I want to ask you about the CNN reporting overnight that the special counsel's team has gone back to the president's team and said we want to interview President Trump in person. Robert Mueller not satisfied apparently with the written answers there. Now, Rudy Giuliani and others have said, over my dead body. It's not going to happen, which the Mueller team knows. I'm curious about why the Mueller team keeps asking. What do you think is going on here?

TOOBIN: If you are doing a thorough investigation of whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia, one thing you'd want to do is ask Donald Trump. Certainly, it is a reasonable thing for a prosecutor to want to do.

The complexity here, of course, is that subpoenaing the president of the United States is something that has never been ruled on definitively by the courts. So if Mueller is going to subpoena the president, first of all, he's tried to avoid doing that by getting voluntary cooperation. He got the take home exam answers, which is a poor substitute, but it at least is something. And the equation Mueller has to weigh is, does he want to get into a

multi-month fight, legal fight, which he even lose in the Supreme Court, or does he simply want to wrap up his investigation without talking to Trump? That's the debate that must be going on in the Mueller office. And at least at this point they have not issued a subpoena and appear to be proceeding without an oral interview.

BERMAN: Which again, I think it's interesting that he even asked given that it doesn't look like they're going to issue a subpoena. Jeffrey Toobin --

TOOBIN: You can always ask.

BERMAN: You can always ask. We can ask you to come and be on our show at say 8:07, give or take two minutes. But sometimes it doesn't work out.

TOOBIN: I just did my best.

CAMEROTA: You can go back to watching NEW DAY now which I know was so compelling that it took a while to get to the seat.

BERMAN: Thank you, Jeffrey.

We do have breaking news this morning. Broadway legend Carol Channing has passed away at 97.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: I could listen to this forever. Channing made her Broadway debut in 1948. Her premier on stage spanned decades. She, of course, is best known for this portrayal of dolly in "Hello, Dolly," winning her a Tony award in 1964. She also starred in movies, television specials, earning her a Golden Globe award and Oscar nomination. Channing's publicist says the legendary actress died early this morning of natural causes at her home in California.

[08:15:05] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: She had a distinctive voice that, of course, she became the subject for impersonators far and wide to do Carol Channing. And when you hear the real Carol Channing, you just realize why so many people, you know, wanted to follow her and act like her.

BERMAN: She always did the best Carol Channing.

CAMEROTA: That's so true.

All right. Back to our news, racist comments have cost Congressman Steve King all of his committee assignments. Should he keep his seat in Congress? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAMEROTA: Overnight, House Republicans took away Congressman Steve King's committee assignments. This follows racist comments he made to the "New York Times" in which he questioned why the phrases "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" have become offensive.

Joining us now is Mark Sanford, a former congressman and former governor from South Carolina.

Good morning, Congressman.

FORMER REP. MARK SANFORD (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Good morning to you.

CAMEROTA: Should Congressman Steve King resign?

SANFORD: Not my call to make. Effectively given what the House did last night, his resignation has already taken place, because committee assignments are where the work gets done in Congress. That's where any individual member has real leverage in the political process.

[08:20:02] And with that taken away, effectively, his legs have been cut from beneath him.

CAMEROTA: Republican Senator Mitt Romney, it sounds like he thinks Congress should go even further. Let me play what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R), UTAH: I don't think there is room for Steve King's comments in polite company, in the Republican Party, or for that matter, in Congress. I think he ought to step aside and I think Congress ought to make it very clear he has no place there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: You know what's interesting, Congressman, is this is not the first time Steve King has made offensive comments. We have a whole laundry list, just a sample. Let me read for some of our viewers.

In 2016, he wondered what subgroups contribute to civilization. In 2017, he predicted that African-Americans and Hispanics would be fighting each other before overtaking whites in the U.S. population. He sparked criticism in 2016 over displaying a Confederate flag on his office desk despite the fact that Iowa was in the Union.

In 2013, he was talking about the Dreamers and how, you know, in his mind they are not all they're cracked up to be. He said for everyone who valedictorian, there is another 100 out there who weighs 130 pounds and they have calves the size of cantaloupes because they are hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the dessert.

I mean, he retweeted an anti-immigration tweet by one of the U.K.'s most high profile white nationalist. So, what happened yesterday, you know, Congressman? Why was yesterday the tipping point?

SANFORD: Well, I think you are asking the $94 question, because what's happening here goes well beyond Steve King. I mean, what it represents the further devolution of political debate in this country.

I think that, you know, Tim Scott, senator from here in South Carolina, I think was eloquent in his condemnation of Steve's remarks. The bigger question is what Romney raised. Romney said his comments aren't appropriate for polite company. Are you kidding me?

What's interesting about that is where is the outrage when Donald Trump says crazy things or racist things? Where is the outrage when Maxine Waters says, let's go after the kids of cabinet members? Where is the outrage when a recently elected senator from Mississippi says put me on the front row of the lynching mob?

I mean, what you can't have in politics is selective outrage. We say we are outraged at this but we'll turn a blind eye to all this other. So, what I find a little bit wanting, if you will, is Romney's comments in light of his quietness with the exception of the recent op-ed on Trump. A lot of other people in Congress where they have given Trump a complete blank slate -- no, we're not going to comment there. But we'll go and take from committee assignments and others, Steve King who made wrong comments. Everybody can agree on that.

But you can't have selective outrage which is what we've got in Congress right now.

CAMEROTA: That's a fair point. In fairness, you were in Congress when Steve King said some of the other offensive things. Did you speak out against him?

SANFORD: I did not. As I said, there are a lot of crazy things said in Congress. You didn't speak out against him either.

CAMEROTA: We did. Actually -- I'm not trying to have moral high ground but we had Steve king on the show many times and he said really offensive things on our show and we would talk about it.

SANFORD: I didn't say the show or CNN. I said did you personally.

CAMEROTA: On the show in my role here, yes. We talked about it a lot. But I guess I take your point.

SANFORD: My point is there is a lot of stuff going on. So again, for whatever reason this is a tripping wire. But I would simply make the point you're making as well. We're making the same point which is I think we've all got to be on guard for racist or other comments across the board and be consistent in that.

I guess that's my only point. I would concur with you. Maybe I should have spoken out. Again, you don't catch every word said on the floor of the Congress or everything everybody says back home in the congressional district.

So, I don't think it is a commentary as much on how anyone may have missed past comments. I think it is appropriate that it's blown up as it has. But I think you can't just single out Steve King and say we've got to make a stand here when nobody is making the same comments in many cases, the same Republicans, about Trump when he says equally offensive things.

CAMEROTA: OK. That's a fair point. Listen to what President Trump said yesterday. He was asked what he thinks about Steve King's comments. Listen to how he responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[08:25:02] REPORTER: Mr. President, what about Steve King's remarks on white supremacy?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Who?

REPORTER: Steve King. Congressman Steve King.

TRUMP: I don't -- I haven't been following it. I really haven't been following it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: That sounded an awful lot like what he said to Jake Tapper when Jake Tapper asked about David Duke, white supremacist. And so, you know, it's just, to some ears strain credulity when the president is a big consumer of cable news and he somehow missed it. What did you think of the president's response?

SANFORD: I just heard it now. I didn't hear it before. I would say, again, it strains credulity -- that's a big word for this early in the morning -- but it does strain credibility, his credibility in saying I haven't heard it, because it's obviously the talk of cable news now.

CAMEROTA: And what do you want the president to say? In your dream sequence of all of us waking up and being much more conscious of these things, what should the president of the United States say?

SANFORD: The obvious which is to condemn it. Again, whether it's racism, sexism, all the different isms out there, the need to be called as they come along and people need to condemn them, period. I think that's part of what's necessary to holding our society together given the disparate views people have and given the many different backgrounds, race and walks of life people come from in making the American family.

And, you know, that applies to the president, applies to members of Congress, applies to folks in media. But, again, my bigger point on this morning is we've got to be consistent in doing it. You can't give some folks a pass and others not.

CAMEROTA: Fair enough. Congressman Mark Sanford, thank you very much. Thanks for allowing me to use my $10 words this morning.

SANFORD: Pleasure.

CAMEROTA: John?

SANFORD: Thank you so much.

BERMAN: Really interesting discussion. Even with all the big words.

CAMEROTA: You followed along.

BERMAN: They were in the room with President Trump and Vladimir Putin. So, will the president's translators receive subpoenas from Congress to reveal notes that the president confiscated? A member of the House Intelligence Committee gives us her thoughts next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)