Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Senate Expected to Introduce Trump Proposal Today; Giuliani Tries to Clean Up Comments on Trump Tower Moscow; Interview with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired January 22, 2019 - 07:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a good deal. I think it's getting some traction.

[07:00:07] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody knows that this proposal will not pass the Senate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel betrayed by him. A federal law enforcement officer and not receiving pay.

RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER FOR DONALD TRUMP: It's our understanding that it went on throughout 2016. The president could remember having conversations about it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's saying three things: "I was talking about hypothetical conversations." This strikes me, at most, a very pathetic attempt at spin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Giuliani is a trusted mouthpiece to speak to the president's base.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome to NEW DAY.

Eight hundred thousand federal workers will miss their second paycheck this week. Ten percent of TSA workers called out on Sunday, because they say they can't afford to come to work.

The longest government shutdown in history is at its 32nd day. The president initially proposed to own it. Now he has a proposal to end it, but it's a plan that White House insiders and Republicans in the Senate pretty much know that Democrats won't buy. Nevertheless, it should reach the Senate floor today.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Meanwhile, President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, continues to confuse. In a new interview with "The New Yorker," Giuliani now denies that the president admitted to having discussions about that Trump Tower Moscow all the way up until the 2016 election, despite saying to several news outlets, including CNN, that that had happened. Giuliani claims he was speaking in the hypothetical.

When asked if his recent string of truth-stretching interviews will affect his legacy. Giuliani said, "I'm afraid it will be on my gravestone. 'Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.' Somehow, I don't think that will be it. But if it is, so what do I care? I'll be dead."

We have it all covered, so let's start with CNN's Lauren Fox, live on Capitol Hill. What's the latest, Lauren?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, on Capitol Hill, dueling messages from the House and the Senate this week on how to end this government shutdown.

First, in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will bring a proposal to the floor later this week that will actually reflect the president's proposal. Now, that's $5.7 billion for the border wall in exchange for temporary extensions of DACA and temporary protected status for immigrants.

But important to remember: Democrats are saying, "It's not enough. We don't expect it to get the votes it needs to move out of the Senate."

So then let's go over to the House of Representatives, where Nancy Pelosi will have a spending bill, multiple spending bills that actually give more border security, try to reopen the government. But what they don't do is give the president a cent for that border wall, and that's, of course, a big sticking point.

So you have Nancy Pelosi with her set of bills. You have Mitch McConnell with his proposal that looks a lot like the president's. Nobody is getting in a room and talking today. We don't have any indication that the president and Pelosi are any closer to a deal than they were four weeks ago when this all began -- Alisyn and John.

BERMAN: Lauren Fox for us on Capitol Hill.

Joining us now, David Gregory, CNN political analyst. Jeffrey Toobin is here, our chief legal analyst. And Margaret Talev, a senior White House correspondent at Bloomberg News. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you always for your punctuality.

David Gregory, I want to start with you. Do you feel, David, that we are any closer today to ending this shutdown? The president did make a proposal on Saturday. Democrats rejected it out of hand. And they look at it and say this really isn't even a place to start, but is this something that should be discussed?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think we are getting closer, because they're getting into a legislative process. It may be a dead- end, but there is some room for negotiation here, obviously.

One, they could continue down the path of negotiation only if the president reopens the government, once they have some legislation in place. And then you can obviously see a negotiation around how much border

wall funding and how much of an extension for the DREAMers, permanent or something less. Those are the outlines here.

Remember, the -- the contours of this bill were available last year at the price of $25 billion. It's now at $5.7 billion to get an extension for -- for the DREAMers, although this is not being offered as a permanent extension.

So there's still a lot of public posturing going on. I think if it's in the legislative process and people are talking more quietly, then you'll know there's an actual negotiation happening.

CAMEROTA: But Jeffrey, there's -- they've included, they've snuck in -- Republicans have snuck in some elements to this bill that Mitch McConnell wants to bring to the floor the Democrats are never going to be comfortable with. They want asylum seekers to change the system for how people can seek asylum. So not presenting yourself at a port of entry here but in your home country.

Well, I'm not sure that Honduras has the best asylum system set up and that there's not a good reason that people who are fleeing persecution or violence in their home country aren't doing it in their home country. This is something that Democrats would -- I mean, it's as though they think Democrats won't notice that they've snuck this in.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, look, I mean, you know, I love to see brother Gregory optimistic about this, but boy, it seems like a well off from resolution here, because you know, everybody knows the parameters here.

[07:05:06] It's not like there is just a money number that can be compromised. There are substantive differences starting with the wall but not only the wall, as you point out. All the related immigration issues are not anywhere near resolution. So I don't -- you know, I just don't see how this thing gets resolved.

Obviously, I think, because the United States government has to reopen at some point, it will be resolved; but we still seem well off from a resolution.

BERMAN: Well, Jim Clyburn --

TOOBIN: As I see it.

BERMAN: Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 in the House, says that, if there were permanent legal status for DREAMers or a path to citizenship and you reinstate TPS permanently, that would be enough to get Democrats to the table. But Margaret, we know that Republicans in the past -- we only have to go to last February, to see where the president rejected that because he feared his own base.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, that's right. And I spent the weekend at the White House. I was part of -- there for the president's remarks on Saturday and the briefing from several top officials afterward. And in conversations then and throughout the rest of the weekend, I've

been told very clearly that, while there is some wiggle room to negotiate on these immigration proposals, both the DACA and the TPS, that the White House at this juncture is not looking at any negotiation to make any of these changes permanent, certainly not for citizenship. But at this point, not for residency either.

So I think the question about the shutdown is, there are two ways to resolve it. One is by negotiating some sort of a border deal. And the other is by detaching it from the negotiations over immigration and just re-opening the government.

At this point, the White House is prepared to stretch this out a little bit longer. Have the federal workers missed another paycheck and try to blame Democrats. But if that doesn't work and there's still an impasse, the State of the Union is supposed to be a week away, if that is still happening.

The debt limit becomes a real issue, starting in March and, certainly, ramping up throughout the summer. So there are real questions as to how long this can actually go on.

GREGORY: And that is -- look, the Democrats have a really valid point, which is why should we tie this all to re-opening the government? Because why do you expect the president wouldn't do that again over another issue? So separating it out from that, I think, is very important for them.

The other point is, why should we assume that Donald Trump is good at his word? I mean, just because he rejected this kind of deal before doesn't mean he'll -- he won't change now and decide to give the DREAMer deal, as long as he can claim some kind of victory on the wall?

CAMEROTA: Yes. That's an excellent point. Or that he will agree to something or that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi will think that he's agreed to something, as has happened, famously, in the past, and then, he'll wait to see the reaction from various corners and then disagree to do those things.

But interestingly, Jeffrey, Nancy Pelosi also has a suggestion where she is sneaking in, not sneaking in, I think, because Republicans have agreed to this in the past. But adding in things to reopen the government that she wants, voted on this week.

So $1 billion for more immigration judges. That's what everybody says could help the system. And more money at the actual legal ports of entry to better check what's coming in through, everybody can agree to that.

So it sounds as if she, too, is capitulating a little bit on what had been their stance of we're not going to do a single negotiation while the government is shut down. Maybe they, too, are feeling the pressure.

TOOBIN: Everybody is feeling the president. I was flying there this weekend, and I was with the -- you know, and every time I went through security, I said to the TSA people, you know, thank you for working.

And you know what? They are so over it. They're like -- they don't want to acknowledge thanks from people. A lot of people were saying, "Thank you." All they want to do is get paid.

And, you know, it's so outrageous, when you think of people now working for a month with no pay. Only John Berman would do that, because he enjoys being on TV so much.

CAMEROTA: I know.

TOOBIN: But other than that, like, no one should be working without pay.

BERMAN: I would crawl through broken glass and then work for no pay, just to be clear. Just to clarify. Just to clarify that.

All right. Again, and you were talking about who's feeling the pressure. Eight hundred thousand federal workers missing their second paycheck, they're the ones feeling the pressure more than Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump here. I do think we have to keep that in mind.

There's a different subject we want to talk about here, which is the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who said things over the weekend, then walked it back. And now, he's saying more things that I don't know where they put him.

In general, what he's trying to do is clarify the timeline of when the president knew or was discussing the Trump Tower project in Moscow. All right? So the most recent thing was give an interview with "The New Yorker" yesterday, before he was taking a shower, which is part of the element that I --

CAMEROTA: Not relevant, but we are obsessed with that. Yes.

BERMAN: But we want to just -- People -- so people can understand, when we talk about the fact that it's filled with contradictions. We're going to do a dramatic reading for part of it this time. In this case, Giuliani is talking about the Buzzfeed article, and he's talking about whether there's evidence that the president knew and what he discussed about this Trump Tower meeting.

[07:10:07] CAMEROTA: You're going to play Giuliani. I'm going to play a reporter, as I do every day.

BERMAN: OK. Giuliani: "I can tell you from the moment I read the story I knew it was false."

CAMEROTA: "Because?"

BERMAN: "Because I had been through all the tapes. I had been through all the texts. I had been through all the e-mails. And I knew none existed. And then, basically, when the special counsel said that just in case there are others I might not know about. They probably went through the others and found the same thing."

CAMEROTA: "Wait. What tapes have you gone through?"

BERMAN: "I shouldn't have said 'tapes.' They allege there were texts and e-mails that corroborated the -- what Cohen was saying. The president told him to lie. There were no texts. There were no e- mails. And the president never told him to lie."

CAMEROTA: "So there were no tapes that you listened to?"

BERMAN: "No. No tapes. Well, I have listened to tapes, but none of them concern this."

Scene.

CAMEROTA: Scene.

GREGORY: Where are the hand gestures? There's no dramatic hand gestures.

BERMAN: This is a table reading.

GREGORY: John Berman.

BERMAN: This is a table reading, David. As you know, during a table reading, it's primarily line work. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: But the point is, in the space of four sentences, Margaret, he completely confounds and contradicts what he had just said in the previous sentence. And some people think it's strategic, but I find that hard to believe that these beings strategically confusing when people are asking them to do -- hear tapes, did you not? What tapes were they? Did the president know about the Moscow tower thing?

And the reason it's important, is because he was beginning to craft policy during that time. So it would be important to know if the president had a multi-million-dollar deal going on with Moscow at that same time?

TALEV: Yes, it's important because of the substance of what was going on at that point, and it's important, because the president's pretty consistent narrative throughout this process has been that that's not what was happening and that there weren't discussions of substance going on.

So I think, Alisyn, you have underscored the key discussion, which is what Mayor Giuliani is doing, strategic, or is he trying his best as he can to answer these answers as he understands the answers to be and then getting dialed back by the rest of the president's legal team.

It is important to understand that, while Giuliani is a lawyer and is one of the president's lawyers, primarily why they wanted him -- why the president wanted him sort of on the team was much more to be a media figure, strategic media talker to help frame the debate and go on the offense.

So I think, to the idea that this is strategic, it is, of course, possible that Rudy Giuliani is trying to introduce slowly into the public dialogue some of the elements of what is going to come out later. It's also possible that he's speaking instinctively and then getting reeled back.

And I think that matters for the public debate. It may matter, potentially, for the information that is contradictory, that Mueller's team has to sort out. But what's most important is what Mueller and his team are finding out behind closed doors in that time frame.

TOOBIN: I think the important thing to remember is that we are now in a moment where the president has filed sworn written answers to questions, including about Russia, when he had dealings with Russia.

He was obviously lying during the campaign, saying he had no dealings with Russia. Sometimes during the '16 and apparently even '17, these dealings continued.

Giuliani is trying to move the conversation to acknowledging, as it will come out in these answers, that there were these conversations going on much longer than the president acknowledged. But he's doing it in a way where he's trying to pretend the president isn't lying, when president -- candidate Trump obviously was, and that's why I think he keeps getting tied up in knots.

GREGORY: But I think -- right, because he's being deliberately deceptive on behalf of President Trump. So this is President Trump's posturing about these facts that they want to dribble out.

But for all of -- and unless you believe there's something deeply wrong with Giuliani, that he is -- that he's not thinking straight, then he's doing this more or less on purpose, as Jeffrey suggests, and getting him -- twisting himself up in knots in the process.

But it doesn't change the fact that what came through so clearly through all the haze of this weekend is that one of the big areas of suspicion that the president was formulating policy and developing a relationship with Russia on the backs of a big-time financial deal that his business had with a foreign government while he was running for president. That is what is clear through all of what Giuliani has said.

BERMAN: I think that's a really good point. That the one thing that shines through here is that he's struggling to explain what went on here and explain it away. And it's hard.

And as Jeffrey said, remember, we may have three things here. We may have what the president said in sworn written testimony. We have what Giuliani is saying out loud. And the third is the truth. And it's unclear where those three things line up. And I suppose we will find out ultimately?

[07:15:03] TOOBIN: You know, I have to believe that, in the course of the Mueller disclosures, what the president said in those sworn statements will come out. Although -- and this is a whole other topic; it came up during the Barr hearings extensively -- how much we learn of the Mueller report is still up in the air. But I think we'll learn something and the president's statements, I just have to assume will be part of it.

CAMEROTA: John and I stand by to do a dramatic reading when that comes out.

TOOBIN: OK. I look forward to that.

BERMAN: That's fantastic.

CAMEROTA: I know.

BERMAN: Thanks, guys. The Senate could take up the president's plan to end the shutdown today, but Democrats say it will not pass. So what will pass? We're going to ask a Democratic senator, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to introduce the White House plan end to the shutdown today, setting up a vote for Thursday. But Democrats say the proposal doesn't have the votes. So how do they plan to end the shutdown?

Joining us now is Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Senator, thanks so much for being with us.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: Thank you.

BERMAN: I want to start with that last question I just posed. What's the Democratic plan to end the shutdown?

BLUMENTHAL: There's a clear path. Reopen the government, take the bills that have passed the House of Representatives that would provide funding, much like the bill that was unanimously approved by the Senate just a month ago, and then, after we reopen the government, resolve differences about border security, about the DREAMers.

We have policy differences all the time, John. We don't shut down the government to resolve them. And here, there's strong support for border security through smart measures like surveillance and sensors and electronic fencing and better technology, more manpower, better trained, and a solution for the DREAMers.

BERMAN: Is your position, though, no negotiations unless the government reopens first?

BLUMENTHAL: There have to be these agencies reopening so that people can go back to work and so that we can avoid the harm to the economy.

BERMAN: No negotiations before the government reopens?

BLUMENTHAL: There have been negotiations, but there will be no successful negotiations until the government reopens.

BERMAN: So "The Wall Street Journal" looks at this and says that "Speaker Pelosi's refusal to negotiate even after Mr. Trump's new offer suggests that she's concerned that Mr. Trump might get some credit for a bipartisan immigration victory." Do you feel that that's true?

BLUMENTHAL: I think that is fundamentally untrue. I think that the reason we're in this dilemma is that the president has made demands and is simply insisting on a vanity project, a campaign promise or applause line; and no president should be allowed to take the nation hostage to achieve a personal triumph.

BERMAN: I will note you're the third Democratic elected official who's used the word "hostage" on this show in the last few days. Clearly, it is a word that Democrats want to put out there.

And yes, the government is shut down, and the president said he would own that shutdown. The question is how to get out of it now and what will you agree to in order to end it?

James Clyburn, who is the No. 3 on the House, says that, look, if the president puts a proposal on the table that includes permanent legal status for DREAMers or a path to citizenship; permanent protections for TPS folks, then he might be willing to grant some new barrier for the $5.7 billion. Would you?

BLUMENTHAL: What we have right now is a sham proposal about the DREAMers. It applies only to a limited number of those young people brought to this country when they were children.

BERMAN: And it's only three years. I get that. But what I'm saying is if -- if the president moves to permanent legal status?

BLUMENTHAL: I would certainly agree to reinforcement of the barriers at the border. A wall from sea to shining sea has been abandoned even by the Republicans.

BERMAN: He's abandoned it now. That's not part of the negotiations at all, as far as I understand it.

BLUMENTHAL: The point is, and our conversation illustrates it very, very well, John. There is room for negotiations, but it can take place when we reopen the government. We have a responsibility. The Senate should do its job. We should not just be an extension of the White House, a kind of additional West Wing. And we should make an independent judgment.

We're sending the president a measure to reopen the government. That's our job.

BERMAN: All right. I want to talk to you about the Mueller investigation right now and read Rudy Giuliani's comments over the weekend. We've been talking a lot about how confusing they are to an extent.

But if Giuliani's argument is that maybe the president did talk about building a Trump Tower in Moscow all the way up until the election, legally, is there anything problematic with that? Did he break any law by having his people engage in negotiations to build a Trump Tower?

BLUMENTHAL: Certainly, it smacks of illicit negotiations and dealings with an adversary, with Putin's henchmen. But here's the important thing --

BERMAN: But is it illegal?

BLUMENTHAL: He lied to the American people.

BERMAN: Is that illegal?

BLUMENTHAL: It may well be if he also lied under oath or in other contexts. But the fact is Putin had something on him, which may be the reason why he issued a statement about the Trump Tower meeting that was plainly false, why Trump Jr.'s testimony may well be false, insofar as he's saying, "I didn't tell my father."

And the important point here, which was raised just minutes ago, is we need to see the Mueller report. It needs to be disclosed.

BERMAN: And you -- and you are suggesting that maybe there needs to be legislation. You think Barr shouldn't filter it in any way. You want to see the whole thing. I get that.

Back, though to Giuliani and to President Trump. President did say he had no dealings with Moscow in the summer of 2016. That clearly isn't true. That's clearly a lie. He was in a deal or trying to make a deal with Russia, but lying to the American people during a campaign is not illegal.

[07:25:08] BLUMENTHAL: Lying to the American people may not be itself breaking the law. But if it's part of a conspiracy, if it's part of aiding and abetting other illicit actions, we need to see the full special counsel report and all that he knows, because -- here's another point that I think is irrefutable.

Bob Mueller knows a lot more than we do. He knows the answer to your question. When Trump lied to the American people, was he aiding and abetting? Was he part of a broader conspiracy that may have been to break laws, probably alone, taken alone, lying to the American people is reprehensible and irresponsible.

But it shows that Putin had something on him at a time when the American people needed to know the truth. And now more than ever, we need it from the special counsel report.

BERMAN: You pressed Bill Barr in the attorney general confirmation hearings on whether or not he believed that a sitting president could be indicted. Two very quick questions. Do you feel a sitting president can be indicted, and do you feel this president should be indicted. And so far for what?

BLUMENTHAL: A sitting president can be indicted, in my view. I recognize there's an argument against it.

BERMAN: Including from the Justice Department. BLUMENTHAL: The Justice Department has two legal opinions, which are

very old and really quite unpersuasive in their legal merit. And the reason I think the president can be indicted is that the trial can be postponed. The burden is no less than a pending investigation. And the statute of limitations could expire on crimes that she or he has committed.

So I think there's nothing in the Constitution to prevent it, should this president be indicted. That's the purpose of the special counsel investigation.

BERMAN: But not yet. Not yet, as far as you're concerned?

BLUMENTHAL: And I want to see, like any good prosecutor would, and I still like to think of myself as a good prosecutor, all of the evidence, so that we know what the charges should be, if any, and we know what the factual basis for any indictment might be.

But as a general matter, putting aside this president and what the special counsel has in the way of evidence, I think a sitting president can be indicted but the trial postponed.

BERMAN: Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, thanks so much for being with us.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.

BERMAN: Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, John, 800,000 federal workers are in danger of missing a second paycheck this Friday. One of them joins us with how this is affecting his life, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)