Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump to Deliver State of the Union Tonight; Source: Prosecutors Subpoena Trump Inaugural Records. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired February 05, 2019 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's going to be a speech that's going to cover a lot of territory, but part of it's going to be unity.

[05:59:21] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can reach agreement. The problem is the president keeps changing the goal posts.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: This is the defining moment of his presidency. To every Republican, if you don't stand behind this president, we're not going to stand behind you.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: There are these continuing questions about "Where did all this money go?" He may be mired in this for the rest of his first term.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is information out there that may be likened to a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they're credible, let the investigation go forward, and let's see what it shows.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Tuesday, February 5, 6 a.m. here in New York. Alisyn is off. Poppy Harlow joins me.

Great to see you this morning.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good to be here, this morning.

BERMAN: Big day. A huge day for the president, with some huge questions looming.

Tonight, for the first time, the president will deliver the State of the Union address to a divided Congress. For the first time, Democrats control one chamber. For the first time, Nancy Pelosi will be sitting behind him, literally watching over his shoulder as he speaks to the nation. After a 35-day shutdown that cost billions and achieved nothing for his pursuit of a border wall, will he propose a path forward to prevent another shutdown in just 10 days?

We're told the theme tonight is, quote, "choosing greatness." We are told he will try to strike a tone of comity -- that is with a "T." What does that mean for a president who has so often, in some people's eyes, polarized the nation?

HARLOW: It's a big question.

Also this new overnight. Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed President Trump's inaugural committee for documents related to donors, vendors and finances. This move escalates a wide-ranging inquiry into how a record $107 million was raised and how it was spent. The subpoena discloses that prosecutors are investigating a litany of potential crimes, from conspiracy against the United States to mail and wire fraud, money laundering and even the possibility of illegal contributions from foreign nations.

BERMAN: All right. We have a lot to discuss. Joining us now, David Gregory, CNN political analyst; Marc Short, former White House director of legislative affairs for President Trump; and former Democratic president candidate, governor of Vermont, chair of the DNC, Howard Dean.

Now Marc Short, you are hardly an impartial reporter here, having worked for the president. But we would like to go to you as a reporter first this morning, because you've spoken to President Trump in the last few days about this State of the Union address. What did he tell you he wants to achieve?

MARC SHORT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, John, I think that there's going to be a couple of things. I do think that the president is going to say that there are opportunities for us to work together.

And I think he'll cite our track record here. Amidst all the coverage and the chaos and what happens inside the White House, the reality is that not only was there passing the prison reform bill, there was also bipartisan right to trial legislation. Between bipartisan success on opioid legislation.

And so I think the president can say, "We can do this." And there are things that we can work together on. And I think he's going to lay out, specifically, infrastructure, drug pricing legislation and things of that nature. But I don't think there's any doubt, as well, that he should expect that he'll talk about the concerns he has on the southern border and the need to secure our border there.

HARLOW: The optics of this are going to be fascinating and important, Governor. You're going to have Nancy Pelosi standing there, not Paul Ryan, standing behind the president here. Someone who he just called rigid in his interview on CBS over the weekend.

HOWARD DEAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That was the light part.

HARLOW: You're right. And said, you know -- and I'm paraphrasing here that, you know, she doesn't want to protect the country, protect the border, etc., from criminals here at a time when Democrats have much more power than they did. How do you see the American people taking that in?

DEAN: Well, I don't think that the president's going to be able to resist polarizing. He -- when he gets on the stump -- and this is a big stump speech, really, because he's got an audience -- he's just not able to not cater to his base. He can't -- he can't resist the charge of polarization that he gets from his people. I don't -- I think you're going to see that tonight and I expect him to go off script.

BERMAN: I don't know. I mean, the State of the Union, the addresses are teleprompter speeches. He veers very little from it. Granted, they're written largely by Steven Miller, who I think everyone will admit here is an immigration hard liner.

David Gregory, you know, Marc Short, I thought it was interesting he led with criminal justice reform as the first notion, that that's something that Democrats and Republicans can work together. Do you think the president can credibly reach across the aisle tonight?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think the president is wounded as he comes into the State of the Union address. He's still reeling from the midterm elections that didn't go well for his party, that didn't go well for his political brand. He's coming off a government shutdown that he started, that didn't leave the other side unscathed but still hurt him and which he ended up caving to end. And now there's the specter of another one.

So I think when he's wounded, when he's cornered, he tends to be small and not big. And I think some of the guests indicate that he will have a hardline stance on immigration. I think Marc and I have talked about this on this program before. There is a more moderate road to talk about broad immigration reform. I think he wants that.

I think he very much wants a victory on the wall, however, that can be defined. And I think he's still pushing toward that and is determined to get to that place, whether it requires a national emergency or not.

So I think that political position the president comes in with is one that will still constrain him. Yes, he'll talk about criminal justice reform, prescription drug bill, which are possible areas of reconciliation. But there's a lot of ground to cover before he can get there.

There's resolving this wall business. There's the legislation the Democrats want to move forward, even if it doesn't go anywhere. So there's a lot of gamesmanship, I think, on both sides before they can get to a place where they might actually agree on some things.

[06:05:12] HARLOW: You know, Marc Short, on the issue of whether the president will declare a national emergency on the wall, you know, he told reporters, "Look to the State of the Union" when asked about that last week.

Now our reporting is that if he does declare a national emergency, it won't be until the end of next week, the 15th, the deadline. But you have this growing concern among his fellow Republicans in the Senate. You have Senate Majority Whip John Thune of South Dakota saying there are, you know, that he hopes the president doesn't go down that path. John Cornyn saying serious constitutional question. Susan Collins of Maine echoing the question about constitutionality. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson warning against it here. It's a growing chorus from Republicans.

Is the president listening to that?

SHORT: I think it is a growing chorus, Poppy. I think the chorus will get louder. I think particularly, when you talk about Congress, they don't like the executive branch having more authority.

HARLOW: But does he care? Is he listening to that?

SHORT: I think he cares, Poppy. But I think at the end of the day, he's going to challenge Congress to get him a bill that funds what he wants for border security. And I think that the reality is if it doesn't happen by the 15th, he's going to say he thinks it's in America's interests that he moves forward with a national emergency declaration to make sure the border's secure.

So I would be surprised if it happens tonight. I don't want to tell you it won't, but I'd be surprised. But I do think he's going to challenge him one more time to say, "I've given you my criteria, not must mine but what the professionals, the men and women in uniform at Customs and Border Patrol say they need. And if you can't get it for me, I'm going to take action."

BERMAN: You think it's inevitable, though, the emergency declaration?

SHORT: I think it is, John. I don't see a -- I don't see where, frankly, Speaker Pelosi is going to give him any money for the wall. And so I think that's where we're going to end up.

BERMAN: Governor Dean, put us in Nancy Pelosi's head during this speech, in terms of the thought bubbles here. What is she thinking as she's watching the president?

She sat behind a Republican president before, George W. Bush. She was speaker of the House under George W. Bush. She's doing it again now. What is she thinking while he's speaking? And how does she use this moment going forward to push her agenda?

DEAN: Well, I think what she's thinking is the disconnects between our own base and especially the people in the middle. She's going to be -- she's incredibly experienced, as we just saw, from the -- from his -- her ability to basically beard the president over the State of the Union, which he never saw coming. And she's going to look for opportunities to do that again.

The public is with her right now on the issue of the wall. Most people do not believe the wall is a good idea. And so if the president makes it about the wall, that's a losing issue for him. It may be great among his base, but it's a losing issue among the vast majority of Americans. We'll see. It depends how disciplined he is. And there is a path forward, but this president has never shown

himself to be disciplined in any way. And so I just can't suddenly think that this is going to change anything.

As far as the national emergency goes, that's a mixed bag. If he declares one, it will go to court. If we win in court, if the president wins in court, we'll do it when we get the presidency and do national monuments in climate change and everything else. That's why the Republican senators don't like this.

SHORT: I think that's actually a slippery slope that's very difficult.

DEAN: Sure it is.

SHORT: The statute is very specific about what a national emergency is. And I agree with the governor, it's going to be tied up in court. But the reality also is the Congress doesn't like it. It can change the statute. This is not enshrined in the Constitution. It's authority that Congress gave the executive branch.

So I think that there's this notion of the slippery slope. And I confess that what the Republicans are telling the president, but I also think it's greatly exaggerated.

HARLOW: There's also an interesting power play here, that David Gregory, Nancy Pelosi could -- could poll here, and that could be to have, if the president does declare a national emergency, that could be to have the House, David, vote on a resolution as to whether lawmakers support this or not. And then it will go to the Senate. And of course, they could not vote on it. But at the same time, then that would be sort of a give to the president that they then thus support him declaring a national emergency.

Just optically, what challenge does that pose for the president?

GREGORY: Well, he, the big challenge he faces is this leadership test, is by pursuing this, simply, him creating this alternate reality and creating a false crisis to drive through funding for what we call a wall, whatever form that takes, to put an emphasis on border security, you know, I think that that doesn't look good for him, especially if he goes into a big constitutional fight over a national emergency when there's not an emergency.

If he puts it back in the realm of, "Look, this is a leadership test. We have a need for security." Democrats have funded all kinds of barrier funding in the past. So it's kind of a false note on their part to make it a morality show.

And at the same time, let's do something that's more permanent around DREAMers, then that takes on a kind of a different cast. And he has to figure out a way to keep his base with him while he pursues a bigger leadership model here around immigration.

[06:10:05] I think that's ultimately a victory, and that's a discipline for him. But you know, as Howard says, his -- one of his biggest weaknesses is that he's totally inconsistent, which is why I think these big moments have not been big for him, because he plays them small.

You know, he can talk about bipartisanship in areas where we can work together. But you know, he's basically said that the speaker sitting behind him is supportive of human trafficking, because she won't give him money for wall. I mean, it's just not serious. And that's where he looks small as president instead of using all the trappings of the office, which is another opportunity tonight.

BERMAN: You know, it's interesting. It may not be the moment itself, but it's the bracketing of the moment. It's the before and after. I think if you look at the the timing of these speeches the last two years, it's what he said immediately before and after that calls into question the actual script in the moment itself.

David, you brought up the people sitting in the president's box here, and let's go over some of the people that will be here. One is Alice Marie Johnson. Here prison sentence was commuted after 21 years. That's criminal justice reform.

But there are other people here, David, and I think you were talking about this. Debra Bissel, Heather Armstrong, Madison Armstrong, relatives were killed by an undocumented immigrant. There's a message the president is trying to send there, clearly.

And then Joshua Trump, who is a sixth-grade student at Wilmington, Delaware, who appreciates art, science and history. But he was invited because his name is Trump and he says he has been bullied because of that.

And I think, you know, we can all come out against bullying. I think bullying anyone is an awful thing, David. But to me, this is the ultimate Trump White House move here. Pick someone who you can't argue that bullying is bad. But if the No. 1 problem about bullying in America is bullying people named Trump, you might be missing the point.

GREGORY: Right. You might be missing the point.

I'll be interested to see how -- and we see it in how this is described, how this is used. I think the president is tapping into something that's real, which a kind of reflexive animus against, you know, the name "Trump." And the political divisions, in some cases, that are -- that are totally irrational.

Where, you know -- and we see it in schools around the District of Columbia, by the way, where people who work for government or work for different administrations, Republican and Democrats, get -- get targeted in schools in one way or another, which is wrong.

So I think the president is trying to use this, in a way, to talk about the polarization and to get people who are upset with the media or are upset with, you know, general opposition to Trump, to kind of hit that nerve. HARLOW: Just finally, wrapping it up, Marc Short, to you. I mean,

John makes such an important point. The words matter. The actions matter, too, what the president is going to do afterwards.

Remember, last year, it was a big call for unity, as he was reading his prepared speech. And then, it was only, you know, days, moments when he reverted back to attacks against Democrats on Twitter and elsewhere. Do you expect the same?

SHORT: I don't know, Poppy, honestly. But I think that it is -- it different, obviously. We have a divided Congress. And I think the president will talk about what was accomplished in the last two years, how strong the economy is doing, how strong it is; talk about record job growth. That will be a part of his speech, too.

But now we have a divided Congress. And so there's going to be a need to say, "Here's what we can do together."

BERMAN: Quickly, Stacey Abrams?

DEAN: Great choice. Great choice. She is incredibly articulate, smart and she also, in the view of most of the people who oppose Donald Trump, was cheated out of the governorship when Brian Kemp kicks 1.5 million Georgians off the voters -- off the voting roll. So this is a fantastic choice, and she is really smart.

BERMAN: She's delivering the Democratic response. A lot of people want her to run for Senate in George, ultimately, too. It will be interesting to see.

Howard Dean, David Gregory, Marc Short, thank you very much.

Ahead on NEW DAY, we are going to speak to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. She will tell us what to expect, maybe reveal some new details about the speech and the president's plans immediately after it. That's in the 8 a.m. hour.

HARLOW: All right. Also, be sure to watch CNN's special live coverage of the State of the Union address. It is tonight. Our special coverage begins at 8 p.m. Eastern.

BERMAN: All right. President Trump's inaugural committee was issued a subpoena. What are prosecutors looking for? This is new, and this is interesting.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:17:48] HARLOW: All right. Welcome back to NEW DAY.

Federal prosecutors in New York have subpoenaed President Trump's inaugural committee for documents related to virtually every donor, vendor, finances in a major escalation of the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office's ongoing investigation of the committee's activity -- activities.

Let's talk about it. David Gregory is back. John Avlon is with us. Laura Coates. Actually, our CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor and the host of the wonderful "Laura Coates Show" on Sirius XM.

Good morning to you all.

Laura, let me begin with you. I mean, wow, can we just pull up on the screen what prosecutors are looking at here in terms of potential crimes. Conspiracy against the United States. False statements. Mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, disclosure violations and even potential contributions by foreign nations. Wow.

They have reason to believe one or all of these crimes may have been committed here. What's your read?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well -- and they have reason to believe that proof of that crime or documents that support evidence of those crimes exist with the inaugural committee.

It's one of those things you look at and say, well, if the entire discussion about who would have contributed, who would get their just desert by being allowed to go to the committee events and the inaugural events in general; who may have been able to go through a loophole or a pass on through a straw donor, which they're also looking for. Somebody who they say, "Look, I am not allowed to give campaign

contributions. Maybe I'm a foreign national or other reason. I'm going to give it to you. Could you please do me a solid and do it for me?" They're looking for all evidence of that.

And remember, the inaugural committee raised an exorbitant amount of money, compared to the relatively modest amount of events they had. So that high amount of money they had, compared to the modest event, where did the money go? Where did it come from? And who was given the ability to appear and rub elbows with the president of the United States.

It also tells me, Poppy, again, a second case has been farmed to the SDNY. Cohen and campaign contributions, Mueller didn't want any part of it. Now you've got this. Same thing. This is on autopilot, even if the special counsel probe ends.

BERMAN: And I think that may be the most significant part here. Look, there are people who look at inaugurations and say something smells funny here.

[06:20:07] Greg Jenkins, who ran the 2004 inauguration for George W. Bush -- David knows him -- says, "They raised and spent four times the money we did on fewer events with a smaller staff. Where did the money go?"

But John, I think the big point here is there is a new federal investigation being run by the SDNY that will continue if the Mueller report comes up, if Mueller finishes this week, next week, two weeks from now, he may be done but the SDNY isn't. And now we're investigating new and wider areas connected to the president. JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. And areas where

there has been a lot of smoke, not only with regard to where they went but for a national showing up at the inauguration.

I think the key point is this. This investigation is broadening, not narrowing. The larger investigation into questions of corruption or impropriety around Trump Co. Both the companies, the inauguration and the campaign.

And also the president -- one of the significant things about SDNY is the president's pardoning power doesn't apply in the same -- in the same manner. So if things are on a separate track, that becomes a real -- that becomes a real issue.

HARLOW: Quickly follow-up for you. Tom Barrack, who chaired the inaugural committee, not named in these documents.

AVLON: Yes. And that is striking, simply because he's the chairman of the entire thing. He spoke at Trump's convention. He's a very compelling figure.

And it's unusual for this level of scrutiny, these level of charges to be potentially weighed and have the chairman apparently not involved at this point, which is kind of fascinating.

BERMAN: David, let me just read the statement here from the inaugural committee. "We have just received a subpoena for documents. While we are still reviewing the subpoena, it is our intention to cooperate with the inquiry."

GREGORY: Well, let's also step back and now understand that there's almost every aspect of President Trump's life, in his adult life, his businesses, nonprofits, inaugural committee, campaign itself is under investigation.

And this may look like it's off the ball here a little bit. But then you think about who's involved. Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, who was Paul Manafort's deputy. These are people who are -- have been convicted or pleaded to crimes or were cooperating with the broader investigation. And you don't know how or whether there's, you know, cross-pollination between these two investigations.

But you have just a bigger area of investigation. And in the past, this is an area where the president has said, there's potential red lines here, if you're looking into business or other aspects of his financial life.

If the question is foreign influence, the question is foreign cooperation, if there is the red flag of how much money was flowing into this inaugural committee, it's all going to be under intense scrutiny beyond the Mueller investigation, which says something about the potential political impact.

COATES: I was going to say, sorry, David, you mentioned cross- pollination. Remember, the lead prosecutor, one of the lead prosecutors overseeing the Michael Cohen investigation in the SDNY found his name on the subpoena for the Trump inaugural committee, which means that there certainly is cross-pollination and likely, there is sourcing from somebody who was a cooperator with SDNY, albeit it in a limited fashion, in the form of Michael Cohen.

This is somebody who has provided information, and I can't possibly begin to think this is a coincidence that the same prosecutor is involved in both.

BERMAN: We know for a fact that there is a recording of Michael Cohen speaking to someone who is involved with the inauguration. So an audio recording. So that at a minimum is involved in this at some level.

AVLON: That's right. Look, again, I just don't think you can underestimate the fact this is a brand-new investigation that's deepening. And the litany of complaints that you've read, that is a long list, and it's ugly stuff, and it's serious.

HARLOW: So also, this morning, "The Washington Post," with an important revelation. "The Washington post," David Gregory, is reporting that the Trump Organization in the last two months has fired 18 undocumented workers from several of their locations, golf courses, et cetera.

And what struck me near the bottom of the piece, was that "The Post" reports that the Trump Organization now says that they are going to start using E-Verify. Start. OK? Here's what the president said about E-Verify in 2016.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: What are we going to do about illegal hiring? Because the Republicans have joined the Democrats and said in that bill a couple years ago, "We're going to stop illegal hiring."

TRUMP: You can do that with E-Verify and with the various methods.

MATTHEWS: Are you for it?

TRUMP: I'm for it. I use it. I'm using E-Verify on just about every job at Doral, I'm using it. But I'm using it on the building, the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue that I'm building into, which will soon be a phenomenal hotel.

MATTHEWS: But isn't this --

TRUMP: And I'm using E-Verify.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: David, it's not just that it's a bad look for -- for the organization, given what the president said, but you also now have senators like Senator Menendez who just wrote a letter to the FBI and DHS to investigate the treatment of some of these workers there.

GREGORY: Yes. That's right. And whether they were exploited, whether they were told, "Don't worry. We'll get you false papers. You know, we'll take care about -- take care of it for you."

So this is, at the very least, hypocrisy of the president and least hypocrisy of the president and his organization employing illegal workers at the time that he wants to lead this kind of national crackdown, not using everything that's been at his disposal.

And these are questions that the organization will continue to have to answer for. Because he -- he kind of fits the profile, right, of an employer in the country who wasn't doing everything possible to stem the flow of illegal workers coming into his country while now saying that they're ruining the country and taking jobs from other people.

AVLON: Right. But I think even more fundamentally, this makes the case for why we need comprehensive immigration reform. You know, workers wouldn't stream across the border if they couldn't get jobs and companies turning, intentionally, a blind eye, especially if they're in the service industry.

So this is something where Donald Trump has a unique moral authority to speak to the problem, even if he's been imperfectly applying E- Verify to date. This shows that any solution other than comprehensive doesn't address the problem.

BERMAN: The E-Verify rules very by state. They're stricter in Florida and D.C., which is why he may have been there --

AVLON: Doral and the federal post office.

BERMAN: -- and apply it down there and not in New York and other places in some of these Westchester country clubs, Laura.

But David's statement, at the very least, this is hypocrisy. It's a special kind of hypocrisy here where the president's foundational issue is keeping undocumented workers out of the country. His foundational issue. He ran on it, and yet up until yesterday, he's employing dozens of undocumented workers? Paying them?

COATES: Well, I mean, it's good to be the king, right? That's the idea here, that everything applies to everyone else besides myself.

At the very least, it's a hypocrisy, but it also includes legal liability. Because the way that the employment immigration laws are structured in this country don't simply seek to punish, although they do in a disproportionate way, those who are the undocumented workers.

If there is actually an employer who is trying to circumvent or entirely ignore immigration laws in this country, particularly related to who is working there, it may also seek some legal jeopardy and liability in that fashion.

So you have the head of the person who is the head of the executive branch. His name is on these companies. It has been his major platform as a candidate and again as an incumbent. And here, he is perhaps skirting the laws, if "The Washington Post" reporting is accurate, that the employers actually knew and were aware that they were fraudulent documents. Well, it's not just hypocrisy that his concern. It's the expansion of

particularly other investigations into whether or not he or part of his companies or those he employed, which include, by the way, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. as the people who do the day-to-day operations. Whether they are aware that there is somebody trying to violate the laws including one of their own.

BERMAN: David, you wanted a last word?

GREGORY: This is an important "gotcha" moment, because the president is guilty of all kinds of myth building around illegal immigration. You know, that people have to be worried about being targets of violent crime because of illegal immigrants, as well as illegal immigrants coming in and taking jobs that otherwise Americans would be getting, taking, seeking. Those are myths that are just belied by the facts.

And here's a case of another employer who's taking advantage of the kinds of workers who will do jobs to -- to fulfill the service needs of their -- their companies, or their properties.

HARLOW: Thank you all very much. Really important conversation.

Ahead, he's not running, of course, but former President Obama still looms large for the Democrats over the 2020 race. We'll tell you how next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)