Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump Inaugural Records Subpoenaed by Prosecutor; Trump to Urge Bipartisanship in State of the Union. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired February 05, 2019 - 07:00   ET

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

[07:00:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right. Joining us now is Cliff Sims, author of Team of Vipers, My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House, former director of White House message strategy, which obviously would be a big job surrounding a day like this, the State of the Union Address. And Cliff, I do understand you've been in contact with one of the team of speechwriters preparing the address for tonight. What do you hear the President will be trying to do?

CLIFF SIMS, AUTHOR OF TEAM OF VIPERS: Well, as we go toward 2020 I think the President is really starting to think about another big picture election, in terms of what direction our country is going to head. And so, tonight I think you'll see him start to lay the groundwork a little bit.

He's using that, you know, choose greatness as the theme. And I think it's going to get back to - you know, in 2016 he felt like, and I agree, that - that he was probably the candidate who had the best branding, the best kind of immediate sense of when you think Trump, you knew, kind of what you were getting, knew what he was trying to do.

He maybe lost that a little bit, getting down in the weeds over the last, you know, couple of years of just being president. I think he's going to try to get back to that and really set the stage for this big directional election that's coming in 2020.

BERMAN: So one of the things we have been told he's going to do is talk about unity and comity. That is with a T. You have noted on this show before that the President's political strategy up until this point has been to play to the base. Go deep with the people who like you. And really not do much to reach out beyond that. Does he need to finally reach beyond his base, or try to?

SIMS: Well, I think these are, kind of, conflicting impulses that you see going into a speech like this. And I can say, you know, going back to last year when I was still in the White House, we did the State of the Union.

When he came back from the capital and we met him in the Diplomatic Reception Room. And it's kind of this exuberant feeling. And he had great coverage coming out of that same thing for his joint address to Congress the year before.

These are moments where he notices when he has these, kind of, unifying themes in his speeches, some of the - the moments with the guests that are in the gallery. Those are things that really drive great coverage. And so, it makes him want to be very aspirational. So I think that that is an impulse that will be pulling on him tonight with that experience.

But on the other hand, as you mentioned, some of the guests that are coming are, you know, for instance, family members of people who were killed by illegal immigrants. And so, those are issues that have, kind of, driven his base for a long time.

And so, I think there are, kind of, divided impulses. And so, I think he's going to try to thread the needle between those two tonight. We'll see if he's - if he's able to be successful. To his credit, I think the last couple of years, in these moments he really has risen to the occasion.

BERMAN: Talk to me more about that. He likes the applause, you're telling me. He likes the pop. What does he feel about this moment?

SIMS: Well, I - I remember really well, actually, the first year. So when it was a joint address to Congress, not necessarily the State of the Union. But he gives that joint address, and he comes back. And I remember Van Jones on CNN said, you know, this is the moment Donald Trump became President.

And so, the coverage was just unbelievably laudatory. It only lasted 24 - 48 hours though because if you recall, Jeff Sessions recused himself, kind of, right behind that speech. And so, he kind of - he stayed off Twitter. He, kind of, let this real positive news coverage play out. And then that happened. And so, it kind of took away from it.

So I think he does have those memories of these moments where he's able to have really positive coverage based on these speeches. And so, I think he'll be really thinking about that going into tonight.

BERMAN: Would you guys try to trick him into or convince him to keep on going with those message of unities? Would you use these moments to say hey, look. Look at what coverage you get. Look at how people are responding to your outreach.

SIMS: Well, I don't necessarily think it was tricking him as much as it was just saying, like look - look what you - look what you did here. I mean, you really rose to occasion, gave an incredible speech.

And look at the extraordinary reaction that you're getting to that, and so that kind of positive reinforcement that would go along with it. So, I would expect tonight, if he rises to the occasion as he's done so many times in these moments, that there'll be, kind of, a similar thing play out behind the scenes ...

BERMAN: Yes.

SIMS: ... as he watches that coverage.

[07:05:00] BERMAN: Is he capable though, Cliff? In your heart of hearts, do you think he's capable of sticking with it beyond the 45 minutes tonight because the problem is always the follow-up?

SIMS: Well, I think it does really come down to what is the coverage? And does he feel like he's getting his just do (ph) from the media for his performance tonight? If he's watching that and it is positive, I think then he kind of sticks on those themes. But he - he reacts to that feedback loop. He's very dialed in, as you know, to what that feedback loop is.

And so, it kind of depends on what the coverage is. If it's very laudatory and positive, then I think he does - you know, maybe he stays off Twitter for a little while, sticks to the themes that get a positive reaction in the speech. So we'll see.

BERMAN: Well, from your lips to his ears, which may be actually tuned in right now, watching because as you know, he tends to watch a fair amount of cable news. And there's been new reporting to just that end.

Axios received a huge dump of leaked schedules from the last two years, daily schedules, the likes of which you don't normally see in any kind of reporting. And in fact, I've heard an outcry from both Democrats and Republicans that it went public at all. And let me read you something you wrote about this.

We got these scheduled emails to us every morning. Just consider the sheer amount of time and effort it would take to compile two months worth of schedules. If most leaks are involuntary manslaughter, this was premeditated murder, vipers going to vipe (ph), premeditated murder, this leak.

SIMS: Yes.

BERMAN: What do you mean there?

SIMS: Well, because, like I said in a tweet, just think about the amount of time. I mean, it's not as easy as just like you go and grab these schedules out of Outlook, and you email them to yourself, and then you fire them off to a reporter. Clearly that's going to leave a digital trail.

And so, somebody had to, you know, however they captured these two or three months worth of emails where they're screenshotting the screen, or email them to their personal email and then send them to - I mean, who knows how they did it. But just the sheer amount of effort that went into it showed that this was just - the malicious intent behind a leak like this is clear.

And I - I just think it's wrong. I think it's disgraceful. And I think it's right for there to be a bipartisan outcry similar to how there was when the President's foreign leader calls. Some things are just sacred. The man is the President of the United States. This is just mayhem for the sake of mayhem. I can't even make sense of the purpose of a leak like this other than try to present him as - as not working hard.

BERMAN: Right.

SIMS: Which I was there and I will say, certainly a lot more unstructured time than maybe past presidents, but the guy works hard. And I just don't think that there is anyway around that. I saw it every day. He gets up and he works his butt off. And that's the fact of the matter. So for somebody to try ...

BERMAN: Yes.

SIMS: ... to undermine him like this is just disgraceful.

BERMAN: And that may be the purpose of the leak, right, to show this executive time because if you look ...

SIMS: Yes.

BERMAN: ... at the executive time, the unstructured time, largely in the residence, is 297 hours versus 77 hours of meetings. You saw it. What does happen in that executive time?

SIMS: Well, he - kind of similar to what he did in Trump Org, and he wrote about this in some of his books. He'll get up. He starts making calls. He's talking to members of Congress. He's talking to informal advisors. He's talking to his internal advisors there in the White House. He is watching the media, but so that he can get a sense of how things are playing in the press.

So he is - he's constantly in motion. He's constantly working during the day, at night. He kind of never turns off. That's my experience with him. So I really think that it's an unfair characterization to say because there's a lot of unstructured time that that means that there's not a lot of working getting done. That's just not in my experience with him.

BERMAN: He does watch a lot of T.V. Let's be fair. I mean, you write about that in your book. You say among other things, you describe the T.V. that was put into the study near the Oval Office is suspended on the wall above the fireplace, was his favorite toy, a 60 plus inch flat screen television.

It's got, like, a super TiVo, he said, as he grabbed the remote and scrolled through the day's clips that had been queued up for him. So T.V. watching is part of the daily regiment, yes?

SIMS: No doubt about it. But I think that it's part of his workflow. It's part of - you know, watching you guys this morning, watching Fox, watching MSNBC, seeing how different issues are playing to different audiences. And that's why he's able to control so much of the news cycle through Twitter and other things. It allows him to see that, and then react to it in real-time.

[07:10:00]

BERMAN: So after the campaign you - you did come into the administration. Did you work on the inauguration at all, Cliff?

SIMS: I was in Alabama most of the time during the transition time. I didn't work at all on the inauguration. The transition and the inauguration are two separate entities.

BERMAN: Absolutely two separate entities. And they have to be two separate entities. And I bet you're glad, this morning, that they're two separate entities ...

(LAUGHTER)

... given that we are learning subpoenas have gone out to the inauguration committee. They raised an enormement (ph) amount of money, a lot of money. More than double the amount that was the previous record for the inauguration.

And now, the southern district of New York wants to know how it was spent and how it was raised, whether some of those donations come from foreign sources. When you look at the inauguration, are there legitimate questions about how it was enacted, how it was performed, and the people behind it?

SIMS: Well, on the fundraising side I'm not really sure. This is one of those things where I'm kind of watching like a passive observer, like many people around the country. But I will say on the spending side, we have seen a number of stories going all the way back to my time in the White House about how some of those resources were spent, some of the vendors.

A - a friend of the First Lady was one of the key players, kind of, in organizing a lot of things (ph). There were millions and millions of dollars spent through that entity. So these are stories that we've seen, kind of, trickle out over the last six or eight months.

So I think it's worth lifting up the hood, kind of seeing what happened, and making sure there was no impropriety, maybe, from some of these vendors. I have no reason to believe that there was any impropriety, in terms of the way that those finances were raised or anything like. But again, I'm kind of watching like a passive observer, just like everyone else on this one.

BERMAN: It doesn't sound like you'd be totally shocked though if laws were broken here by somebody.

SIMS: Well, but - I think that doesn't implicate, necessarily, the first family or anything like that. I think it's more like you've got dozens upon dozens of people involved in such a massive undertaking like this. And so, based on some of the stories that we've seen, it wouldn't surprise me if some of these vendors down the food chains somewhere, that they're maybe worth taking a look at.

BERMAN: Cliff, you know, you've been in the press quite a bit over the last few weeks. And the Trump campaign has suggested they are going to file a lawsuit against you for violating a non-disclosure agreement. Do you have response to this lawsuit? SIMS: No, nothing yet. And I haven't seen a lawsuit yet so we're, kind of, watching it play out at this point. And I've been advised to just, kind of, say, you know, we'll wait and see.

BERMAN: We'll - we'll - we'll wait and see. And just to wrap up and circle back to the State of the Union Address tonight. You say the President could reach across. And you talk about how much he enjoys this moment. But if you look at the polling, Cliff, 41 percent of Independents had - you know, approved of him two years ago, 41 percent approve today. He's made zero end (ph) roads (ph) there. Do you have any sense of why?

SIMS: Well, I think a lot of it is, like I talked about earlier, kind of these competing impulses. His impulse to, kind of, play to that base, and it - and it got him elected. And so, he's had some success with that.

And - and rather than being, kind of, a mile wide and an inch deep, he - he prefers to go, maybe, very deep with a specific section of the population, energize them, and bet that they're going to be the ones that turn out to the polls.

That has continued to be the play pretty much throughout the campaign, and now through the administration. So for him to, kind of, shift directions in that regard, I would be a little bit surprised at the juncture if he did that.

BERMAN: Cliff, we'll let you go now. But since he might be watching, any message you want to send to the President since you haven't been in touch that much lately?

SIMS: Knock it out of the park like you've done the last couple of years, always risen (ph) to the occasion. Do it again.

BERMAN: All right, Cliff Sims, great to have you on with us. I appreciate it. Thanks.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: That was fascinating.

BERMAN: Yes. Ahead in our next hour, we are going to hear from White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders. She will hopefully give us some new details about what we will see in the State of the Union tonight. And be sure to watch CNN's special live coverage of the address tonight starting at 8 p.m. Eastern Time.

HARLOW: All right, so, as John brought up in that interview, we're going to dive more into the President's inaugural committee subpoenaed. What it reveals about what investigators are looking at, and into, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Federal prosecutors in New York subpoenaed President Trump's inaugural committee. According to a copy of that reviewed by CNN, investigators want to see documents related to donors, venders, finances, all as part of this ongoing probe into the committee's activity.

[07:18:14] With us now, David Gregory, CNN political analyst; Margaret Talev, senior White House correspondent for Bloomberg News; and our Jeffrey Toobin, our CNN chief legal analyst. Thank you all for being here.

This is serious business. Let's just pull up on the screen what prosecutors believe what crimes may have been committed here. And there is a litany of them. Conspiracy against the United States, false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, disclosure violations, contributions by foreign nations, or, Jeffrey Toobin, straw donors. Did someone from a foreign nation make a donation through someone else, because they couldn't make it directly?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: But other than that, it went really well. Yes.

HARLOW: No, absolutely.

BERMAN: This is a broad subpoena, right? That's the point. Really broad.

TOOBIN: There are some -- there are some crimes that are not listed there. So that's good.

HARLOW: There are some. That's true.

TOOBIN: Sure.

HARLOW: We're talking about $107 million, a ton of money. And there's been criticism and questions raised about where did that all go? There weren't, like, a record number of super fancy inaugural events. What are your questions?

TOOBIN: In fact, there was twice as many -- twice as much money raised for fewer events than either Obama or George W. Bush conducted.

I mean, just step back for a second and think, what's under investigation right now? Trump's businesses, his campaign, his -- his foundation, his inauguration, his presidency. I mean, there has not been anything like the kind of stench of corruption around one president than there has been -- Richard Nixon had nothing on this.

Now, is there proof? No. But the question is, as so often, where did the money go? And that's why you subpoena the records.

HARLOW: And where did it come from?

TOOBIN: Exactly. And where did it come from? And, you know, in the modern world, the good news for investigators is there is almost always a trail of where the money came from and where it goes. And that is what they're looking for.

BERMAN: What's the standard to issue subpoenas like this, Jeffrey? How much does the Southern District have to have at this point to be pushing for what they'= are pushing for now? TOOBIN: Very little. I mean, you're talking about, really, an

internal check on the -- on the office itself has its own standards. You don't have to have probable cause. You don't have to have reasonable suspicion. I mean the way assistant U.S. attorneys work is you have a stack of subpoenas in your desk. And you and the FBI or other investigative agency you're working with, like, who should we subpoena? I mean, that's how it works in low-profile investigations. Obviously, in this one, there would be some supervisory considerations.

But, you know, it's very much up to the discretion of the individual prosecutors.

HARLOW: Margaret, to you. Looking at this, Sarah Sanders is going to be on the show later. And look, I mean, the administration can point to, and I would assume an answer would be, "Look, this isn't -- this isn't the president. This has nothing to do with the White House."

But to Jeffrey Toobin's point, it just adds to the list of Trump entities under investigation.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I mean, Poppy, you're right. That's exactly been the White House's position. That they have different lawyers who address these questions. This isn't -- has nothing to do with them. It's the inaugural committee.

But look at where we are here. It is the same day of the president's second State of the Union address. It is the midpoint of his first term, at least, in office; and investigations into his inaugural committee are still under way.

And, you know, this -- this goes to show the cloud that he's under, how pervasive it is. And also, this idea that when Robert Mueller's investigation was over, the presidency could move on. We see day-by- day, as the SDNY sort of case and reach expands, how that really may not be true.

So I think there are long-lasting tentacles into this. And ongoing questions not just about how the money was spent but, indeed, who the money came from and how it was passed to the inaugural committee. The connections to countries like Russia, Ukraine, many of the Gulf nations. So yes.

BERMAN: David.

GREGORY: Look who's involved here, as well, right? This subpoena comes out of the investigation into Michael Cohen, who's on his way to Princeton. Maybe he's going to Princeton, but he's actually going to prison.

And to Rick Gates, right? Who worked for Paul Manafort, who's had to plead and is cooperating, as well. So the cross-pollination between these different cases and this question that Jeffrey raises, the importance of following the money trail. Where does that lead? Does it lead to cooperation or foreign influence on the 2016 race. The other side of all of this is how tedious it is to follow this kind

of investigation or tentacles of an investigation day-by-day. Because the very breadth of how the president and his businesses, foundation, campaign are being investigated leads you back to the same place.

Well, what is the proof? What does it all add up to? Was -- is he responsible in some fashion for cooperating with a foreign power, like Russia, to interfere in the 2016 campaign?

I think you'll hear from Sarah Sanders and plenty of the president's supporters, who say, where does this end, and what are they coming up with? Which is a reflection of how difficult it is to look at this day-by-day and see what it amounts to.

BERMAN: At a minimum, we know it's not ending, Jeffrey, and that may be also one of the most significant things here, which is that a post- Mueller world, because maybe we're getting to the end of the Mueller investigation, if you listen to everyone now --the post Mueller world still includes the Southern District of New York investigating things associated with the president in New York very actively.

TOOBIN: To say nothing of the United States House of Representatives, which is now aggressively just beginning investigations of everything connected to Trump's pre-and during his presidency.

The Congress doesn't have the power to prosecute. So that's obviously a big difference, but they certainly have the power to call attention and hold hearings. So that the idea that the corruption era issue might go away, I think that is just foreclosed. That's just not going to happen.

HARLOW: David Gregory, switching gears to what happens tonight and what we hear from the president. And by all the reporting, our reporting and "The Times," is he's really been taking this seriously, preparing a lot, rehearsing in front of his senior staff, and he's going to have another, you know, rehearsal this afternoon with the teleprompter.

But this promise of bipartisanship, David, that we'll get from the president comes after a blistering battle of even just delivering the State of the Union address, not to mention the looming threat of another shutdown or a declaration of a constitutionally questionable national emergency. What's your read on tonight?

GREGORY: Look, the problem is the president can occasionally use all the trappings of the presidency to bring the country together. He can't just once in a while use that when he spends most days breaking that down and dividing the country.

[07:25:09] He's wounded. He's deeply wounded politically, off the midterm election, off wounded politically, off the midterm election, off the fact that he had to cave on this government shutdown, because he got spooked by the ramifications of it.

And now he's back to accusing Nancy Pelosi, who will be literally over his shoulder, of supporting human trafficking, because she won't support the wall, as he's talking about, you know, declaring a national emergency to get that funding.

So that's not really the basis to, you know, achieve, you know, Infrastructure Week that we keep threatening is coming some day, where the party is going to come together.

So I don't expect a lot out of this. I think there will be some notes of bipartisanship of areas where they can work together. I think he's going to be trying to use this bully pulpit to make the case for his vision of hardline border security. I think that's going to be the major thrust.

BERMAN: Everyone week is Infrastructure Week at this point.

GREGORY: Yes, in our minds.

BERMAN: You know, Margaret, past presidents, you would have a rollout plan after the State of the Union address. The speech would happen, and then the president would travel to six locations over two weeks and strike certain themes here.

I haven't heard that that is what the president is doing. And he might be hamstrung by the fact that he has this next deadline of the next 10 days when there could be another government shutdown.

TALEV: Yes, John, I don't see any travel plans for the rest of the week. If there are, they haven' been broadcast to us yet. You know, I think there are two things to keep an eye on. One, and they're connected.

One is this February 15 deadline over either sort of the next -- either the next shutdown or some kind of an emergency declaration, or whatever Plan C is.

And the other is this continued attention on the wall. So the bipartisan outreach, we do expect to hear him talk about things that Democrats want. Also, like, reduce drug prices. This will be a campaign issue for a lot of Democrats. It's divisive among Republicans. The infrastructure issue.

But again, I don't expect him to go on the road selling reduced prescription drug prices this week. I think the emphasis is going to remain on the border wall and on the shutdown and, slash, emergency threat until that issue is resolved.

And what's problematic is, if the approach is to be bipartisan. There is not bipartisan support for another shutdown or an emergency declaration.

But all the polling. Your polling, the most recent CNN polling shows this still is very strong support for both options among his base. And he must hold his base together as he heads into reelection. So that's his challenge.

HARLOW: Jeffrey Toobin, finally to you on the constitutionality of a national emergency for wall funding. Increasingly, Republican senators are questioning it. Just yesterday, Susan Collins, Maine senator, said it's of dubious constitutionality.

TOOBIN: I actually think the president, constitutionally, is probably on pretty solid constitutional grounds. There are statutes that allow him to make -- to make emergency expenditures.

It's a political problem. This is Congress's most jealously-guarded power: the power of the purse. And even Republicans care about that. But if the president really wants to do this, I think constitutionally, he probably has the right to.

Will Republicans allow him to do it? My answer is probably. They usually talk tough when it comes to Trump, but they don't ever fight back. So I think if he wants to do it, he will do it.

BERMAN: I'm going to take the over on that. David Gregory, last point. Stacey Abrams is delivering the Democratic response. You know, a lot can go wrong, and very little can go right often when you're giving the response to the president's State of the Union address. What do you expect to see tonight?

GREGORY: Well, I think it's some of the messages that -- that the progressive caucus in the House, I think, wants to advance and the leadership, as well, in terms of their legislation, their priorities.

But I think it's a real nod to the present and the future of the Democratic Party and what progressive goals they have that will be for national leaders to pick up, particularly in this election year that we're already starting.

BERMAN: David Gregory, Jeffrey Toobin, Margaret Talev, thank you all for being with us on this morning before the State of the Union address, which of course, is tonight. It is his time in the spotlight. So how have past presidents made their addresses matter? A reality check, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)