Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

20 Years After President Bill Clinton's Impeachment Acquittal; Inside The Relationship Between The Saudis And Jeff Bezos; Gov. Andrew Cuomo To Meet With President Trump Over Tax Breaks; One Year After The Parkland Massacre. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 12, 2019 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: -- must be a time of reconciliation and renewal. We can be relieved it's over but there's really nothing to celebrate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: That was Joe Lockhart, 28 years ago. I, frankly, think he looks even better today.

Also joining us now, Ken Starr. He led the independent counsel investigation into the president. He is also the author of "Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation".

And I will say it again, these two men have never appeared before together on television. I'm glad I could make it happen 20 years later.

You know, Ken, we just heard what Joe Lockhart was doing 20 years ago today. What were you doing 20 years ago today because your work was largely done at this point?

KEN STARR, LED INDEPENDENT COUNSEL INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL, AUTHOR, "CONTEMPT: A MEMOIR OF THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION": Well, I was watching with interest but not directly engaged.

Hey, good morning, Joe. Nice to meet you --

LOCKHART: Good morning.

STARR: -- across the way.

But we were actually focusing on another -- just winding up the investigation, working to make sure that we had done all that needed to be done. There were some, in fact -- some loose ends, et cetera, so other matters. So it was essentially moving toward the end.

BERMAN: Was acquittal a disappointment to you at that time, Ken?

STARR: Not at all. My job -- and I think we need to take a step back and look at the historical context and that is the statute itself, which has gone away and that's a very good thing. There were a lot of Democrats who had reservations about the statute.

The statute on which I was appointed created this dynamic toward impeachment. It used the impeachment word.

And, John, as you know, we're in a very different environment now, structurally and legally, because the Bob Mueller regulations -- the regulation in which he was appointed -- doesn't say one word about impeachment. Impeachment is a terrible process for the country.

BERMAN: And, Joe, again, the president was acquitted -- it was a big deal. But you weren't particularly surprised when it happened. No one was.

LOCKHART: No. I think we had a very good sense of where the votes were. If anything, we were surprised that how many Republicans, particularly on the perjury charge, voted to acquit. I think there were 10 of them; five on the obstruction of justice.

And I think we had a real bittersweet sense there. There was relief that it was over. There was some measure of vindication. But there was no one in the White House that celebrated that day because we'd all been through a year of political hell.

The president, that morning, took responsibility for his part of it. I don't know that others did the same. But it wasn't -- there were no champagne corks popping. There was a sense that now we can fully focus on the people's business and get back to why we were all in the White House in the first place.

BERMAN: As we are in this moment in our history with the Mueller investigation, what are the big differences you see about what your White House went through and now?

LOCKHART: Well, I think there's two main differences.

One is how the president acted. President Clinton made the decision early on that the way he was going to get through it was by not talking about the impeachment process, not talking about the investigation that Mr. Starr was running, and putting the people first and focusing on their business.

This president tweets about it five times a day.

BERMAN: And just to be clear, Ken Starr, you actually also think that is a big difference and a bad one, too, correct?

STARR: I do, but let's face it, Joe, the president did attack the investigation regularly through surrogates. So it was a more skillful set of attack, including terms like witch hunt and James Carville and Sidney Blumenthal and all of that.

But I think politically, it was a very wise move on the part of President Clinton to say I'm staying focused on the work of the people and so forth and to rise above it. BERMAN: And the second difference?

LOCKHART: I think the second difference is Mr. Mueller has conducted his investigation very close to the vest. We don't know what he knows. There haven't been leaks.

I, as the White House press secretary, every day, dealt with leaks coming out of this investigation. And I know Mr. Starr has denied that his office was responsible for it.

But I would recommend everyone go listen to the "Slate" podcast Slow Burn and you'll find some of his prosecutors who were deeply uncomfortable with the amount of information that was coming out, with how the investigation was prosecuted. And, in fact, by the time the report was issued most of the information was already out in the press.

It was my view at the time that -- you know, Mueller is trying to investigate to get to the bottom of this. It was my view and others, at the time, that the investigation of the president was about trying to -- through a series of strategic leaks try to force him to resign, and I think that was wrong. It didn't work and I think it was wrong.

BERMAN: Judge Starr?

[07:35:00] STARR: Well, this is where I just have to disagree, with all respect, to Joe. Joe is very able and I respect his opinion.

I did have a different view than Bob Mueller. I had a view that we did need to provide public information. But here's the line, and most prosecutors would agree with what I'm about to say.

You should provide public information. You should also try to guide the press away from that, which is absolutely wrong. We see that Bob Mueller did that. But you can't reveal confidential information, especially grand jury information.

Look, we were accused of that and we were vindicated. The report of the special master said you did not do that.

So I think we need to draw a line between what a prosecutor reveals that's appropriate. You can -- you can criticize a prosecutor -- that's absolutely fine. But has the prosecutor crossed the line to violate the law? And there, we were in fact, vindicated.

BERMAN: But you do know or you do admit that we know a lot more -- or we knew, I should say, a lot more about your investigation at that time than we know about the Mueller investigation?

STARR: Oh, I don't deny that at all for reasons that I just said. There are times when the press has it absolutely wrong. Now, why did the press get it absolutely wrong -- and they check with you.

And, Joe knows this happens in every prosecutor's office. You say we're going to guide you away from that information or that approach to it. So these are judgment calls. The question is do you criticize the judgment totally fair or do you say hey, this was inappropriate or illegal?

Now, Bob Mueller has taken a very clampdown approach. I, frankly, applaud that approach and I hope he can continue to do that. I think it is better. There's no question it is better to maintain as much confidentiality as possible

BERMAN: Twenty years later, Joe -- and I'll ask this to Judge Starr as well -- is there anything that you did that you regret now?

LOCKHART: Oh, I don't think so. I think -- listen, the president has been clear on the things he needed to take responsibility for and that he regrets -- very open about that.

But I think for our purposes there's really nothing. I mean, remember, we were fighting every day during the investigative part with all of these leaks. Every day I knew one. And I will take Judge Starr at his word that it wasn't him.

Again, I would refer you to the podcast where people who worked for him are more open about that and more open about being deeply uncomfortable with the tactics that the independent counsel's office --

But I think we did the best job we could in answering questions, guiding people where we could. There were things that were wrong. Not talking of things that we couldn't talk about, and trying to do everything we could to stay focused on the rest of the job of government.

BERMAN: Judge Starr, regrets?

STARR: Well, my biggest regret is that I didn't go to Attorney General Janet Reno and say look, there are all these allegations. If, in fact, there is something awry, send me off to Pepperdine University, but don't just leave us out there hanging.

It was one of the -- I hate to speak ill of Attorney General Reno. She had a very distinguished record.

But let me just say this. It was part of the evil -- the structural evil of the independent counsel statute. It left the independent counsel statute out there all alone as opposed to Bob Mueller is being defended, and rightly so, by the Justice Department. Huge structural difference. It makes all the difference in the world in terms of as a practical matter.

BERMAN: We have just a few seconds left. It's been 20 years and you guys haven't talked at all. Anything you want to get off your chest?

Judge Starr, first, to you.

STARR: No. I wish Joe well. I'm glad we have moved on.

And no, what I want to get off my chest is simply impeachment is hell for the country. There should be some other kind of resolution.

I write in my book that a resolution of censure would have been appropriate. I think it would have garnered virtual unanimity.

BERMAN: Joe?

LOCKHART: Yes, I -- you know, I think that impeachment was hell. And I think everyone has the responsibility, from the independent counsel investigation to Republicans in Congress, to the president -- of the -- then, the President of the United States.

I think the one thing that has stuck with me, and I don't know how it's been addressed, is the president was a big boy, he could handle it. But the reopening of the Vince Foster suicide case, I think, was unconscionable and I think those who were responsible for that owe that family an apology.

BERMAN: Very quickly, Judge Starr, I want to give you a chance to respond to that. We've got about 10 seconds.

STARR: Well, there were so many criticisms, rightly or wrongly, of the Bob Fiske report. We were determined to prove, and we did, that this was a great tragedy but it was not a crime. There were all kinds of really crazy allegations, murder and so forth, and we wanted to put an end, and I think we did, to the conspiracy. So, I respectfully disagree with Joe.

BERMAN: All right, I'm not surprised even 20 years later.

[07:40:00] Joe Lockhart, Ken Starr, thank you very much for being with us and helping us make this moment of history -- Alisyn.

STARR: Thank you.

LOCKHART: Thanks.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Fascinating to watch that play out, John.

All right. So, the publisher of the "National Enquirer" put out this glitzy magazine promoting Saudi Arabia. What happened after that magazine went to print? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: "The Wall Street Journal" reports the publisher of the "National Enquirer", American Media, asked the Justice Department last year if it should register as a foreign agent. The question came after the company published a glossy magazine promoting Saudi Arabia and its crown prince.

Now, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is hinting at a mysterious Saudi angle after accusing AMI, that company, of blackmailing him.

CNN's Nic Robertson has much more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): Less than a year ago, Jeff Bezos and Saudi's powerful crown prince appeared on good terms. Mohammed bin Salman was in the U.S. pushing his reform agenda and courting investors, including Bezos.

Fast-forward to the fall. Bezos' "Washington Post" columnist Jamal Khashoggi murdered by Saudi agents. Bezos is silent; the "Post" is not.

Khashoggi's editor steps up her security.

KAREN ATTIAH, GLOBAL OPINIONS EDITOR, THE WASHINGTON POST: For the last four months -- I mean, it's been -- and we talk about extremists I've had to be worried about my own security.

[07:45:02] ROBERTSON: Bezos, his Amazon empire, and its smaller Mid East site souq.com videos become targets for a pro-Saudi social media takedown beginning early November. Thousands of tweets, many pro- Saudi, calling for a boycott of Amazon.

This video posted seven weeks after Khashoggi's killing, saying "The owner of Amazon and Souq attacking Saudi. His newspaper, Washington Post, is being used to attack us on a daily basis. The question is, will we allow him to do that?"

A local pro-government journalist ads his voice, explaining to Saudis who Bezos is. "The owner of Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, is leading the biggest media campaign against Saudi." Claims he is "a spiteful, racist person against our country and trying to destabilize us." Concluding, "Boycotting Amazon is the best solution to take."

His post garnering more than a quarter million views.

Bezos didn't react. Then last week, he took aim at AMI for what he calls blackmail over lurid pictures of him with his girlfriend Lauren Sanchez, sharing this insight on the heat that he takes. "It's unavoidable that certain powerful people who experience Washington Post news coverage will wrongly conclude that I am their enemy."

Not clear if Bezos is talking about his one-time possible business partner MBS or today's foe, AMI owner David Pecker who outed his marriage-ending affair, or both of them.

Nic Robertson, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: All right, time for "CNN Business Now."

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo heads to Washington today to appeal to the president for relief from a provision in the 2017 tax law that will hurt high-tax states like New York.

Chief business correspondent Christine Romans here with more -- Romans.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT, ANCHOR, "EARLY START": Hi there, John. Tax season is here and so is the reckoning for high-tax states. The deductions for state and local taxes capped by law at $10,000. That cap strongly opposed by Democrat and Republican lawmakers alike from states like New York, New Jersey, California, and a lot of other states where it means a bigger tax bill for their constituents.

Now, Gov. Cuomo says the law hurts blue states.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D), NEW YORK: What it does is it has created two different tax structures in this country, and it has created a preferential tax structure in Republican states.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMANS: The architects of tax law capped the SALT deductions to pay for lower tax rates for individuals and companies. They say that SALT deductions simply unfairly subsidize those high-tax states. It's not the federal government's problem if there's high taxes in New York.

The higher tax bill, though -- real estate data shows a growing number of big earners are packing up and moving south to low-tax states, buying property in Miami trying to escape those so-called SALT taxes now.

The president, speaking to reporters last week, seemed opened -- at least for a moment there -- to revisiting the SALT deduction cap. Governor Cuomo will press his case, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: I bet he will. Very interesting, Christine. Thank you so much.

So, this week marks one year since the massacre in Parkland, Florida. Now, an author who had sworn off covering any more mass shootings is back with a book about that attack and what he saw during -- well, NEW DAY's coverage -- that made him change his mind.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:53:00] CAMEROTA: This Thursday will mark one year since a gunman murdered 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. It will also mark one year since the survivors of that mass shooting began a movement to combat gun violence, organizing the March for our Lives and the Never Again battle cry.

Joining us now is Dave Cullen. His new book is called "Parkland: Birth of a Movement". It is out today. Dave, great to have you here in studio.

DAVE CULLEN, AUTHOR, "PARKLAND: BIRTH OF A MOVEMENT": Thanks, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: And this is -- this Parkland book is not your first book, sadly, about a school shooting. You wrote the definitive book on Columbine and you were sort of steeped in this horror after that for a decade because there are always school shootings and people would call you as an expert.

And you had almost sworn it off. And then what happened to make you want to write "Parkland"?

CULLEN: Right. So I was the mass murder guy, unfortunately, after these horrors.

And it was the morning after I was on this set with Chris Cuomo and I talked to him after and I said I think I'm done. I gave a really kind of depressed interview about like this never changes, we're not doing anything, it's just too horrible, and what's the point?

On the elevator down -- because you guys have the monitors on the elevator -- I saw your interview like five minutes later with David Hogg where he first called out adult America and basically -- I'm paraphrasing -- said you have failed us. What have you done? You've done nothing and you're letting your children die.

And I was shocked. First of all, I know and you know first-day survivors and that's not how they act.

CAMEROTA: Never.

CULLEN: They're not -- they're not in that place yet. I went, what is this?

And I went home and I turned on the T.V. to do more interviews and I saw one kid after another. And I'm like wow, this is going to -- I started at noon. I started writing a piece for "Politico" about is this time different and why is this different?

CAMEROTA: I was so struck by that, as well.

So we flew down. I was there at Parkland when the sun -- before the sun came up we were there and David Hogg rode up on his bike. And I agree, there was something so striking and unusual because he was already in action mode. And as you say, the first day after having survived a shooting, I had never heard it before.

[07:55:11] So let's remind people of what David Hogg told me in those first early-morning hours.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID HOGG, SURVIVOR, PARKLAND SCHOOL MASSACRE: People are going to keep saying oh, this is just another shooting, it's never going to happen to me. But what happens is when you don't take action things like this eventually will happen to you, and that's not acceptable.

And that's why I'm calling people to stand up. Talk to their congressmen, talk to people, and don't stop fighting because children will continue to die if we don't take a stand now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Like you, I had never heard a call to action before, that early, from a survivor.

And so, what did that motivate you to do in which way?

CULLEN: Well, to go back down there. So I had suffered secondary PTSD twice, seven years apart, and so I kind of wasn't allowed to go there.

CAMEROTA: From covering that, yes.

CULLEN: From covering Columbine, yes.

CAMEROTA: From covering Columbine, it took an emotional toll on you.

CULLEN: Yes. I was -- yes, nearly in a mental hospital. It was -- and then I had suicidal ideation problems after that. And, I --

CAMEROTA: Because it got so into your system.

CULLEN: Yes, because I spent so much time with those kids and I -- it is -- I feel like it's like plutonium never getting out of me in just spending that time with them and -- because it's horrible.

And, Columbine, it was the first day and they didn't see it coming. Nobody saw it.

And by the way, so the first day it was pandemonium. People hugging and sobbing. It was exactly what you would expect.

And the morning after is what shocked me. None of that. There were blank stares. Nobody was crying. There were thousands of kids and like not a tear because they had gone to that vacant place.

And I've worked with a lot of PTSD experts and somewhere around 10 percent of a population that's normal -- near 100 percent -- that never happens. And -- but these kids -- no one had expected Columbine.

And I never saw that at Parkland. These kids were expecting it.

And the closest I ever saw was Lauren Hogg and her progression over the year -- I met her about like every three to four weeks. Her progression over the year was kind of amazing.

CAMEROTA: And what happened?

CULLEN: She got better. Each time I saw her she was better.

And about three months after I talked to her -- and I talked to her mom and David about it. What do you think about Lauren? And she's like oh, yes, I'm doing much better. Then her mom would say yes, but she's also having nightmares still.

So --

CAMEROTA: Of course. I mean, I think that there's a lesson here which is that action does heal. But somehow, they fastened on that themselves and we could never have known that.

And listen to what these kids have done, OK. In the year -- immediately, they marched. They marched on their state Capitol. They immediately swung into action --

CULLEN: In a week.

CAMEROTA: -- mode in a week, OK. And we were there covering it.

They managed to get Florida, OK, to change their gun laws.

They raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. They banned the sale of bump stocks, which we couldn't do at that time yet, federally. They gave law enforcement greater power to seize weapons and ammo from the mentally unfit, which is what this shooter so obviously was.

And so, I mean, it goes on and on, what they were able to do.

And so, now, from where you sit -- I mean, I know that I personally stopped saying the names --

CULLEN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: -- of mass shooters a long time ago -- many years ago -- because they want notoriety and why give it to them?

CULLEN: You were one of the first, yes.

CAMEROTA: And you recommended that.

And so, have things gotten any better? From where you sit, after writing "Parkland", has the country turned a corner somehow?

CULLEN: So much, yes. I think we're on the way out. I think -- I didn't plan it this way but I think and I hope when we look back on the school shooter era which is this horror -- and this mass shooter era which it morphed into, Columbine wasn't the first and Parkland wasn't the last.

But those will hopefully be the bookends where the Columbine is the one that set it into overdrive and unfortunately, all the perpetrators are modeling themselves after, so that was sort of the opening.

And I think this will be the beginning of the end and the way out because we were trapped in this rat maze but we didn't know what to do. It was impossible -- and these kids just punched a hole in that maze and said it's this way, follow us.

And by the way, it wasn't that hard. Like, it's right here. But I think they're leading us out.

CAMEROTA: From your lips to God's ears.

Dave Cullen -- the book, again, is "Parkland". It's a wonderful book. Thank you very much for bringing it to us. CULLEN: Thank you so much.

CAMEROTA: All right.

BERMAN: And he also -- I mean, Dave Cullen has helped us all understand how to cover these events. Such an important body of work at this point.

CAMEROTA: And the emotional toll --

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: -- that it takes, as he's been so honest about.

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: All right. We do have some breaking news for you on the budget negotiations in Washington, so let's get straight to it.

BERMAN: All right. Good morning and welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Tuesday, February 12th, 8:00 in the East.

And breaking overnight, a tentative deal to prevent a new government shutdown. A bipartisan group of lawmakers -- they reach an agreement in principle.

The huge looming issue this morning is will the president sign on? We don't know. He hasn't said anything, he hasn't tweeted yet.

Some 800,000 federal workers who could go without pay again, they don't know. They want to know.

These are the details of this tentative deal.

END