Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Judge Rules Manafort Lied to Robert Mueller about Russian Contacts; Spending Bill Headed for Vote Today, Trump Expected to Sign; Interview with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired February 14, 2019 - 07:00   ET

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

[07:00:04] ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

JOHN BERMAN: Good morning and welcome to your NEW DAY. Alisyn is off. Erica Hill joins me.

Happy Valentine's Day. We have candy for everybody.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: You are -- you are a giver, John Berman.

BERMAN: Sweaty peanut M&Ms.

HILL: Nothing like it.

BERMAN: Nothing says love more than that.

HILL: I'm going to save that for later.

BERMAN: All right. As the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, always says, it's not a crime to lie to the media. What is a crime? Lying to the FBI, the special counsel, and a grand jury. Just ask Paul Manafort.

A federal judge just ruled that Trump's former campaign chair intentionally lied about meetings with someone linked to Russian intelligence, with whom he shared polling data and conversations about pro-Russia policy. He lied about it even after reaching a plea deal. That plea deal is now off the table.

It gets to the bigger question of why? Why have four Trump associates lied about contacts with Russians? And what does that mean to the overall Russia investigation?

HILL: Entering Capitol Hill, the stage is set this morning for the House and Senate to vote on a bipartisan border deal to avoid another government shutdown. The White House, for its part, signaling President Trump will sign it before the Friday night deadline, even though there is less money in this Bill for the border wall than was offered before the shutdown.

And "The New York Times" reporting calls have been made from the White House to at least two FOX News hosts, Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity, in an effort to get them on board and for them to sell the narrative that the president got more than he would have without the shutdown.

Joining us now, David Gregory, CNN political analyst; Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's chief legal analyst; and Joe Lockhart, former Clinton White House press secretary.

Jeffrey Toobin, I want to start with you on this one, because when the judge yesterday was very clear, in terms of what they believed Paul Manafort lied about, how it all happened. I mean, just your gut reaction, what does this tell us about where Paul Manafort is and where, potentially, the special counsel is?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: What I couldn't get out my head was the picture I saw in court the other day of Paul Manafort, who is physically transformed from the person, the brisk looking businessman who walked into prison. He is hobbled over. He is walking with a cane. He apparently has gout. He looks disoriented. He is now looking at a likely life sentence in prison.

And, you know, putting aside the politics and, you know, the larger implications, just the -- what he has done to his own life by committing these crimes by lying is just extraordinary. And, you know, the real possibility is that Paul Manafort will never be free again.

BERMAN: And why did he do it, then? Given that situation, why did he lie? And just let's tell people what he did lie about.

Interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik, who is this figure who has known ties to Russian intelligence, so says the FBI. Manafort lied about $125,000 in payments for legal bills. He also lied about information material to another probe. We have no idea what that is. That's just hanging out there.

But on the interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik, again, a man with ties to Russian intelligence, about conservations about Russian policy, and we know that the Mueller team says this was central, part of the core, of the Russia investigation.

TOOBIN: There are two main possibilities for why he lied about the Kilimnik. One is that he was trying to ingratiate himself with Kilimnik and the Russia world so he could get more business, that it was just about greed.

The other possibility, and more provocatively, as far as the Mueller case is concerned, is was he lying because he was colluding? He was saying to a Russian emissary, "Here is this polling data. Use it to help Donald Trump get elected president." And that, you know, this now famous August 2, 2016, meeting at the cigar club in New York, were they basically trying to get Donald Trump elected president so that the sanctions could be lifted and, you know, Russia would win and Trump would win?

HILL: And there's a great, you know, John kind of put some of this together this morning. We're going to put up the -- just the list of dates here as we tick through. So you mentioned August 2. But if we go back just a couple of weeks

from then, right? So if we're looking at July 26, just looking at this timeline here, July 22, rather, so the WikiLeaks release of those 20,000 hacked e-mails.

Then you have, obviously, prosecutors talking about what happened here with Roger Stone, the attempts to direct it -- an official, rather, directed to contact Roger Stone about additional releases.

On July 25, three days later, the FBI announcing it's launched an investigation into that DNC hack.

On the 27th, Donald Trump -- tough to forget this moment -- "Russia, if you're listening," right? "Hey, if you're listening, how about those e-mails?"

And then on August 2, again, here is this meeting in the cigar bar.

And David, when you look at the sum of all of that over the span of a couple of weeks, it certainly raises questions on paper.

[07:05:10] DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there's no question. And Russia had an interest. They wanted Donald Trump to be president. Vladimir Putin didn't like Hillary Clinton. Still doesn't like Hillary Clinton.

And we know from that chronology that the Trump campaign was open for business. You know, "Hey, go find her e-mails. We'll take any opposition research from wherever it comes."

And then you have the very tangible item of wanting -- Russia wanting those sanctions lifted because of their actions in Ukraine. Did they have a friendly ear in the Trump campaign?

And they had someone in Paul Manafort who had very close ties, who had worked in Ukraine for Russia-aligned politicians. So it's all so close.

And then Manafort lying about it. So this, as the prosecutor said in court yesterday, this goes to the very core of what this investigation is about. Was there actual cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia?

BERMAN: And, again, if we're talking about the timing here, on July 27, right in the middle of that time frame, Paul Manafort gave an interview to Norah O'Donnell, where he was asked about the president's possible or alleged contacts with the Russians. Just listen to how he answers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORAH DONNELL, CBS NEWS: So to be clear, Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs?

PAUL MANAFORT, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIR: That's what he said. That's what I -- that's obviously what the -- our position is. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TOOBIN: Well, it's so bold. That was so bold.

HILL: And so clear.

TOOBIN: And so clear.

BERMAN: Joe, and then a week and a half later, he walks into a meeting in the cigar bar with someone with connections to Russian intelligence.

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. I think we're trying to figure out the motives here without all the facts. So we're forced to speculate. And I think Jeffrey laid out the two possibilities.

If it was just about him trying to get business, it's not about him lying, it's about lying a second time. After he'd had a deal, after the special counsel had said, "I'll give you some consideration. You may not have to spend the rest of your life in jail if you now tell the truth."

If it was just about enriching himself, why wouldn't he then say, "OK, I was trying to get more business." Why wouldn't it be open?

So it comes down to why he would lie a second time about this? And it goes to the more provocative theory, which is he's holding something back that implicates the president or maybe the campaign, and he's going to continue to hold that back, because ultimately, what he wants is a pardon. That's the only way he gets out of jail.

And the really interesting part for me is, once they went into court, we now know Mueller had to know he was lying, because he had to know what he was lying about.

TOOBIN: And it's worth remembering that also present in that August 2 meeting was Rick Gates, who is also cooperating with Mueller.

LOCKHART: Right.

TOOBIN: And presumably, at least based on what we've seen so far, is telling the truth as far as Mueller is concerned. So Gates will, at some point, give an account of what went on at that cigar bar meeting; and that will help clarify, at least to the extent we can, what went on there.

LOCKHART: And it more than likely came from Gates. But what Manafort is so desperate to go in and tell a second round of lies, knowing that without a pardon he'll spend the rest of his life in jail. Mueller knows about it, and he knows the circumstances. He knows -- he knows why he lied. He knows what he lied about, and what the underlying lie was based on. And, you know, we're just going to have to wait and see.

HILL: There's so much we're waiting to find out. But what we do know is that Paul Manafort is not the only one who lied, right? He's not the only one who lied about contacts or connections with the Russians. We have Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos. That alone, Jeff, you look at -- and it races the question of why so many people, so many Trump aides felt the need to lie about their Russian contacts.

TOOBIN: And that's not all. Roger Stone is accused. Hasn't been convicted.

HILL: Right.

TOOBIN: Jared Kushner had to revise his statements about Russia. Jeff Session, who was on the campaign, later the attorney general, he had to revise his statements about Russia.

So it is -- it's just extraordinary, the number of people who lied, withheld information about this one subject. The one reason people lie is that they knew they were doing something wrong, so they lie about it. That's a possibility.

BERMAN: I do want to read, the "Washington Post" has done reporting even before the judge ruled that Manafort lied about this. "The Washington Post" had done some reporting about this meeting, what went on behind closed doors. And let me just read you some of that reporting.

"It was at that meeting the prosecutors believe Manafort and Kilimnik may have exchanged key information relevant to Russia and Trump's presidential bid. One subject the men discussed was a proposed resolution to the conflict over Ukraine, an issue of great interest to the Russian government."

GREGORY: And this is -- this is a key piece of information here, because this is also what Michael Flynn was talk to the Russian ambassador about. This was top of mind for Russia, where they thought they had a friendly ear to get these sanctions lifted. So this is something very tangible that the Russians wanted that -- where they thought they had allies.

[07:10:08] And I think there's a larger point. The lying, the fact that there's accumulating evidence here about cooperation or at least a connection to Russia and about critical things that Russia cared about between Trump officials and Russian officials, when we have a president of the United States who is saying on a near daily basis, this is all made up, that it's all a hoax, that it's all make believe. That's impossible to believe.

There's circumstantial evidence that puts all of these people together on the very subject that is core to this question. Was there interference? And was there cooperation?

TOOBIN: And this was also, this period June, July, August, when the Republican National Committee platform changed.

GREGORY: Yes.

TOOBIN: In a more pro-Russian direction. So, you know, it's just not one piece of evidence. All the dots point in the direction of some sort of agreement between the Trump campaign and pro-Russian interests.

BERMAN: Is any of that illegal?

TOOBIN: Certainly not changing the platform. But --

BERMAN: It's hard to know.

TOOBIN: It's hard to know.

GREGORY: So if you have an agreement with a foreign power during a campaign to lift sanctions, I mean, is that -- that's not actually a violation -- I mean, it's not like Iran-Contra. It's not -- it's not, you know, funneling money to support the Contras. But I mean, it certainly would be distasteful, right, to see that you had that level of cooperation, you know, with a campaign on that issue.

TOOBIN: Right. And, you know, it is worth noting the evolution of the Trump position on all these contacts. First of all, the position was there were no contacts.

GREGORY: Right.

TOOBIN: Then, "Well, there was no collusion."

Now it's, "Well, there was no collusion by Donald Trump himself."

And that has been -- not been proven yet, that there has been no proof of collusion by Donald Trump himself. But that's a considerable evolution of the position of, you know, Trump's defenders over the years.

LOCKHART: But if you look at so many people lying about the same subject.

BERMAN: Yes.

LOCKHART: Russia, that implies, strongly implies that this was an organized effort.

BERMAN: Right.

LOCKHART: He did not have seven people randomly just happening to have these conversations with Russia. And if it is an organized effort, that then raises the possibility that the campaign was organized around this; it was part of the campaign.

GREGORY: Right.

LOCKHART: And the president's the head of that campaign.

GREGORY: Right.

LOCKHART: Now, could he have been ignorant of all of this? Perhaps. But we have so many cases and incidents now where, during the campaign, he said pro-Russia things.

GREGORY: Right.

LOCKHART: He said, "Please hack the e-mails." And then as he became president.

So I think it is really significant, you know, if you look at any one of these people and say they lied, you can think, "Oh, they just told a lie." But when you have seven, eight, nine people lying about the same thing, you know, that's -- that feels like organized crime.

GREGORY: Right.

TOOBIN: And he was also, during this period, negotiating to build a tower.

LOCKHART: Yes.

TOOBIN: In Moscow. I mean, that, you know, that gives a financial motive, as well as a political motive, to ingratiate himself with the Russians.

GREGORY: And this is going to be a big area for House Democrats. Right? They want to really keep pushing on the idea of some kind of financial relationship between the Trump business and Russia.

And so -- but I agree with you. I mean, this is a point of either did the candidate know or should he have known? How do you insulate yourself from something building?

BERMAN: All right, guys. Stand by, if you will, for a moment here, because we are getting some fresh sound.

Former deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe is speaking for the first time. I don't think I've ever heard his voice since he was fired from the FBI, essentially. And he is now explaining why he was involved with launching this counterintelligence investigation into the president that we now have learned from the "New York Times" happened. He just talked to CBS moments ago. Let's listen to what McCabe said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR: I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: OK. So that -- that in and of itself, perhaps not satisfying for an explanation there.

But what I understand he told Scott Pelley was that he feared, after Comey was gone, that he would be fired in order to, again, stop various investigations into Russia. So before he left -- and the control room has heard more of this interview, and correct me if I'm wrong -- McCabe, before he thought he was going to be fired, just after Comey was, McCabe wanted to make sure that things had begun, things were starting, to make sure that an investigation would continue.

TOOBIN: It makes sense, because just in the nature of the bureaucracy, you know, once you start an investigation, it's hard to stop it, even if individuals leave. And that is the response of a serious investigator, but also someone who knows how the FBI bureaucracy works, by putting something in motion that would outlast him. As, in fact, it did, because did he get fired and the Russia investigation continued.

[07:15:23] BERMAN: He said "wanted to put Russia case on solid ground in case I was fired. That case could not be closed or vanished in the night. Wanted to make sure our case was on solid ground."

HILL: And noting, too, of course, when Scott asked him how long was it after that you decided to start the obstruction, the counter-intel investigation. Very clear, it was the next day for those exact reasons.

GREGORY: Well, it was clear that it was his view and the view of many, that the president fired Comey because, to listen to the president, he didn't like how the Russia investigation was going. So McCabe, obviously, had to worry about the future of that investigation.

LOCKHART: And we know from the excerpts of the book that, I think, "The Guardian" had that he was very clear that Rosenstein was forced to write the memo. He didn't want to write the memo, but he did it, because he was ordered by the president.

I mean, all of this does have echoes of Watergate when, you know, on the Saturday Night Massacre, you know, the people who were doing the investigation realized, "Wait, they may take all this evidence," and they took it with them; and they took it out of the offices so that it could be preserved.

You know, you look at what they've done and now you hear from McCabe; you've heard from Comey. We'll eventually hear from Rosenstein, you know, as he leaves the Department of Justice, and I think you're going to find, you know, similar efforts to shut this down.

BERMAN: But do you think, then, that this gives some fodder to those who have argued this was all a setup by Andy McCabe and James Comey to get a special counsel here? McCabe is saying he did this to make sure that an investigation continued. He was the impetus here.

TOOBIN: Well, that's because he thought he saw that there might be crimes and there might be counterintelligence issues, that Russian influence was so significant that he thought an investigation was merited.

Now, you can argue that that was something -- yes, it is true that it was McCabe who -- who apparently initiated the formal investigation. But the question is, you know, were his motives legitimate? That is law enforcement, counterintelligence-based, or was it somehow political?

Remember, the thing that the president has always been saying is that McCabe's wife was running for the state senate in Virginia as a Democrat supported by Terry McAuliffe, who's allied with Hillary Clinton. That's been part of the bill of particulars against McCabe from the very beginning. That doesn't seem terribly credible to me, but it's important to put it out there because that's what the president says.

GREGORY: Also, just remember this piece of it, too, is going to be so important that we're unlikely to see an obstruction charge.

But if, as part of a final report, Mueller were to make a case that the president obstructed justice and that would be in a report to Congress, it would be very interesting to see how, you know, likely incoming attorney general Bill Barr views all of this and whether he, as someone, you know, with a lot of experience and integrity, says this was clearly interference in an investigation.

BERMAN: That's a very good curtain raiser to the rest of this week and maybe next week when we will have a new attorney general and what he will do with this case. Stand by for that discussion.

David, Jeffrey, joe, thank you for helping us understand this news that we just got during that last segment.

So will President Trump sign a spending bill with limited border security money? Will he do so to prevent another government shutdown? A Republican who was on the negotiating team of this deal joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:22:35] BERMAN: The Senate and House are expected to pass a bipartisan spending bill today to fund the government and allocate about $1.4 billion for border security fencing.

White House officials tell CNN President Trump is expected to sign the bill, even though it does not give any money for a wall, per se, and it's much less money than he'd been calling for before.

Joining us now is Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito. She was one of 17 lawmakers selected to negotiate a bipartisan deal.

Congratulations on producing something in a moment of bipartisanship. I think we should always note that in this day and age.

Make your best case to your colleagues, some of whom may be on the fence here, no pun intended, that this is a deal worth supporting.

SEN. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R), WEST VIRGINIA: Well, I think first, in terms of the wall, I think it's significant. It's 55 new miles of wall. It's the most new miles of wall that the Border Patrol has ever gotten in any kind an appropriations. It's the great down payment for the president's longer-term plan. But it also has, I think, significant resources for more border agents

and also more customs agents, which are important in terms of, you know, securing the border, along with massive increases in technology.

So I see it as a three-legged stool. I think it definitely provides the border security, and I think that we should move forward with this, because it puts us on a track for significant improvements.

BERMAN: Now, you keep calling it a wall. In fact, the legislation itself here specifically says it can't be a concrete wall or, I believe, the steel slats the president was calling for, but it can be fencing. Does that matter?

CAPITO: You know, I would like to correct there. I do believe it can be the steel slats that the president talks about.

BERMAN: OK.

CAPITO: Because that is actually the design that's preferred by the CBP. We've been making the argument all along that we need to let the professionals tell us what the design is better.

So in my few, it's semantics on fencing/wall. It's a preventative barrier, and that's the significant issue here.

BERMAN: So this is where we are, about $1.4 billion. There was about $1.6 billion on the table for border security in December, and then the president decided to move toward the government shutdown for 35 days. Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah had this to say about the impact of the shutdown. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CHRIS STEWART (R), UTAH: In hindsight it didn't help us. You just have to be -- you just have to ignore reality to say -- say anything different. It didn't help us. The deal we ended up with now is worse than we had before the shutdown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:25:04] BERMAN: It didn't help us. The deal that we have is worse than the one before the shutdown. Your response?

CAPITO: Well, I would make the case in any -- in any -- whoever the president is in any environment, a government shutdown's never going to help. It hurts people. It erodes the faith and trust of our constituents and our ability to get our job done, and for the president to lead.

So maybe burned once here badly, I believe, led us to, I think, a very good compromise that, again, gives the president the ability to -- to move forward with the plan that the professionals have told us they want and need at the border.

BERMAN: So the president has made the case that he will find additional money from somewhere. Do you know where he's speaking of? CAPITO: Well, I think, you know, from all reports, I think what he's

looking at is some money within the Department of Defense that deals with the ability to create fencing, to slow the flow of narcotics. We know that narcotics are coming across the border. I'm from West Virginia. The flow of fentanyl and heroin is very, very harmful to my -- to our region and, certainly, our entire country. I think that is one of the things he's looking at.

I think also he -- I don't know if he's going to try to make the case that there are other national security issues involved here. I think we'll have to let him make those decisions as we move forward.

BERMAN: Just one point. I know you know this, because I've heard you speak about this. Most of the drugs come through the legal ports of entry, not something that would necessarily be affected for the wall.

I will say there is much more money for the legal ports of entry and maybe new technology that will prevent the drugs coming in through those legal ports of entry. So I know there are people on both sides of the aisle who think that is a positive.

In terms of the possibility of declaring a national emergency, maybe the president can get more money without doing so if, though, he declared an emergency. Is that something you would support?

CAPITO: Well, I think he needs to tread lightly here. I think he's gotten a fair amount of pushback here on Capitol Hill about the precedent that would be set if he were to declare a national emergency. Not so much in the -- the way he would frame it in terms of our national security here with the immigration issue.

However, what could be, you know, characterized as a national emergency in the future. I mean, I put myself in that category.

But I do put myself in the category of realizing that we have an ever- growing problem here that we need to get a handle on. And I would say in terms of the drugs, they just had a drug bust away from the port of entry of 800 -- over 800 pounds of heroin, and that's pretty significant.

BERMAN: It is. It is. It's a huge bust. Again, that was at a legal port of entry. And I think the --

CAPITO: No. That was not.

BERMAN: Not that one? You're not talking about the one the president was talking about the other day?

CAPITO: No.

BERMAN: OK. But again, as I was saying before, most of the drugs do come through, though the legal port of entry. The House voted --

CAPITO: All right.

BERMAN: The House voted yesterday to end support for the Saudi -- end U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen. This is a vote that will likely come before the Senate and soon. How will you vote on that?

CAPITO: Well, we had a similar vote in December in the Senate, and I believe that -- you know, I voted against it. I think that we need to give respect and due diligence to our military to make those decisions.

I believe that we have -- that the military has shrunk the presence of their -- from the refueling. They're no longer refueling, et cetera.

I do believe that there's a humanitarian crisis going on here in Yemen. And I think that we need to be as diligent, as we are all around the world, to try to disrupt the massive loss of life that's occurring there.

BERMAN: Senator Capito from West Virginia, thank you for being with us. Thanks for the work that you did behind closed doors here. I know that working out a bipartisan deal in this environment isn't the easiest thing, but you guys produced something that both chambers will vote on today.

CAPITO: Yes.

BERMAN: Appreciate that.

CAPITO: I'm very pleased with it. Thank you.

BERMAN: Thanks, Senator. Erica.

HILL: Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee raising eyebrows with some of their new hires. The case two lawyers made in writing before arriving on Capitol Hill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)