Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Andrew McCabe Says That Trump's Own Words Prompted Counter Intelligence Investigation; Trump's Declaration Set to Be Challenged in Courts and Congress. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired February 18, 2019 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: I'm Brooke Baldwin. Why Andrew McCabe says he was fired and why President Trump's own words led him to launch counter intelligence and obstruction investigations into the President of the United States. Before the President fired FBI Director James Comey, McCabe details a private conversation he had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Rod was concerned by his interactions with the President who seemed to be very focused on firing the director and saying things like make sure you put Russia in your memo. That concerned Rod in the same way that it concerned me and the FBI investigators on the Russia case.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He didn't want to put Russia in his memo.
MCCABE: He did not. He explained to the President that he did not need Russia in his memo, and the President responded, I understand that. I'm asking you to put Russia in the memo anyway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So, let's start there with our CNN crime and justice reporter, Shimon Prokupecz. I mean, there had been reporting on this alleged conversation in the past so what more did Andy McCabe reveal in that 60 minutes interview.
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: You're right. There had been reporting on this in the past concerning that there was a memo that was written where Rod Rosenstein said that the President wanted him to put in Russia -- put Russia in writing in this memo that was put together in the firing of the former FBI director, but it was really about more that the President wanted him to say that the FBI had cleared him, that the President was not under investigation and the Russia investigation and obviously Rod Rosenstein according to Andrew McCabe did not feel there was any needed to that. It was not necessary to put that in the memo. What's really not ultimately clear, I think, even from this interview is why Rod Rosenstein was having this conversation with Andrew McCabe about this. Certainly, it put some things into Andrew McCabe's mind. Obviously, they were already heightened after the former FBI director, after James Comey was fired and then hearing this, I'm sure, heightened him even more into launching ultimately an obstruction investigation and a counter intelligence investigation. But I'm not entirely clear why Rod Rosenstein felt the need to have this conversation with Andrew McCabe, and it's not clear from that interview.
BALDWIN: The other clip that I want to play is McCabe talking about what he and Rosenstein did discuss after James Comey was fired.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCABE: We talked about why the President had insisted on firing the director and whether or not he was thinking about the Russia investigation and did that impact his decision and in the context of that conversation, the deputy Attorney General offered to wear a wire into the White House. He said, I never get searched when I go into the White House, I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn't know it was there. Now, he was not joking. He was absolutely serious and in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting we had.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: We're going to dive into the legality of the whole wearing the wire in the President's for just a second, but can you imagine Trump hearing this?
PROKUPESZ: Yes, obviously Trump is not happy. You know, this is one of the probably biggest revelations in all of this in this interview from what Andrew McCabe has to say and the President is not happy. You know, he is reverting to his old tactics concerning Andrew McCabe and other people who launched this information and he tweeted. Here's what the President said, wow, so many lies now by the disgraced acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. He was fired for lying and now the story gets even more deranged and then he goes on to say that there's a lot of explaining to do to millions of people who that just elected a President they really liked and who has done a great job for them. Finally, he says this was illegal and treason. And Senator Graham said he was going to hold hearings on this or wanted to talk to the folks that were involved in this discussion. We'll see, and we're seeing exactly the response we would expect from the President in this. The one thing I do want to note is that we have seen, you know, a lot of leadership change now over obviously at the FBI, but now also at the Department of Justice and that could be why the President is not taking further action, Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave quite shortly, actually. The current Attorney General, William Barr, already has someone in mind that he wants to put in his job, so the President knows that Rosenstein is leaving, so it could be why we're not going to see further action in firing Rod or trying to get him out.
[14:05:00] BALDWIN: Sure. Because he's on his way.
PROKUPESZ: I think there's still a lot more to come in all of this, obviously!
BALDWIN: You think? I think so. You're right on the money, Shimon Prokupecz. CNN legal analyst, Elie Honig is a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN contributor Garrett Graff is with us. Elie on the bit about wearing a wire, listening to Andrew McCabe discussing with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about wearing a wire to catch something perhaps that the President would say, and they didn't do it, but even discussing it, is that illegal?
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, it's not illegal. It actually would have been perfectly legal for Rod Rosenstein to wear a wire into the White House. It would have been wildly unprecedented. It would have been something that never would have occurred to me or anyone else in the position, but on the one hand, perhaps it shows you something about the extremity the President was doing or saying to get the reaction out of veteran officials. They discussed it. They didn't do it. That's what you do sometimes, sit around and sketch things out. Should we do that, no, that's too much. Let's knock it down a notch. I don't know where Lindsey Graham thinks he's going with a hearing. Nor would there have been anything illegal about doing it.
BALDWIN: Garrett, here's my question for you, McCabe says he took meticulous notes as folks in the inbound are trained to do. McCabe says Mueller has his memos, how much credence do you think Mueller will put into those notes?
GARRETT GRAFF, GARRET GRAFF, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, AUTHOR OF "THE THREAT MATRIX: INSIDE MUELLER'S FBI AND THE WAR ON TERROR": I think a great deal. And that's been true of the notes that we have seen various FBI officials turn over to the special counsel's investigation straight through up to and including FBI Director Jim Comey's contemporaneous notes about his meetings with President Trump, as Elie would know, federal prosecutors are trained to put a great deal of credence in contemporaneous notes and particularly notes taken in extreme circumstances here. I mean, remember, these are not typical behaviors for FBI directors or FBI deputy directors or acting directors to feel like they have to memorialize a conversation with the President or the deputy Attorney General or acting Attorney General. But that's just how big of a crisis moment this was, and I think that there is a lot more that we have to learn and understand about this really 10-day period where you saw Rod Rosenstein draft this memo justifying the firing of Director Comey, then the series of events that led to the appointment by Rosenstein of special counsel Robert Mueller. And one of the things that is really clear from McCabe's interview and his book and all of the interviews that he has done is that this sort of, as President Trump has led us to believe, was a unified cabal between Jim Comey, Andy McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein was anything but, that these were sort of three people each dealing with their own crises and their own institutional equities and fears in a time of unprecedented stress inside both the FBI and the Department of Justice.
BALDWIN: We were on sort of the same question, we were saying before the show started that they really had found Andrew McCabe to be not credible. Would, if you were Mueller, how closely of attention, Garrett says a lot of attention you put into his notes.
HONIG: McCabe is an interesting case. He was found by the Inspector General to have lied about whether he leaked or not. They found him not credible. It's rarely one thing or the other. Those contemporaneous notes are important. They're the second-best evidence to a recording because they're made at the time, you can't go back after the fact and fake it, so the fact that someone took extemporaneous notes, you can fake them on the spot, but it's harder to do. I would also be looking at what are the habits, patterns of conduct and one thing we have seen from the day he took office all the way until now is the President cannot keep his hands off the DOJ, the FBI, he has been constantly trying to interfere with them. When Andy McCabe says that's what happened, it rings true to our sources.
BALDWIN: He revealed conversations intel officers had specifically about Russian President Vladimir Putin. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[14:10:00] MCCABE: The President launched into several unrelated diatribes, one of those was commenting on the recent missile launches by the government of North Korea. Essentially the President said he did not believe that the North Koreans had the capability to hit us here with ballistic missiles in the United States, and he did not believe that because President Putin had told him they did not. President Putin had told him that the North Koreans don't actually have those missiles.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And U.S. intelligence was telling the President what?
MCCABE: Intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses to which the President replied, I don't care, I believe Putin.
BALDWIN: Wow, so Andrew McCabe is saying, well, if Trump is basically believing Vladimir Putin over his own intel officers and Garrett, just remind us why Putin would even want the U.S. to think North Korea is less of a threat.
GRAFF: Yes, Brooke, this is an incredible comment, but again, as Elie was just saying, it's actually part of a pattern of behavior, where we see in numerous instances behind closed doors as well as in public settings like that Helsinki Summit with Vladimir Putin where the President came right out and said I trust Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence, in terms of Vladimir Putin told me he didn't hack the 2016 election, and I trust him, even though that is definitely not the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community and is belied by the indictments that Robert Mueller has brought. And I think that that's just the thing to really underline that this is incredible behavior and also dangerous decision making by a President of the United States. I mean, remember, just to take one step back from this, the entire purpose of the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus is to ensure that the President of the United States is in every conversation that he participates in, the most informed, most knowledgeable person in the room, that we spend $60 billion a year on 17 intelligence agencies, hundreds of thousands of personnel, feeding information from around the globe, the President on a daily basis knows more than any other human on the planet and the fact that the President is sitting there and saying, on the one hand, I've got all of this, and on the other hand, I've got Vladimir Putin, and I'll trust Vladimir Putin, is an incredibly dangerous decision making matrix for the President.
BALDWIN: That was Garrett Graff's mike drop for a moment. Garrett Graff, Elie Honig, thank you so much.
We'll talk about how the White House is preparing for the legal and political battles ahead. And then another dramatic turn in the Jussie Smollett case, what the actor's PR firm has to say today about plans to meet with the Chicago Police Department. You're watching CNN, I'm Brooke Baldwin.
[14:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: We are back. You are watching CNN, I'm Brooke Baldwin. After President Trump's declaration of a national emergency, does the President or Congress have access to the nation's wallet. Trump declared the emergency to get nearly half, 3.5 billion of the $8 billion he wants to build that border wall. Democrats and Republicans are preparing for what is expected to be a fierce fight, a fight that will play out on two tracks. First, just in court, and then in Congress. There are signs that the courts offer the bigger threat to the emergency declaration and here is why. Democrats, of course in control of the House of representatives plan to pass a resolution to block the declaration when they come back from recess. It goes over to the Senate where it could pass, in which case, the President can veto it, the first veto of his administration, as the senior adviser suggested over the weekend would take place. What happens if the President vetoes? The House and Senate will need to get 2/3 of lawmakers to vote to block the emergency declaration, effectively shutting down the national emergency. There you go through Congress. Reportedly five organizations have filed or will file lawsuits against Trump's national emergency, including one from landowners who don't want their property seized for the border wall, but the largest lawsuit is expected it come out of California. The Attorney General there says about a dozen states plan to join his state in opposing Trump's national emergency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL, CALIFORNIA: We're going to try to halt the President from violating the Constitution, the separation of powers, from stealing money from Americans and states that has been allocated by Congress lawfully, and we're going to try to make sure we keep the President from continuing to play this theater by manipulating the office of the President to do his bidding simply because I think he's trying to essentially send a message to his base, a shrinking base that he fulfills his promises.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[14:20:03] BALDWIN: All right, let's go to CNN's Kristen Holmes, live following the President, what is the White House doing to prepare for the legal and Congressional challenges to his declaration?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brooke, White House officials tell us that President Trump and his team are gearing up for battle on all fronts. Let's start with the legal system and the courts, we know that this litany of lawsuits being filed is really no surprise to President Trump or his team. First of all, we have been reporting for weeks that aides were warning President Trump if he were to declare a national emergency, he would likely get caught up in the courts and on top of that, we know President Trump himself made that remark in the rose garden. So, they have had a little bit of time to prepare, but one thing his legal team might not have been prepared for was something President Trump said in the rose garden and that was, I didn't need to do this. Top of that, we know President Trump himself made that remark in the rose garden. So, they have had a little bit of time to prepare, but one thing his legal team might not have been prepared for was something President Trump said in the rose garden and that was, I didn't need to do this. I have spoken to so many lawyers over the weekend who keep pointing this out to me. They say that this is likely going to be at the heart of every lawsuit. President Trump in his own words saying he didn't need to declare a national emergency. So, you saw a little bit of clean up over the weekend, Steven Miller address this in that same interview where he talked about the veto, and he said the President was simply saying that he could choose to ignore this crisis like other Presidents have but that he wasn't going to do so. Whether or not that defense will hold up in court is obviously yet to be seen. Now, let's look at the Congressional side. You, of course, again, mentioned Steven Miller and that veto at the very end of the day, that's the end game. What's going to be so important to watch here is going to be the process. Make no mistake, that if that bill does pass the Senate, if Republicans do approve this, and it lands on President Trump's desk, it's going to be embarrassing to President Trump. He will have to go around his party once again and this is not inspiring to the American people.
They do not want that situation to happen. So, what you're likely going to see is a lot of President Trump's allies on Capitol Hill trying to persuade these Republicans, particularly senators to vote in favor of the President. And this is going to cause an enormously awkward position for several of these senators, particularly those who are in vulnerable seats running for reelection in 20. It is going to force them to say whether or not they support the President in this endeavor. And whether or not they do, either vote is going to have huge political ramifications. This is going to weigh heavily on a lot of senators and while we have heard these Republicans say many of them that they don't approve of a national emergency, as we have seen time and time again during this presidency, just because you don't approve of something doesn't mean you're going to vote against it. Brooke.
BALDWIN: Exactly right. Exactly right, and to your point on the reverberations well into 20. So true. Kristen, thank you so much in West Palm Beach. Let's analyze that, Elie Honig, is back, also with us, senior CNN political analyst, Mark Preston. Mark, I want to start with you. As we have been outlining, the politics and the legal piece of this. On politics, so right now, Democrats are preparing this joint resolution to repeal this national emergency. What are the chances it actually passes both chambers and lands on the President's desk, first of all?
MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think the case is very good. I mean, what you have right now is a very difficult situation for the likes of Kevin McCarthy who leads the House Republicans and Mitch McConnell who's the Senate majority leader. They are trying to protect the President from himself but we have heard time and time again as we have just heard from Kristen there about how many Republicans have come out and have already said that this is not an emergency. And in fact, we have heard the President himself say that, so now, they have to go and either vote against this or have to try to protect them. If anything happens, and this does get to his desk, we have heard that he's going to veto this. This is an incredibly embarrassing thing for the President to have to do. Not only is he at odds with Democrats, which is fine politically but at odds with Republicans in the House and Senate, which could be the sign of a deteriorating relationship, Brooke, as we head into the next election.
BALDWIN: I'm going to get to the next election in a second, but on the whole will he veto it, this is how his policy adviser Steven Miller put it yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they pass a resolution of disapproval, will the President veto that, which would be the first veto of his presidency?
STEVEN MILLER, POLICY ADVISOR TO TRUMP: Well, obviously the President is going to protect his national emergency declaration?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, he will veto?
Miller: He's going to protect his national emergency declaration guaranteed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[14:25:01] BALDWIN: OK. So, if the President vetoes it and to your point, that would be massively embarrassing for a multitude of reasons, then it gets kicked back to Congress, what are the odds that there will be enough, you know, Republicans in the Senate to then, you need 2/3, right, to override the veto?
GRAFF: I think that's going to be hard in the United States Senate. You might have a better chance in the U.S. House of Representatives, but I do think the Senate will be a little more difficult because those Republicans aren't up every two years. Republicans over in the House, they have to face the voters every two years, it's a little bit more cover for Senate Republicans on this one.
BALDWIN: OK. On the legal piece of this, and I thought Kristen really nailed it on the phrase that we heard from the President on Friday, at the rose garden, I didn't need to do this, which will likely be the crux of so many lawsuits. Steven Miller over the weekend trying to clarify what the President said. Here was the President from Friday and Miller's explanation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this but I would rather do it much faster.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn't need to do this; how does that justify a national emergency?
MILLER: What the President is saying is that like past Presidents, he could choose to ignore this crisis, choose to ignore this emergency as others have but that's not what he's going to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So, what's your response to Steven Miller there, and the whole I didn't need to do this? Why might that be troublesome?
HONIG: Because as soon as he said that, his lawyers all just did a move. If I'm writing the brief for the plaintiff, that is the first sentence, quote, I didn't need to do this. Forget about the introductory table of contents, I'm doing that right away, and making the argument, this is a pretext, this is a sham. The data is not there. I'll tell you what the other side is going to say, the people who are defending this are going to say, this is a political question. That's a phrase the courts use when they don't want to get involved in something. They will do this. They will punt, basically. This is not for us and the judges of the courts to make a decision. It is a political decision. It's up to the President and unless it's outrageous, we'll defer to it. That's going to be the battlefield.
BALDWIN: What about the battlefield politically, Mark, and looking into 2020, not just members of Congress who will be up, but just the parties in general. Obviously, each will try to make it a winning issue for them and with top spin, which party do you think will have the upper hand?
PRESTON: Well, certainly Democrats are going to use this to try to mobilize more support behind Hispanics and Latinos to try to get them to come out and vote. And Louis Gutierrez, his goal was to go to two states, Ohio, Florida, as well as two others to try and get Latinos to come out and vote. This is going to be such a political football heading into 2020. It's all about getting voters out to the polls and for Democrats, it's getting Latinos out.
BALDWIN: Got it. Mark and Elie thank you, mark is in New Hampshire head of the big town hall with Amy Klobuchar, taking voters' questions at this Presidential town hall. Don moderates live from New Hampshire, 10:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN. Thank you, guys, very much.
Another Presidential hopeful hitting the campaign trail. Live pictures of Senator Kamala Harris. She is in New Hampshire. We'll take you there and tell what's on her agenda.
Days after apparent new evidence. What we have learned about a grand jury investigation involving singer R. Kelly.
