Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

NYT: Trump Pressured Acting A.G. to Interfere in Cohen Probe; McCabe: 'I Think It's Possible' Trump is a Russian Asset. Aired 6- 6:30a ET

Aired February 20, 2019 - 06:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president of the United States tried to influence an investigation that involved himself.

[05:59:24] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president denies it. We're living in the world of maybes and sources.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Do you still believe the president could be a Russian asset?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR: It's possible. I'm really anxious to see where Director Mueller concludes.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We would look for somebody who can take the progressive banner and help us to rally the American people.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think he missed his time, but I wish Bernie well.

JOE BIDEN (D), FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's (ph) trying to restore America's soul. Remind ourselves who we are.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: miWe want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Wednesday, February 20, 6 a.m. here in New York. I see that you're now prepared. You have your papers all arranged.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: I think I'm ready.

CAMEROTA: I think so.

BERMAN: I think I'm ready. Let's go.

Hi.

CAMEROTA: Hi.

BERMAN: As Bernie Sanders likes to say. CAMEROTA: Hi. We have a lot to report, because this morning there's an explosive report in "The New York Times," and it raises new questions about whether President Trump tried to obstruct justice.

"The Times" reveals the president asked then-Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker continue to install a U.S. attorney who had supported Mr. Trump to take charge of that federal probe into hush-money payments made by the president's former lawyer, Michael Cohen.

"The Times" says Whitaker refused. The attorney that President Trump wanted had already recused himself over a conflict of interest. The president denied this discussion with Whitaker has ever happened.

BERMAN: So did the president's words and actions constitute an effort to obstruct justice? Is there corrupt intent? What matters from a legal perspective is whether there is a pattern here. And the numbers seem to tell a story.

"The Times" counts more than a thousand times that the president publicly attacked the Russia investigation; and what began as a public relation strategy, they say, is now a legal strategy encouraged by the president himself.

And, if you're in the market for explosive comments, the kind that sell books, in an interview with CNN, fired acting FBI director Andrew McCabe says he believes it's possible the president could still be a Russian asset.

We have a lot to cover, so let's go right to CNN's Laura Jarrett, live in Washington with the new details about the president's conversations and whether or not that's an obstruction of justice -- Laura.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: John, good morning.

"The New York Times" piece weaves together a tale of what President Trump's critics will certainly say is obstruction of justice in plain sight, while McCabe this week revealing for the first time a behind- the-scenes look at how the FBI started the obstruction of justice probe in the first place.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT (voice-over): A damning report from "The New York Times" raising new questions about President Trump's alleged efforts to control and discredit the investigations that have consumed his presidency, including the Southern District of New York's probe into Mr. Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen.

"The Times" reports that last year, President Trump asked Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker if U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman, who contributed to his campaign, could be installed to lead the Cohen probe, despite Berman having already recused himself from the investigation. The president denying the claim.

TRUMP: No, not at all. I don't know who gave you that. That's more fake news. A lot of -- there's a lot of fake -- there's a lot of fake news out there.

JARRETT: "The Times" reports that there's no evidence that Whitaker took steps to intervene in the Cohen investigation and that the president soon soured on him.

This after CNN reported in December that Mr. Trump lashed out at Whitaker at least twice over the New York probe, after Cohen pleaded guilty for lying to Congress about the proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow and when prosecutors implicated the president in a hush-money scheme to silence women before the 2016 campaign.

Whitaker refusing to answer directly when asked under oath last month whether he ever discussed the investigation with the president.

MATTHEW WHITAKER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: At now time has the White House asked for, nor have I provided any promises or commitments concerning the special counsel's investigation or any other investigation.

JARRETT: The Justice Department telling CNN, quote, "Mr. Whitaker stands by his testimony."

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I think the bottom line is he wasn't transparent.

JARRETT: "The New York Times" report also shedding light on the White House's strategy to spin the resignation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn after it was revealed that he lied about his contacts with Russians.

"The Times" reports President Trump told press secretary Sean Spicer to say he requested Flynn's resignation, because, quote, "That sounds better." When Spicer asked whether that was true, Trump repeated, "Say that I asked for his resignation."

SEAN SPICER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The level of trust between the president and General Flynn had eroded to the point where he felt he had to make a change.

JARRETT: In the summer of 2017, "The Times" says one of Trump's attorneys reached out to the lawyers for both Flynn and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to discuss possible pardons. Fearful of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, "The Times" report alleges President Trump and a number of House Republicans strategized and launched an effort to undermine the probe.

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R), CALIFORNIA: There's no reason to continue this because we have no evidence of collusion. We've turned up nothing.

JARRETT: Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe telling CNN that much of "The Times: report is consistent with what he witnessed at the bureau.

COOPER: Do you still believe the president could be a Russian asset?

MCCABE: I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation. And I'm really anxious to see where Director Mueller concludes that.

JARRETT: The White House dismissing McCabe's claim.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO DONALD TRUMP: It's hardly worth dignifying with a response. He's a known liar and leaker.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT: Now notably, McCabe wouldn't comment on whether the FBI had been investigating President Trump's family members at any time.

[06:05:03] Meanwhile, overnight, President Trump officially announcing that he intends to nominate Jeffrey Rosen, the No. 2 over at the Department of Transportation, as the new deputy attorney general, the No. 2 under Bill Barr, replacing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who we expect to leave in the next few weeks -- John, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Laura, stay with us, if you would. We're going to need your help.

Also joining us is David Gregory, a CNN political analyst; and Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor.

Elie, so if President Trump asked his acting A.G., Matt Whitaker, to install one of his allies, who's Jeffrey Berman --

BERMAN: No relation.

CAMEROTA: -- into the investigation of the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, you say old-school obstruction to you?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: If this is not an attempt to obstruct justice, I don't know what is. This is old-school, textbook, almost Nixon-style obstruction. The message here is "We need to put a lid on this investigation before it impacts me." I think that's the only rational, reasonable read on what he said to Whitaker.

Now, the president denied it yesterday. But we know that conversation happened. Because remember, when Whitaker was testifying a week or two ago he was asked, "Did you ever discuss the Mueller probe with Trump?" He said no.

CAMEROTA: We have that moment.

HONIG: Right.

CAMEROTA: So let's play that.

HONIG: OK.

CAMEROTA: Let's just play that, and then you can analyze it for us.

HONIG: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you communicate to Donald Trump or any senior White House advisers about investigations from the Southern District of New York?

WHITAKER: Congressman, I mentioned that -- I said "other investigations" in my opening statement. I really don't have anything further to add.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to know whether you talked to President Trump at all about the Southern District of New York's case involving Michael Cohen.

WHITAKER: Congresswoman, as I've mentioned several times today, I am not going to discuss my private conversations with the president of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Why is that problematic?

HONIG: Perfectly anticipated. Right? So "Dd you discuss Mueller with Trump?"

"No."

"Did you discuss Southern District?"

"I'm not going to discuss it." That's a yes, right? Obviously, logically.

The other thing is, we talked about patterns before. The president did this exact same thing with Jeff Sessions, and he did it out in the open in public on Twitter. He berated Sessions for recusing himself from Russia and for failing to put a lid on that investigation. So we see a fairly obvious pattern of obstruction here.

BERMAN: And Laura, to that point, and again, you laid it out so well in the piece, with "The New York Times" reporting. What strikes me is, by the way, the Michael Cohen -- the conversation with Whitaker about Michael Cohen happened in November at the earliest. I mean, November of 2018. So Donald Trump had been president for a long time.

So the notion that he didn't understand the appropriateness or inappropriateness of that alleged conversation, it happened halfway through his presidency. So he should have known if, in fact that conversation did happen.

And when you look at all these data points in "The Times" and your own reporting on this and CNN's own reporting on this, there are all these instances where the president seems to want to get involved and, some critics might say, get in the way of this investigation.

JARRETT: He's down in the weeds of law enforcement in a way that I think people like McCabe find really troubling, not just because it's not the typical role of the president, but that he appears to be doing it for his own self-interest.

There's a reason that he's cued in onto the Southern District of New York in a way like no other; because it's where the exposure for him is so personal. And part of the reason that he called Whitaker that we reported, Pamela Brown (ph) and I reported back in December, he called Whitaker venting his frustration, because he thought that the investigation was making him look bad. Remember it named him, essentially outed him as Individual One in that hush-money scheme trying to silence women before the election.

So he was troubled by it. He felt like it was unfair. He felt like the Southern District needed to be reined in in some way.

Now, we don't know what Whitaker did to actually execute on those wishes. But the fact that he was putting that kind of pressure, leaning on Whitaker on something where he was directly implicated, I think, is the issue.

CAMEROTA: But wait, there's more. David Gregory, there's more. OK?

So in this "New York Times" report, it sort of traces the whole chronology over two years of all of the things that could rise to obstruction. So it was that he wanted Matthew Whitaker to install his friend, his ally Geoffrey Berman over the hush-money payments.

Then before that, he wanted Corey Lewandowski to get rid of Jeff Sessions. And then, between those, he wanted Don McGahn, the White House lawyer, to get rid of Robert Mueller. But they all refused, according to sources, to carry out the orders.

What you see is a picture of people around the president, his supporters, saving him from himself, basically. And sort of saying, you know, being evasive, saying, like, "We'll get around to it at some point." How do you see this?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I see that as a positive. You know, when people hear these revelations, you hear about the president trying to run roughshod over the Justice Department and put a fix in on this investigation. And let's step back for a minute.

What do we know about President Trump? What has he said? There's no mystery here. He wanted an attorney general who would be completely loyal to him. He felt that President Obama, in Eric Holder, his attorney general, had someone who was on the team, who was loyal, who would protect the president.

[06:10:11] A misreading of that relationship, because there is a natural independence of a Justice Department and, certainly, of the FBI. Why an FBI director has a ten-year term, so they're immune from politics.

And in this case, the president had this misreading. He wanted someone who would be loyal, and he wanted this investigation to go away. He wanted his people there. So in all those cases that you just mentioned, Alisyn -- the White House counsel; a hired hand in Corey Lewandowski, who was a total supporter of Trump; and more recently in Mark [SIC] Whitaker, who had been critical of the Mueller investigation on television, which no doubt got him the job in the first place -- they all said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's a little too far, Mr. President. You can't do that."

And that is, I think, shocking, shockingly positive, in that this is where certain stand-up people, even if they may be partisans, or institutions are doing their job here against a president who wants to potentially violate the law or abuse his power. That will be for others to judge. But -0 but seeking to undermine an investigation like that points in that direction, and there were individuals or an institution that stood up and said, "No, that's too far."

BERMAN: You know, it's interesting, because Judge Napolitano, who appears on FOX News --

CAMEROTA: Our friends over at FOX, along with Shepard Smith on that show, yes.

BERMAN: -- calls this "attempted obstruction." Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHEPARD SMITH, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: That phone call, you said that's evident of corrupt intent.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: On the part of the president, because he's making a --

SMITH: Would that be obstruction?

NAPOLITANO: Yes. Well, it would be attempted obstruction. It would only be obstruction if it succeeded.

But if you try to interfere with a criminal prosecution that may knock at your own door by putting your ally in there, that is clearly an attempt to obstruct justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So attempted obstruction. David Gregory's glass half full: the institutions kept it from happening. Elie, though, is that still against the law? Accepting that the Justice Department thinks a president can't be indicted, is attempted obstruction against the law?

HONIG: Absolutely, 100 percent. An attempt to commit almost any crime is against the law, as well.

And further to David's point, not only was the president looking for key personnel who wore loyal, he put people in key positions who had a very specific view of the president's constitutional powers, which is the president can do whatever he wants with respect to the Department of Justice without consequence. What do Matthew Whitaker and William Barr and Brett Kavanaugh have in

common? They all wrote about that before they were appointed to the Supreme Court or to the Department of Justice.

Here's just a quick thing that William Barr wrote in his infamous memo to DOJ before he was appointed. He wrote that -- he wrote, "There is no legal prohibition against the president acting on a matter in which he has a personal stake." That's what our current attorney general wrote about a year and a half ago. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the president picked three people who had that same world view.

CAMEROTA: David Gregory, back to you for a second. Because I'm with you. I think that there's something very comforting about knowing that the people around the president are acting as guardrails.

So when we see Don McGahn act a certain way and Corey Lewandowski refuse what the president is demanding and Matt Whitaker, though I don't know if it's because -- I mean, who knows? We can't get into their head. If it's altruism or if it's self-preservation?

And last night, Kellyanne Conway was on with our friend Chris Cuomo, and she talked about self-preservation, in a way. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: I'm saying it's absolutely true --

CONWAY: The one thing we know is true, Donald Trump's the president.

CUOMO: -- that the president and others around him have lied about Russian-related matters, and I don't know why. But I've got to go. When we learn more --

CONWAY: Not me.

CUOMO: I'll promise you this, as I've said every time --

CONWAY: I have no exposure.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: "Not me. I have no exposure." That was an interesting response.

GREGORY: Yes, I mean, I think the self-preservation point's an important one.

And what you see, again, in this report about Whitaker is that here's -- you can imagine the president sitting here saying, "Look, I want this guy. Get him in there. And now he's in there. Now, let's start doing the things we need to have done here."

You know, the president didn't think this Southern District of New York investigation was something to worry about until it became something to worry about. And then he said, "Look, I got my guy over here. Let's do something. Shuffle this around. Put somebody in charge over there, so this goes the right way."

And he says, "No, I can't do that."

And now, apparently, he sours on Whitaker: "What do I have you there for?"

So this is -- it's so textbook that people -- whether they think, you know, "I can't act on this, or maybe I'll just ignore this, and it will go away." But they were in a position. You know, again, we don't know the full story about what Whitaker did or didn't do, but it appears he didn't act on this request. That alone says something that's very important about the sense that the president was going too far.

BERMAN: And very quickly, Laura, Robert Mueller has the decision to make. He has a subjective choice to make, looking at this objective fact pattern about these phone calls and these efforts that are alleged to have happened. He needs to decide whether or not he wants to make the case that the president obstructed justice. At this point we just don't know if he's going to do that.

[06:15:14] JARRETT: We don't. But he may not be alone here. Remember, the Southern District of New York is also looking at the president's actions, also looking at the Trump Organization, the Trump inaugural committee. And they could decide on their own that what the president has done here is obstruction.

Now, no indication that they would actually move on him while he's in office, but I think it's at least pointing out Mueller is not the vanguard of the Justice Department. He's not the white knight. He's not the only one there.

And so even when he's gone, the Southern District of New York will continue on and could continue on investigating the president.

I just want to add one point here I think that we also haven't touched on yet, is the way in which the president's allies on Capitol Hill help fueled this entire brigade (ph) against Mueller over the past two years. You see from that "New York Times" piece that it was really the president's allies in the House who pushed to discredit the investigators. And so when they couldn't figure out how to get get after Mueller just going after him in the press, they also went after them, went after -- pressuring the Justice Department to turn over highly-classified documents.

CAMEROTA: Yes. Such a good point. Because what's interesting is that the allies in Congress who have more independence were willing to do the president's bidding, more so, if we understand these sources, than the people directly around him.

BERMAN: And there was an Air Force One conversation between the president and Matt Gaetz, encouraging Gaetz to do just this.

All right, friends. Stand by. Fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe had plenty to say about President Trump in this new interview with CNN. It's also what McCabe is not saying about the president's family that's raising eyebrows. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Do you still believe the president could be a Russian asset?

MCCABE: I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation. And I'm really anxious to see where Director Mueller concludes that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. Fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe making that comment about President Trump and the Russia investigation. In a CNN interview, McCabe also accuses the president of undermining law enforcement agencies for political gains.

Want to bring back in David Gregory, Laura Jarrett, Elie Honig. I want to note that Andrew McCabe, yes, he was fired as deputy FBI director. He also is trying to sell a book right now, so it is in his interest, I think, to say things like that. I'm not trying to impugn his motives here, but that is a fact.

So, Laura, at the Justice Department when they hear Andrew McCabe say that out loud today, they're not sure whether the president is a Russian asset, what's the reaction? What do you hear there?

JARRETT: I think they look at that it in two ways.

On the one hand, I think there are people who feel like McCabe is talking about things that are traditionally kept under wraps. Obviously, his book went through extensive what they call prepublication review to make sure that he didn't put anything classified in there. And so there's not, you know -- he's not revealing any secrets.

And -- but there's still a judgment call to be made about whether you should be talking about the fact that you open an investigation into the president while Mueller's investigation is still ongoing.

On the other hand, I think there are plenty of career men and women at the Justice Department who have felt battered over the last several weeks and months and years, really, now by the president and his allies, who have been attacking the rule of law, who have been attacking law enforcement. And so to hear someone who ran the FBI stand up for them in ways that people who are currently occupying those positions perhaps can't, because it's sort of awkward because they're still in office. I think for those people, it can be empowering.

CAMEROTA: And also, David Gregory, I mean, the big picture that one of the guys, the top guys at the FBI, thinks it's possible that the United States president is a Russian asset? I mean, he didn't say whether he met an accidental asset or an intentional one, but that -- that's a jaw-dropping statement.

GREGORY: Yes, I mean, that's really the way to put it. It's so explosive. You really want to be careful with it and, you know, you want to understand what the basis of that investigation was.

I mean, for him to say that, he is a controversial figure already because of why he was fired, because of some of his statements and the animus between the president and him. Because this is so political, as Laura mentioned, because of the charge led by the president's ally's on Capitol Hill to discredit the FBI, to discredit the Mueller investigation.

So I really want to know what the basis of that is.

But one of the things that's true, what we do know based on what the president said and his actions, is that he has tried to undermine law enforcement. He actively sought to undermine an investigation, because he didn't like the direction in which it was going. And the question is why? All these questions as to why he acted this way and appeared to potentially obstruct justice really is what's so troubling.

BERMAN: You know, Benjamin Wittes at the Lawfare blog calls that obstruction might be the collusion here. Why was he doing those things to undermine the investigation? Was it, in some way, tacit collusion with what the Russians wanted there? That's one theory that's out there.

Andy McCabe going out of his way to say that he doesn't know whether the president is a Russian asset, but he would not say anything about the president's family. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Do you know, was the president's family being looked into either before the appointment of Mueller or after?

MCCABE: That's something I don't feel comfortable talking about, as it goes to kind of the -- could go to ongoing investigative matters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Counselor, why no answer that there?

HONIG: It kind of sounds like a "yes." The policy is not to comment on ongoing investigations, but I think there was a little bit of a tell there in the way he answered that.

McCabe, big picture, did something very smart and very necessary when he set up the separate investigations for obstruction of justice and the counter-intel investigation, because they needed to have some sort of safety valve if the president went full Trump and started firing people and shutting down investigations.

But whenever we hear something from McCabe, we need to keep in mind he has a serious credibility problem. The Department of Justice inspector general found that he lacked candor, which is the polite, bureaucratic way of saying lied, three times in three separate interviews about whether he was a leak or authorized leak on the Hillary Clinton case. And he made -- he's made a defense during this book tour: "Well, I was

confused, and I didn't understand the questions." I find that completely unconvincing. He lied not just -- he didn't just have one bad day. Three separate times lied to the FBI.

[06:25:06] CAMEROTA: He also said he was authorized by the FBI to be the person who was the liaison with the press. You don't buy that?

HONIG: The DOJ -- the OIG certainly did not buy it. And look, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos were all prosecutors making false statements to federal investigators. I don't see why McCabe's case is really any different than those.

GREGORY: Can I make another point here, which I think is important?

Look, if you go back to why Jim Comey was so unpopular and why he was criticized, it's because he took us inside an investigation and made critical judgments about Hillary Clinton and her handling of the e- mail server in explaining why they didn't bring any charges. You don't do that, because you're prejudicing the investigation. The investigation concluded no charges, you don't talk. That's the policy.

The problem with this, really on both sides, is that McCabe is saying, "Oh, well, we don't know if he's a Russian asset, but that was why we investigated it." But there's no conclusions of that. We have the Mueller investigation to look at this critical question. So he's doing something that feels inappropriate.

By the way, Republicans did the same thing. They pushed for the release of classified information related to the investigation. So we're all being taken inside this investigation. And being -- looking at selective pieces of it to make judgments about the ultimate outcome. And that's what is prejudicial here.

We don't know where this is going to go, but for political reasons, both sides have taken us inside what it all looks like. And it's incredibly alarming, because at the end of this, we may say this was total overreach and completely unfair, or there may be people in the government who stood up and said something of this magnitude that we had to hear that had to be stopped.

CAMEROTA: Laura, what does it mean that Andrew McCabe briefed lawmakers, the Gang of Eight, in 2017 about this counterintelligence investigation?

JARRETT: Yes, that was one of the more interesting parts of his interview, because it doesn't go there in the book. In the book, he describes briefing the Gang of Eight, the top lawmakers, House and Intel -- Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer -- on the same day that Mueller's appointed. So he goes in, does a briefing with the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, where he lays out why the FBI has opened four case files on four individuals connected to the Trump campaign.

And then the book explains additional steps were taken that he explained. He doesn't say what those additional steps are, but yet in his interview yesterday with NBC, he says that he told the investigators that they had essentially opened the investigations into the president. No one said anything, no one objected, no one pushed back.

So on the one hand, you might say, well, for the people on the president's side who are saying this is some sort of coup, seems like it's not a very good coup if Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes were all there and said nothing.

On the other hand, when he was asked about it again last night on NBC, whether, in fact, he had told them about obstruction, he said, "I don't want to talk about it anymore."

So there's clearly a "there" there, but again, going back to that "New York Times" piece, the fact that these people were briefed, if they were briefed on the obstruction of justice probe and then they went ahead and waged a year's long campaign to undermine Mueller, those pieces are connected.

BERMAN: And Devin Nunes was in the room, according to Andrew McCabe. He briefed the Gang of Eight, and Nunes was part of that. Nunes was also a key part in trying to discredit the investigation over the last two years.

All right. Friends, thank you very, very much.

CAMEROTA: All right. More than 100 million Americans are facing a major winter storm today. Who will get hit the hardest? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)