Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

White House Barred All But One Reporter From Trump-Kim Dinner; Michael Cohen's Stunning Testimony Is Released, Calling Trump A Con Man And Cheat; Michael Cohen To Produce House Panel With Trump Reimbursement Check; Interview with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA). Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 27, 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] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: -- about access to this significant summit.

Some print reporters were told summarily right before the dinner that there would be no reporters allowed inside, and that following questions shouted. And, in fact, this came straight from -- straight from the White House, saying, "Due to sensitivities over shouted questions in the previous pool sprays." Those are the opportunities for cameras to come in and document these meetings.

It was only after really outraged expressed by the reporters covering this trip that the White House relented and allowed just one reporter into that room there. Those pictures we saw a short time ago of the President of the United States sitting next to the leader of North Korea.

Here's is the statement that Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, released after relenting. She said the following.

"Due to the sensitive nature of the meetings, we have limited the pool for the dinner to a smaller group but ensured that representation of photographers, T.V., radio, and print poolers are all in the room. We are continuing to negotiate aspects of this historic summit and will always work to make sure the U.S. media has as much access as possible."

Of course, that statement somewhat in contradiction with what was the initial White House move here was to remove any possibility of questions being shouted at the president -- shouted to the president or the leader of North Korea which, John -- I mean, an obvious point here is the President of the United States represents a country where we have press freedom and we have every right ask questions of our elected leaders, particularly in contexts such as these.

After questions asked about Michael Cohen at the previous opportunity, they attempted to take this step, relented a bit, allowing one.

But even in Sarah Sanders' statement there, John, it sounds like this is going to be a continuing issue. She's calling this a sensitive negotiation. They're going to continue to negotiate. It's quite a moment. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Jim, stand by.

I want to bring Abby Phillip into this conversation right now. And this is a really interesting dynamic, Abby, because the initial effort of the White House was to remove all editorial presence reporters who could ask questions. They wanted the picture of President Trump sitting next to Kim Jong Un, but they didn't want the president to face questions.

That's not journalism, that's called propaganda.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I --

BERMAN: The president just wants the picture, but not to face questions. That's propaganda.

PHILLIP: Absolutely. I mean, this is extraordinarily significant in my view because whenever the president is in a setting like this he's on the world stage with an autocratic leader where there is no free press in North Korea. One of the key things that he's doing is standing up for American values, not just -- not just trying to appease the other party -- in this case, Kim Jong Un.

Now, we don't actually know whose idea this was. I mean, I think Sarah Sanders' statement suggests that it's part of a negotiation with the North Koreans.

But it's notable that the White House would even attempt to concede that absolutely no print reporters -- no journalists who cover the White House for Reuters, for the Associated Press -- these are the wire reporters -- for "The Washington Post" -- people like that would even be allowed in the room and that they relented only when the press banded together to say we are not going in at all if there is not at least one representative from the print media in that room.

They shouldn't have to do that. The fact that they did is extraordinary. It tells you that the White House was willing to concede that to North Korea.

And I think it is telling that the people who got questions in the last setting was President Trump. President Trump was the person who most of the questions were addressed to.

He was asked in the last spray about Michael Cohen. He heard the question. You could see him on the tape listening to the question. He didn't answer it and then ushered reporters out of the room.

So it's clear that this is a time where the president doesn't want to be the one answering the question --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

PHILLIP: -- and that the White House wanted to concede that to North Korea is really extraordinary.

BERMAN: If you want to project American values around the world and to autocratic nations like North Korea --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BERMAN: -- one way to do it is to project the notion of a free press.

Jim Sciutto, Abby Phillip, thank you very much --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BERMAN: -- for bringing us this interesting development -- Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, more developments on our breaking news.

SCIUTTO: John --

Sorry, Jim, we'll get back to you in a moment.

But we are learning about the explosive testimony that Michael Cohen is set to give in a couple of hours on Capitol Hill. We have 20 pages of his prepared statement in black and white here of what he is going to tell Congress under oath.

Joining us now is James Clapper. He's the former director of National Intelligence under President Obama. He is now a CNN national security analyst.

And, Dir. Clapper, before we get to what's happening in Vietnam, I just want to ask you about Michael Cohen's testimony that we now have. We don't have to wait until 10:00 a.m.

His opening statement is here and it has so many stunning revelations, including -- and I just want to ask you because you were the person who was part of the team that briefed President-elect Donald Trump in January of 2017 that the Russians had attempted to interfere in our election.

[07:35:15] And when you see in black and white here that under oath, Michael Cohen is going to tell lawmakers that Donald Trump already knew that -- in fact, that Roger Stone -- I mean, this is just one of the examples -- had called him and told him that he was in touch with WikiLeaks -- that he was in touch with the person who was trying to release all of the cache of Hillary Clinton's e-mails, what do you think?

JAMES CLAPPER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, Alisyn, I think, first of all, this devastating, stunning testimony that Michael Cohen is going to render here a little bit later, I think helps to explain the president's reaction to our briefing that we gave to President-elect Trump on the sixth of January of 2017 in Trump Tower, and his -- essentially, his refusal to accept what we were telling him about the Russian meddling because of --

CAMEROTA: And what was his reaction, Director? Just remind us? CLAPPER: Well, he just couldn't get his head around -- or refused to get his head around anything that would cast doubt on the validity or veracity or the legitimacy of his election. And I think that explains much better and with greater fidelity his pushback not only with what we said but subsequent to that.

After we all left -- I left and all of us left the government and our successors continued to point out to him that the Russians meddled. And now, we have this evidence that he knew all along what was going on.

And I actually think that the synchronization, collusion, coordination -- whatever word you want to use -- was actually much broader than what we've been talking about.

CAMEROTA: Meaning what? What does that look like to you?

CLAPPER: The striking parallels and similarities between what the Russians were doing and saying in the run-up -- in the campaign and what the Trump campaign was doing and saying, particularly with respect to the attacks on Hillary Clinton. And there are striking parallels and similarities schematically which, to plug my book, I guess, I describe in some length.

So all of this, to me, is just the pieces falling into place -- the things that we were concerned about and were suspicious of. And now, there seems to be proof positive of what was actually going on at the time, which we didn't fully understand contemporaneously.

CAMEROTA: But when you say that he couldn't get his around it in early January of 2017 when he was president-elect and you went to brief him, he -- that tells you that he was, what, acting that day?

CLAPPER: Well, yes. I mean, I think -- we were probably tiptoeing around the margins of what the real truth was which, of course, he knew. And we didn't have any insight about -- we were concerned and were suspicious about the connections with the Russians but we certainly didn't have the fidelity of detail that we now have by virtue of the Mueller indictments and -- which, to me, are reinforced by what I think Michael Cohen is going to say later on the Hill.

CAMEROTA: And so, the fact that this incriminating material is coming out this morning while the president is on the world stage, we have Kim Jong Un, of all leaders -- you know, there's always a concern that any President of the United States could somehow be comprised.

Are you concerned that this will somehow comprise whatever happens in Vietnam?

CLAPPER: Well, I think the big concern I would have is what concessions that the president might make simply to counter-distract from this testimony.

For example -- I mean -- and a precursor to that was at the Singapore summit in June where the president just gratuitously and I think -- and apparently without consultation with either the South Koreans or his own Secretary of Defense, suspended the joint exercises in Korea, which was completely unnecessary.

But I think he did it to try to placate and please and suck up to Kim Jong Un, and I'm just concerned about him doing that again --

CAMEROTA: Like what? What concession --

CLAPPER: -- on a grander --

CAMEROTA: Yes, on a grander scale, what are you worried about?

[07:40:00] CLAPPER: Well, agreeing to pull our troops off the Peninsula, which would be, I think, a terrible thing and it has bigger implications than just the Korean Peninsula.

CAMEROTA: Look, as you know, one of the things that President Trump does in terms of breaking protocol is he often meets -- well, he meets with leaders like Vladimir Putin away from the watchful eye of some of his national security team. He met with Vladimir Putin with no American translator, without the Secretary of State.

And so, are you concerned that somehow, the Secretary of State or other national security experts won't be involved in whatever concession he makes to Kim Jong Un?

CLAPPER: Well, exactly. I gather that there's some intent here to limit the one-on-one time with Kim Jong Un. You know, one-on-one with a translator.

Now, I'm encouraged by the presence of Sec. Pompeo who I think has probably a more realistic pragmatic perspective on dealing with the North Koreans.

CAMEROTA: As long as he's in the room. I mean, as long as he stays in the room.

CLAPPER: Yes, exactly.

CAMEROTA: Director James Clapper, thank you very much for giving us all of your historical expertise on this subject.

CLAPPER: Thanks, Alisyn.

BERMAN: All right. I want to bring in Jeffrey Toobin now for more discussion here.

Jeffrey, what I wanted to do was to go through what you call this panoply of new legal issues that are facing the president based on this prepared testimony from Michael Cohen, but even in the last 30 seconds we've had more breaking news that I have to get to first for your reaction.

We just learned that Michael Cohen intends to produce a second check. This one to him for reimbursement for the Stormy Daniels payment, but this one signed by Donald Trump, Jr. and also Allen Weisselberg, who was the CFO of the Trump Organization. So, we have one check. This one we have a picture of, signed by Donald Trump when he was President of the United States in August of 2017. And now, we are learning that Cohen will also produce a second check signed by, among others, Donald Trump, Jr., the president's son.

The significance of that?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: OK, let's just step back and talk about why all this matters at all.

I mean, as you've been pointing out, one of the things that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to was making an unlawful campaign contribution by paying off Stormy Daniels on the eve of the election. Keeping her quiet to benefit Donald Trump's campaign.

So the question is did Michael Cohen have coconspirators in that enterprise -- this criminal enterprise of the unlawful campaign contributions? That raises the question of well, where did he get the money to pay off Stormy Daniels and was he reimbursed for the money he paid off to Stormy Daniels to?

These two checks -- the one check we've seen from Donald Trump, the president, and the other check that you're describing signed by Donald Trump, Jr. and Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization -- are, according to Michael Cohen, the reimbursement checks -- or at least part of the reimbursement checks, which would implicate all three of them. That is Weisselberg, Donald Trump, Jr., and the president in this criminal conspiracy.

What an investigator would have do to is start pulling apart those facts. Just for example, what accounts did that come from -- did those checks come from? Are they the same account? Are they different accounts?

What is the paperwork underlying the payment of those checks? I mean, Alisyn, you were joking earlier it would be nice on the memo if it said "hush money payment to porn star," but --

CAMEROTA: That would help.

TOOBIN: -- there is probably some paperwork somewhere about what this check is for. I mean, in an exculpatory sense it could be reimbursement for travel expenses or legal fees related to something entirely different.

But if you are a real criminal investigator you go and look for the underlying paperwork. And that would certainly be the place where you'd go.

One of the things that we know about the Mueller investigation is that Donald Trump, Jr. has never been interviewed.

BERMAN: Yes.

TOOBIN: One of the very few key figures who has not been interviewed. CAMEROTA: And what does that tell you?

TOOBIN: Well, it tells you that his behavior is under scrutiny from Mueller. Just as Roger Stone was never interviewed by Mueller and then was later -- was later indicted.

Now, how this all figures into the fact that we've heard much reporting that the Mueller investigation is effectively over -- frankly, I don't know how that fits in.

CAMEROTA: Yes, that's a tough one.

Well, a couple of relevant pieces of Michael Cohen's public testimony today that I want to read to you that puts a little bit more meat on the bone of what this check was, OK. So, key 139. This is what he's going to tell Congress is this check.

[07:45:06] "As exhibit five to my testimony shows, I am providing a copy of my $35,000 check that President Trump personally signed from his personal bank 14 account on August 1, 2017 when he was President of the United States, pursuant to the cover-up, which was the basis of my guilty plea to reimburse me, the word used by Mr. Trump's T.V. lawyer" -- who we assume is Rudy Giuliani -- "for the illegal hush money I paid on his behalf.

"This $35,000 check," Jeffrey, "was one of 11 check installments that was paid throughout the year while he was president."

OK, so he says 11 of those. We have learned -- CNN has learned he's going to be producing a second one.

Is it different, legally, if it came from President Trump's own personal account, which this one appears to have, or if it came from the Trump Organization -- sorry, the Trump campaign? Is it different if it came from the campaign or the Trump Organization or Donald Trump's personal account?

TOOBIN: Well, it's criminal no matter how -- where the check came from if the -- if Donald Trump knew that he was reimbursing Cohen for an illegal campaign contribution. It doesn't matter which pot of money Trump directed the money to come from if Trump knew that it was for an illegal purpose. So I don't think the account matters.

What matters, as so often is the case in a white-collar crime, is the intent. Was he intending to reimburse Michael Cohen for this illegal campaign contribution? It doesn't matter how he did it from which account as long as Trump was controlling the money and directing the money to go to -- to go to Cohen.

CAMEROTA: Cohen.

TOOBIN: In fact, sometimes prosecutors use the use of different accounts as proof of criminal intent because you're not -- you are -- -- you are -- you are trying to camouflage the nature of the payment. So I don't think the account is either -- is exculpatory at all. BERMAN: I will say I think the most significant number on this check is the date -- the one I'm holding from President Trump -- which is August first, 2017, which is while he was President of the United States. We're going to talk much more about that.

Jeffrey, stand by if you will.

Joining us now is member of Congress Jackie Speier. She is a member of both the House Intelligence Committee, which will speak to Michael Cohen tomorrow, and the House Oversight Committee, which will hear from Michael Cohen, along with the United States of America and the entire world in just a few hours.

Representative, thank you so much for being with us.

I'm holding this 20-page prepared statement in my hand. I had a chance to read it when I woke up this morning at 3:15. I assume you've had a chance to look at this now.

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA), MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: No, I actually haven't. I'm as shocked as I think most Americans are by what he's going to reveal today.

BERMAN: OK, what are you shocked by?

SPEIER: Well, I'm shocked by the fact that he can so specifically speak to the WikiLeaks connection, to the Trump Tower meeting in Don, Jr.'s office and the connection there.

This is a criminal conspiracy and I would venture to say that what we're going to be looking at is the Trump Organization as a criminal organization. This is so much more explosive than I thought it was going to be when I went to bed last night.

BERMAN: All right, let's break that down into parts if we will.

First, WikiLeaks. Michael Cohen is going to testify that he witnessed a speakerphone conversation where Roger Stone told then-candidate Donald Trump that there was about to be a massive dump of e-mails that would be incriminating to Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is the first time that I have heard or will have heard public testimony to that effect.

Is that new to you?

SPEIER: Absolutely, new to me.

BERMAN: And what's the significance?

SPEIER: Well, the significance is that you can now start to draw conclusions about the fact that Donald Trump was aware, was informed, was engaged in this criminal conspiracy to rig the election on his behalf, and he did so in conjunction with the Russians.

BERMAN: Well, I can -- aware and engaged, that seems to be the case based on what he said, according to Michael Cohen, "Wouldn't that be great." That gets to aware and engaged.

What I don't necessarily see in this testimony is that next step that you suggest where there is evidence that he worked alongside the Russians to rig the campaign.

Is there that evidence in this?

SPEIER: I think that what we will see is that the rigging took place as a dance that went on between Russia, Donald Trump, his campaign in terms of the use of social media.

[07:50:00] And all of these pieces are now coming together that have heretofore not been available to us and it all comes from Michael Cohen and his taped conversations and his presence at meetings with Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is the ringmaster in this circus -- has always been the ringmaster -- and he has tried to somehow shield himself from it. But now it's becoming crystal clear that he is the center of all of this.

BERMAN: I have to say it again. You've been a member of the House Intelligence Committee throughout the investigation -- last congressional session, as well.

This didn't come up? No one asked Michael Cohen whether or not he heard a conversation with Roger Stone? Whether he knew that the president knew about WikiLeaks before the release?

SPEIER: What will happen in our hearing tomorrow when he actually testifies before the House Intelligence Committee, is that we're going to go over his testimony and look at all the areas where he did lie to the committee. I think we're going to find out that there was a conspiracy to lie by a number of people associated with Donald Trump and his campaign.

And this is just the beginning of what I think is a very serious and probably impeachable offense.

BERMAN: Which is impeachable?

SPEIER: The conduct by the president to undermine the election by working with the Russians and by lying continuously.

And I think we're going to also find out his interest in all of these real estate deals that there's a lot of Russian money that came into these deals. Again, a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

This is a criminal conspiracy I believe that's been going on for a long time.

BERMAN: And I've heard you talk about the money and we'll get into that in a second.

But first, on the impeachable thing, I just want to hone in on that for one second. Are you saying that if Donald Trump -- then-candidate Donald Trump knew that the WikiLeaks dump was about to happen, is that in and of itself, to you, impeachable?

SPEIER: I think that that combined with the events associated with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, and attempting to obscure the fact that he was shutting them up so that they would not impact his campaign -- all of that coming together, I believe, is a high crime and misdemeanor. It is what the Congress, at the time, thinks is a high crime and misdemeanor.

BERMAN: That was Gerald Ford's definition of what impeachment was way back when.

Do you find Michael Cohen credible?

SPEIER: I think Michael Cohen becomes more credible as he shows more documentation. And I think we haven't even touched the surface. I think if he has additional audiotapes that becomes very, I think, important as well.

It's so much -- it's so stunning that we are repeating history once again with the tapes of Watergate. Now we have the tapes of Michael Cohen. I think that we have a real explosive situation on our hands.

BERMAN: Well, we don't have all the tapes of Michael Cohen. The special counsel and the Southern District may have all the tapes of Michael Cohen. We have heard at least one tape where President Trump appears to talk to Michael Cohen about making the payments to Stormy Daniels.

And in my hand, I have a copy of a check that Michael Cohen will talk about to you today in public testimony. And he will produce this check to you, which is signed by Donald Trump. And the date on that check -- you can see the yellow highlight -- is August first, 2017. Donald Trump was the President of the United States at that time.

What does it matter to you if the president was engaged in reimbursements to Michael Cohen? What's the significance of the President of the United States signing what Michael Cohen says is a reimbursement check for hush money to Stormy Daniels?

SPEIER: It suggests to me and I think most Americans that Donald Trump is devoid of a moral foundation, that it is all about promoting himself at everyone's expense, and that violating the law is irrelevant to him. And he has shown that over and over again.

And his bombastic allegations about witch hunts of the Michael -- of the Bob Mueller investigation I think is all becoming very clear. Someone who is in a corner lashes out, and that's what Donald Trump has been doing for the last two years is lashing out at those who are sniffing around him and are coming closer and closer to finding out the truth.

BERMAN: How does Congress -- how do you intend to handle what are the apparent lies that Donald Trump told, specifically about the Stormy Daniels payments?

We have that audio of him from April 2018 where he says he knew nothing about the payments.

We have Sarah Sanders that summer saying the president didn't know anything about the payments. Now, the president may have given her the wrong story there.

But this check in Michael Cohen's testimony in the Southern District of New York's case seems to indicate the president did know and lied to the public about it.

Where does lying to the public cross from politics? You know, I would say bad politics, but politics to something that you view as criminal.

[07:55:04] SPEIER: Well, remember, we had a President of the United States who was impeached because he lied about having sex with an intern.

And now, we have a President of the United States who lied about rigging the election to his benefit by hushing up two -- one porn star and one Playboy bunny. I mean, I don't -- and that's just the beginning of what we're going to be finding out about Donald Trump, the man, who was the businessman who engaged in a lot of, I think, unsavory financial deals.

BERMAN: I've got to ask you one more question before we have to let you go, but there's a lot in here that seems to be about Russia. My understanding was the testimony in public today wasn't supposed to be about Russia. This looks like Russia a lot.

SPEIER: Right. That was the restrictions that were placed on the committee members in terms of talking about issues. Obviously, Michael Cohen is opening up to a discussion about Russia as well.

I think the letter of intent that was signed in 2015 with Russia about the Moscow hotel may all of the sudden now become much more relevant.

BERMAN: Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California, thank you for waking up with us this morning. Thank you for trying to understand --

SPEIER: Thank you.

BERMAN: -- what is going to be a fascinating day before your committee. Appreciate it.

SPEIER: Thank you.

BERMAN: All right.

CAMEROTA: There are a lot more developments, John, in just that period of time, so stick with us. Please don't go anywhere. We have a lot more on what's happening today with Michael Cohen's statement and more. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BERMAN: All right, good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Wednesday, February 27th, 8:00 in the East.

Significant breaking news -- 20 pages of hot, steaming breaking news this morning. Explosive revelations in Michael Cohen's prepared public testimony before Congress. This is set to happen in just a couple of hours.

Cohen's statement, which we've been pouring through all morning, includes at least a half-dozen new allegations, each of which alone would be huge scandals in and of themselves. Presidency-redefining, perhaps threatening scandals.

END