Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Lawmakers Clash Over Alleged "Racist Act" At Cohen Hearing; Interview with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI); Cohen: Trump Reimbursed Me For Hush Money Payments While In Office; Trump: I Take Kim Jong Un At His Word On Otto Warmbier Death. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 28, 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] ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: -- is something that you see playing out all the time in criminal trials where cooperating witnesses testify.

Typically, what prosecutors say is look, the cooperator gave you everything he knows, whether it was good for the defendant, as we saw some examples yesterday, or bad for the defendant. Take it all. Some's good, some's bad. That's how reality works.

And what defense lawyers typically do is say here's what you do. If it's good for my guy, then it was true. If it's bad for my guy, then reject it as a lie. And I was always happy to let that go to a jury and say well, use your common sense. Which one makes more sense in your experience?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Guys, thank you all very much to help us get through what was a riveting hearing.

There was also this heated confrontation between Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and Mark Meadows. And so, she -- I mean, it all got very emotional, to be honest. In fact, at some points, there was some crying.

So we're going to ask her about all of that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: All right. In just two hours, Michael Cohen will be back before a different congressional panel answering more questions. This time, it will be behind closed doors.

[07:35:02] In his public testimony yesterday, Cohen alleged that President Trump committed various crimes while in office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. RASHIDA TLAIB (D-MI), MEMBER, MEMBER, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: Based on what you know now, based on what we know now, is that "Individual 1" used his money, businesses, and platform to enrich himself, his brand. And in the process directed you, Mr. Cohen, to commit multiple felonies and you covered it up, correct?

MICHAEL COHEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY: That's correct.

TLAIB: You called it protecting his brand, correct?

COHEN: And him, as well.

TLAIB: Mr. Cohen, with this, do you think the President of the United States is making decisions in the best interest of the American people?

COHEN: No, I don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right, joining us now is Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. She was one of the lawmakers questioning Michael Cohen that you just saw, yesterday. Congresswoman, thanks so much for being here.

There were so many interesting exchanges yesterday. You were in the center of some of them. But what did you learn yesterday from Michael Cohen's testimony?

TLAIB: I think many of us learned that the committal conduct and activity that we all know of President Trump continued on into the Oval Office.

I think at one point I was taken aback hearing about the continued payback of the bribery to Ms. Daniels, I think, saying that it was delayed because it has to go through White House mailing process. I think, alone, just the depth of how much of that criminal scheme that was started by Mr. Cohen with "Individual 1" and how that continued on to -- with him while he's in the Oval Office.

CAMEROTA: We have a copy, of course, of that check that he brought as evidence -- the $35,000 payment that happened on August first of 2017.

Was that the headline for you? Was that the big blockbuster that this -- there's actual evidence of this payment?

TLAIB: No, just the fact that Mr. Cohen, who worked for "Individual 1" -- for the President of the United States for the last 10 years, and who had already admitted all this criminal conduct, is going to be sentenced.

The fact that this was the personal lawyer for this sitting president. The fact that he was the so-called 'go fix it' guy from threatening people -- from the way they were able to con the American people out of taxes that should be paid, how they devalued property. All of those schemes, alone, just tells you just the character of this current president.

But for me, and I've been saying this from day one, impeaching this President of the United States needs to be about the fact that he hasn't divested in his domestic or foreign businesses. When he's sitting in the Oval Office, he knows this is just a temporary gig. And this is a gig that when it's up, he wants to make sure that he's continuing making profits.

So he's running the Trump Organization -- him and his family members -- while in the White House, putting us second. That is a dangerous precedent and it is against the U.S. Constitution Emoluments Clause.

It is something that I think sets a precedent that if we don't push back against a future CEO wanting to be President of the United States and saying that you cannot -- you cannot take the oath of office for the most powerful position in the world without completely dividing yourselves and divesting yourself from your personal, private businesses.

It is a really dangerous precedent and that's why right now, it's not even about just the character of this president, but also his actions currently in office.

CAMEROTA: And so, Congresswoman, you were also at the center of this rather prolonged emotional exchange between you and Congressman Mark Meadows and Chairman Elijah Cummings after Mark Meadows had held up this woman who has worked for Donald Trump as what I believe you said was a prop -- she didn't speak. And you felt that it was a racist act.

So let me just play this moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TLAIB: Just to make a note, Mr. Chairman, just because someone has a person of color -- a black person working for them does not mean they aren't racist. And it is insensitive that some would even say -- the fact that someone would actually use a prop -- a black woman -- in this chamber, in this committee is alone, racist in itself.

Donald Trump is setting a precedent -- Donald Trump is setting a precedent --

REP. MARK MEADOWS (R-NC), MEMBER, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: Mr. Chairman, I ask that her words be taken down.

TLAIB: I reclaim my time. Donald Trump is setting --

MEADOWS: Mr. Chairman --

TLAIB: -- a precedent --

MEADOWS: Mr. Chairman --

TLAIB: -- that the highest office can be attained with illegal activity --

MEADOWS: Mr. Chairman, the rules are clear.

TLAIB: -- cover up and hold onto business assets to break campaign finance laws and constitutional clauses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: So how do you feel about all that today? Do you still, today, believe that Congressman Mark Meadows engaged in a racist act?

TLAIB: I believe that moment, as a person of color -- and not only myself. Two -- I think three other of my colleagues had mentioned how insensitive that act was. I think all of us -- I mean, even folks at home kind of gasped when that actually happened. I think if we want to talk about race in this country that was not the way to do it.

[07:40:05] CAMEROTA: We are -- I am being told that Lynne Patton, the woman who was held up by Mark Meadows without speaking then, has just spoken on a morning show. So let's both listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LYNNE PATTON, FORMER EVENT PLANNER FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S FAMILY: -- racist (audio gap) then being put up there as a quote- unquote "prop." (Audio gap)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: -- sound, but she's speaking out about it. And I also can tell you from her Instagram yesterday, she says -- let me see where I want to get into this.

"But, rather than those on the House Oversight Committee who sadly placed more credence on the word of a self-confessed convicted perjurer than of a highly-education black woman who rose up the ranks of one of the most highly-recognized global real estate companies, spoke before 25 million people at the Republican National Convention, and now successfully oversees the largest HUD program in the country, this is not the resume of a prop."

TLAIB: Yes.

CAMEROTA: What do you want to say to her?

TLAIB: Well, I want her to know it was no disrespect to her at all. I think she should be commended for her extreme leadership, for her work in the HUD organization, the administration.

But I think for many of us, if we want to talk about race in this country, want to talk about some of the actions by this president, as a Muslim-American in this country, I know what he's said about Muslims. I have seen what he's said about Latinos and African Americans.

But even in closed doors and what I think Mr. Cohen was trying to express to all of us, that was not the way I think my colleague should have been able to debate that issue and whether or not to even disagree with Mr. Cohen. I think there was a better way of doing that. CAMEROTA: And so, back to that point yesterday, which is that as you point out, there were people at home that felt that that was tone deaf and insensitive of Congressman Mark Meadows. You certainly were not alone in that feeling.

And so why did you feel the need to apologize to him?

TLAIB: You know, I just want folks to know this is probably the most diverse class. This is the largest incoming class since Watergate. And, yes, we look differently. And many of us didn't run to be first of anything, but I think we ran because we wanted Congress to not only look differently but also speak differently and feel differently.

And, for me, again, as a person and a member of that committee, I did not feel that I should be silent about the fact that how that made me feel as an equal member to Mr. Meadows and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

At that moment, it was important for me to speak truth to power. It was important for me to speak out against that action that I thought was very hurtful and very painful for many of us sitting in that committee room.

CAMEROTA: And so, do you regret apologizing to Congressman Meadows?

TLAIB: Well, no. I apologized if it made him feel like I was calling him a racist. I was -- I was, at that moment, as a person, as a mother -- this was a teachable moment. For me, I used that moment to say just FYI, that was not the way to do it.

And it was not at all calling Mr. Meadows a racist. I really -- if I wanted to -- everybody knows this -- I'm pretty direct -- I would have done that. But that's not what was my intention.

It was my intention to educate -- to share what I was feeling at that moment just like when he was feeling at that moment of what his reaction was to the comments from Mr. Cohen. I'm really, you know, wanted to focus to discuss race in this country in a way that can be really thoughtful and constructive, not in a way that's very dramatic.

And again, no disrespect to her, but just to having her stand there saying nothing and saying look, he's not a racist. Again, I was still taken aback and still to this day, was like that was not the way to do it.

CAMEROTA: I mean, look, I think this is a teachable moment and I think that we are all having these sensitive -- you know, what used to be taboo conversations about race. And that's why I'm interested in whether or not you can separate a racist statement or a racist act from the person.

And, case in point, in 2012, Congressman Mark Meadows engaged in the birtherism talk where he doubted that President Obama was born here. Let me just remind our viewers of what he said back then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MEADOWS, THEN-CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE RACE NC-11: Well, it's good to be here with you today. I thank you so much for allowing me just a few minutes to talk with you and share a few things that -- you know, it's interesting when the more we find out, the more we realize how wrong the direction we're going.

And so what we're going to do is take back our country. Two-thousand- twelve is the time that we're going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is -- we're going to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Does seeing that change how you feel about him?

TLAIB: Look, I'm there because I think people of color have been really missing in Congress. There are so many incredible, incredible leadership. John Lewis, Elijah Cummings, Barbara Lee, and so many people of color right now in Congress that are using this opportunity of being in that space and teaching our colleagues I think the right way of talking about race in this country.

[07:45:00] And so, just to go back, I think Congressman Meadows understood where I was coming from. He knew what my intention was at the end and that's why he decided to take, you know, I think his objections back.

And again, as somebody sitting in that room, I didn't feel like it was something to be silent about. I think I needed to express my frustration and also the hurt that I think a lot of us felt at the moment that that action of having her stand up like that in a committee hearing.

CAMEROTA: But just to be clear, you still, today, feel that he is not racist.

TLAIB: Look, I feel like the act was, and that's up to the American people to decide whether or not he is.

CAMEROTA: Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, we really appreciate you having this conversation with us on NEW DAY. Thank you very much.

TLAIB: Thank you for having me.

CAMEROTA: John --

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We have a lot of developments this morning. The North Korea summit falling apart at the last minute, plus the fallout from the Michael Cohen testimony.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: So, one of the more notable features of the 7-hours of back- and-forth yesterday with Michael Cohen on Capitol Hill was that Republicans members of Congress -- what they did not do. Former New Jersey governor and longtime Trump ally Chris Christie

pointed out, quote, "There hasn't been one Republican yet who's tried to defend the president on the substance, and I think that's something that should be concerning to the White House. Cohen's not a credible witness but he does have corroboration on certain things. Where's the defense of the president?"

Joining us now, former Republican senator Rick Santorum, a CNN senior political commentator. Senator, thanks for being with us.

Why no defense of the president?

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, (R) FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think that was a mistake. I mean, I think that taking the approach of just vilifying Cohen was not the right approach. In fact, Michael Cohen said many things yesterday that actually benefitted the president, which the president even noted.

[07:50:07] But when you vilify him and say that he has no credibility, that undermines part of -- part of what was positive out of that hearing.

I think there were a lot of things you could have gone after him, in particular -- particularly, the campaign finance side. I think that's an incredibly flimsy charge and it's one that you --

BERMAN: It's not a charge. It's not a charge. It was a crime -- a convicted crime. He pled guilty to --

SANTORUM: No, I'm not talking about his -- I'm not talking about the crime that he pled to.

I'm saying what Michael Cohen attempted to implicate the president in something that, in my opinion, is not a crime, number one. And, number two, the evidence that he put forward, in my mind -- again, if it's not a crime there's no evidence to support it.

BERMAN: Well, first of all, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a crime, which was making an illegal donation which was the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. The Southern District, in their charging documents, saying that he was directed to do so by the President of the United States. That is a crime.

In the evidence --

SANTORUM: Well, I -- well, I just fundamentally disagree with that.

BERMAN: With whom? With me or with the Southern District?

SANTORUM: I disagree. Well, look, there is a crime on the books of not reporting a contribution that --

BERMAN: This isn't reporting. This isn't reporting. This was a $130,000 contribution. That is an illegal contribution --

SANTORUM: It is.

BERMAN: -- because $130,000, Senator, is a lot more than $2,700.

SANTORUM: It's not an illegal -- the contribution is not illegal. What -- the contribution -- not reporting the contribution is illegal.

BERMAN: No.

SANTORUM: You can --

BERMAN: No.

SANTORUM: Donald Trump could pay anybody he wants and help his campaign.

BERMAN: Donald Trump did pay -- Michael Cohen made the donation, which is what made it illegal. It wasn't from Donald Trump, it was from Michael Cohen. He was directed to make that donation, according to Michael Cohen and the Southern District, by Donald Trump. So it was an illegal donation because of the amount.

Also illegal, according to the charging documents, was the way they tried to hide that donation, which gets to this. And again, the evidence that was produced --

SANTORUM: But the evidence being presented that Donald Trump made --

BERMAN: Do you -- do you -- Senator, just hang on. Let me ask, let me ask. Do you dispute that this check was written in August of 2017?

SANTORUM: Yes, but we don't know -- there's nothing on that check that says why that check was written.

BERMAN: No --

SANTORUM: It doesn't say I wrote this to pay Michael Cohen to pay -- to pay -- you know, to pay Stormy Daniels. There's was nothing -- there's nothing in that check. So --

BERMAN: You are absolutely right. You are absolutely right about that, although Rudy Giuliani did tell us -- and I believe Rudy Giuliani, as you do, on almost all things, Senator. Rudy Giuliani did tell us that the president reimbursed Michael Cohen for these payments. And isn't it fair to assume that this check, a copy of which I'm holding in my hand, is a reimbursement for that?

SANTORUM: That's fine, but that actually makes the point that Donald Trump, quote, "paying" indirectly -- but paying someone not to -- not to tell their story, number one, is not illegal under campaign finance law. What is illegal is not -- well, what they're saying is illegal is not reporting it.

But again, we have the John Edwards case that says that it was not illegal to pay someone.

BERMAN: That's not true. Senator, you're just misstating the facts here. The John Edwards case did not say it was not illegal.

John Edwards was charged for breaking campaign finance. It was different and there were some similarities. It was different there. He was acquitted --

SANTORUM: There were a lot of similarities. He's --

BERMAN: He was acquitted on one charge. It was a hung jury on several others. The difference there was he -- one of the differences is he was paid -- the payoffs began a lot before the campaign.

In this case, the payment was made immediately before the election. In this case, you have Donald Trump's voice on tape talking about the payments. They're just different.

SANTORUM: The reality is, John, that the violation here -- you can say whatever you want but the violation here is that making a payment -- Donald Trump making a payment or instructing someone to make a payment in which he reimburses them --

BERMAN: Right.

SANTORUM: -- to someone is not a violation of campaign law if you report it. If you report that -- if you report that contribution it is not a -- that is a permissible payment.

And here's the interesting thing. That payment took place a few days before the election and under campaign finance law would not have been required to be reported until after the election. So the idea that this payment was made in violation -- to protect him from a -- from campaign only -- well, all he had to do is admit it and report it after the election --

BERMAN: So, Senator -- Senator --

SANTORUM: -- and no one would have known.

BERMAN: We'll take this up again, I promise. It's -- the Southern District of New York has a different version of the law than you do and --

SANTORUM: They -- you know what? Prosecutors are very aggressive in looking at campaign finance laws.

BERMAN: It's not just prosecutors. It's not prosecutors. It's the long --

SANTORUM: But as you know, John --

BERMAN: Hang on, Senator. I do want to get your take on North Korea.

SANTORUM: Well, hold on. Most campaign finance laws if you break them are -- you get a fine, if that. So the idea that this is an impeachable offense is absurd.

BERMAN: OK. What you're saying is that you're OK with the president breaking -- he didn't break enough of the law and the law's not so big that he should be impeached is what you're saying.

SANTORUM: I don't think the law is clear. I think the case -- the Edwards case brings that into question. And it's a reporting requirement that he obviously -- to me, it's not a huge deal.

BERMAN: Senator, we'll take this up another time. It is not a reporting requirement.

It was an illegal donation because of the amount and how made it, and the conspiracy to cover it up. That is what the Southern District charged and Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to.

[07:55:04] I want to get you on North Korea because I know you've been watching that very, very closely.

SANTORUM: Yes.

BERMAN: The president walked away with no deal. People were nervous that he would accept a bad deal --

SANTORUM: Me.

BERMAN: -- right?

SANTORUM: Yes.

BERMAN: He walked away with no deal, so there's that.

There was a moment in the news conference which I need to get your take on, which is the president seemed to provide cover for Kim Jong Un when it came to the death of Otto Warmbier, who was an American held hostage in a prison in North Korea and died as result of it.

This is what the president said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I really believe something very bad happened to him and I don't think that the top leadership knew about it. He felt badly about it. I did speak to him. He felt very badly.

But he knew the case very well, but he knew it later. And, you know, you've got a lot of people. It's a big country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: An American died because of the treatment he received in North Korea, an autocratic dictatorial regime, and the president just provided cover for the leader of that country.

SANTORUM: This is the conundrum of Donald Trump for many of us who like his policies and don't like a lot of the things he does and says.

What he did in Hanoi was the right thing to do. He walked away from a bad deal. He, hopefully, saw this as a learning experience that the North Koreans can and shouldn't be trusted. I -- not to criticize him for the summit, but the fact that he walked away is, to me, a wonderful moment in his presidency.

But, this is reprehensible that -- what he just did. I mean, he gave cover, as you said, to a leader who knew very well what was going on with Otto Warmbier. And again, I don't understand why the president does this. I am disappointed, to say the least, that he did it.

BERMAN: Senator Rick Santorum, thank you for being with us this morning. I appreciate it. We'll talk campaign finance sometime over coffee.

SANTORUM: I look forward to it.

BERMAN: All right.

A lot of news. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END