Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Blasts Dems' Docs Request As Big Fat Fishing Expedition, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D) New York Says Trump Has Attacked Core Functions Of Democracy, Senate Poised To Rebuke Trump, Block National Emergency Declaration, Gov. Jay Inslee (D) Washington Says He Raised Over $1 Million In 48 Hours, Aired 10-10:30 ET

Aired March 05, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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


[10:00:05] NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: The track that they're on that Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman will continue to be the Crown Prince. That is not going to change. The torture that we heard about Fattahi [ph] in the Ritz Carlton is not specific to him. We've heard about it happening to others who were in that hotel.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: Five months ago and a day, Jamal Khashoggi was murdered. Nic Robertson, thanks very much.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: All right, top of the hour. Good morning, everyone. I'm Poppy Harlow.

SCIUTTO: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

As we speak, 81 people, groups and offices tied to President Trump are mulling how to respond to a brand new demand for information from the House Judiciary Committee. While the President, who is not on that list, responds as he often does.

This morning, he says that the dems have, quote, gone stone cold crazy, obstructing justice, he says, by launching a big fat fishing expedition, again, quoting there.

HARLOW: Obstruction - obstructing justice, of course, is believed to be a key point of investigation of the President in the Special Counsel probe, which the President never fails attack.

But now, a former White House lawyer is airing some very different views about the investigation and of Robert Mueller himself. Ty Cobb tells ABC News in a new podcast he does not see the Mueller as a witch hunt.

Our Phil Mattingly joins us on the Hill. That's really interesting, in and of itself. Also really interesting are these 81 names on a list that could be growing. Phil?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's exactly right, judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler making clear that this was only the first request for names. More could be coming in the days and weeks. But if you look at this initial request, you recognize that this effort by the Judiciary Committee, this effort by House Democrats is neither limited nor is it subtle. It goes directly to the heart of the President's closest relationships and family members, like his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, to some of his closest Trump Organization confidants, Allen Weisselberg, the CFO, Rhona Graff, his personal assistant and gatekeeper, former White House officials, like Sean Spicer, Steve Bannon.

If you broaden out the whole list of 81, it really kind of tracks in the categories from the Trump Organization, to the Trump campaign, to the White House, the current White House, and entities involved with the Russia investigation that have been unearthed up to this point.

And I think one of the big questions now is, okay, there are document requests. What comes next, particularly if some of these individuals don't cooperate? Well, Jerry Nadler was asked this question by Erin Burnett last night. Will he consider subpoenas? This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D), N.Y.: for two years, the Trump administration has been attacking the core functions of our democracy and the Congress has refused to do any oversight. They have refused to - they've shielded him. They've acted more as shields than as what the Congress is supposed to do, which is to be a check and a balance. We are going to be the check and the balance. We are going to find out, we are going to lay out the facts for the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: So it's worth noting that this is the first step. It's document requests, subpoenas are very much a possibility, so are future hearings. It's going to be a lengthy, methodical process, but it is one that is very much still kicking into gear right now, guys.

SCIUTTO: Phil, from the groups that have been requested in the individuals, can you figure out a focus? Or, really, are they open to all lines of inquiry here, you know, business wrongdoing, political, et cetera?

MATTINGLY: It's certainly a wide scope at this moment. But they've really kind of characterized it into three or four particular issues. You have the Russia collusion investigation. There are pieces of that. There's corruption. There are the hush money payments to people who have been talking about now for the past couple of months.

There is the obstruction case, whereas they look into the firing of FBI Director James Comey, and there's also abuse of power issue. You're talking about emoluments. You're talking greed and corruption. Those are the allegations that are being laid out. Those are the issues they are going to be looking into, trying to collect evidence, trying to make the case publicly. Let's see where they end up going from here, guys.

HARLOW: Right, if this is the beginning and how big this list is going to get. Phil, thanks very much, on Capitol Hill for us.

So when asked whether he will cooperate with an investigation, the President says, these are his words, he, quote, cooperates every time. As for the White House, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, well, she called the House Judiciary investigation, quote, a disgraceful abuse, fishing expedition into tired [ph] and false allegations.

SCIUTTO: Fishing exhibition clearly a talking point. Former White House Ty Cobb, however, has served the President for a number of months. He has a very different take. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TY COBB, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: I don't feel the same way about Mueller. I don't feel the investigation is a witch hunt. A lot of things distracted him from focusing on the President, from Manafort's, you know, decade-old issues to, you know, the Papadopouloses of the world and, you know, the Carter Pages of the world and the Roger Stones of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

So it's not my view that it's a witch hunt.

SCIUTTO: Kaitlan Collins at the White House. Kaitlan, so Ty Cobb with a very different approach to this investigation than President Trump's current legal representation.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And Ty Cobb has been out of the White House for nearly a year now. And not only does he not agree that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt, which not only the President but also his allies have repeated often times, he also disagrees with the President when the President says he believes Robert Mueller is highly conflicted to be the Special Counsel.

[10:05:10]

Instead, Ty Cobb says Robert Mueller is someone he has known for decades, and when he thinks of him, he thinks of him as a war hero.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COBB: I think Bob Mueller is an American hero. I think Bob Mueller is a guy that, you know, even though he came from an arguably privileged background, you know, has a backbone of steel. He walked into a firefight in Vietnam to pull out one of his injured colleagues and was appropriately honored for that. I've known him for 30 years as a prosecutor and a friend and I think the world of Bob Mueller.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, two other things from this interview with Ty Cobb that stuck out. One, he said he disagrees with the approach that people like Rudy Giuliani and other members of the President's legal team have taken, because he believes they've undermined the public trust in the Special Counsel to conduct a fair investigation. And two, as we're all waiting for that report to come out, Ty Cobb said he believes it's going to be shorter rather than longer. And he does not think it's going to be the silver bullet that's going to take down the Trump presidency. And he does not think it is going to tie any kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians.

SCIUTTO: Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks very much.

We're joined now by former Presidential Adviser, David Gergen, advised a bunch of presidents, and former Federal Prosecutor, Lis Wiehl. Thanks to both of you.

David, I want to ask you here just about the political implications of this. Because a lot of those districts have swung from red to blue in the midterms were moderate democrats, right? Here you have a Democratic Party now controlling the House, taking a very aggressive investigative posture towards the President. Politically risky in your view?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN ANALYST: I think there is a risk. I'm glad you asked the question. A lot depends, Jim, on what perspective you are looking at this from. There are some observers, like David Lee in The New York Times today wrote in his opinion that Nancy Pelosi had his investigation under good control, that she had the right balance of zeal with caution, that she was holding back and the committees were holding back from talking about impeachment. They were going to do all of these preliminary investigations first. That's one perspective and I think a lot of democrats will rally to that perspective.

The other perspective is this looks like a free-for-all coming coming just after the Mueller report does not - you know, by all accounts, may not be as explosive as first thought, may not find collusion. And the democrats are moving now to a broader set of investigations that I think a lot of republicans and maybe some independents are going to say, it looks like piling on and they're overplaying their hand.

My own view is, right now, that the democrats may think that with the six committees, they've got this under control. But they would be well advised to almost act like a Justice Department and issue some kind of statement to the country, to the people of the country, about what they're trying to do with these various investigations, what the justifications are and what the precedents are. There are precedents for what they're doing, going back to Watergate, that are important.

But I think they need to periodically tell the American people, how does this all fit together as opposed to looking like we're just in a war against these guys.

HARLOW: Well, to that point, David, we just said Congressman Jamie Raskin, democrat of Maryland, who's on oversight and judiciary. And he said the reasoning when I asked him essentially that is he said there has been no oversight over the last few years from republicans. That's him making that case to the American people. How would you most effectively approach it? I mean, I know you brought up Watergate. Are you saying something like Watergate - Ala Watergate- type investigative committee and a single sort of entity would be the most effective? GERGEN: You know, Watergate, notably on the Senate side, they combined committees, in effect. They organized a select committee, Sam Ervin, the Senator from North Carolina ran. He was democrat. And Howard Baker was his top-ranking republican. And it was that committee that is worth remembering that its investigation turned out to be pivotal for the whole Watergate case. It was that committee that discovered there was a taping system in the White House. Nobody knew that before. It hadn't come out in any Special Counsel report or anything like that.

So these investigations do have not only precedent, but they have been valuable. What I do think is that under all those circumstances and the fact we've had two years of investigations now of Donald Trump, that the democrats in the House, the country would be well served by some sort of statement that is updated periodically about how this all fits together.

SCIUTTO: Yes, you definitely sense some impatience.

Lis, you've got some experience here to say the least. You were a lawyer for the democrats on the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. As you look at this now, of course, you were on the other side then, right, republicans investigating a democratic president here, what do you see as the dangers for democrats?

[10:10:02]

LIS WIEHL, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, and Jerry Nadler, of course, was on that committee as well. So he was actually, you know, a democrat on that committee. John Conyers was heading the Judiciary Committee at that point. So he has experience going through this. And, of course, he saw the political side of that, which was that Clinton was impeached, President Clinton was impeached. But then, of course, his polls were never higher after that. And sort of the republicans did not fare well with that even though the President was impeached.

So I think Nadler is looking at that probably and saying, look, we need to have this investigation. But I think the point is well taken that he should be issuing sort of reports out of the investigation, if you will, saying, here's what we're trying to do.

But at the very beginning of an investigation, I think that it's very - it's got to be from a legal perspective, this is what you would do, have a very broad scope to it. Because what are you trying to do at any beginning of an investigation? You're trying to find the facts. You're in a fact-finding or discovery stage. And that's what you're doing with sending out 81 requests. And they are only requests now. They are only voluntary requests.

I assume that they are going to turn into subpoenas. Why do I assume that? Because of the short turnaround time, only a two-week turnaround time. To me that says, hey, we're giving you sort of a wink and a nod, knowing that you're not going to respond in a yes way, right, because you're not going to do that in two weeks. So that's going to be a no, we're going to subpoena you and maybe even compel your testimony and see whether or not you take the fifth.

HARLOW: David, how about Senator Sanders (ph), because I think Lis is so smart to bring up Clinton's approval rating, right, that hit 73%, a record high for him during these impeachment proceedings. Is this an apples-to-apples comparison when you look at the President currently or is it an apples-to-oranges sort of look here, meaning, should the democrats look at that and learn something or is this just different?

GERGEN: I think the democrats should look at that and learn something. There is a parallel here, of course. And that is that Bill Clinton, they had impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, because he was charged basically with having sex in the Oval Office, but then lying about it. And now, we have a president who, on the hush money thing, is accused of having sex and then paying people to hush up, and sort of in effect, to lie about it. So there is that parallel.

But I do think that after two years of, you know, of additional investigations, Clinton was a much more sympathetic figure, because it suddenly happened out of the blue, and he was riding along and doing well as president. But with Trump, he's been mired in investigations since he got into office.

So I think people are - I think the country now wants to have and understand why are we going to do this. It may be very, very justified. But I just think they need to persuade the people and bring people along, and if they want to get national support for this and not have it turned into what happened with Clinton.

SCIUTTO: Give some answers, Lis, before we go, your thoughts?

WIEHL: Yes. And also the difference too is that Kenneth Starr, who was in the Clinton investigation, the independent counsel. He was able to present his case. Here, we may never actually hear what Mueller's investigation produces, because most of it may be redacted, which is why Jerry Nadler may be starting this investigation to begin with.

GERGEN: Yes. I remember when the Starr report came out, we were all reading it. This may be a very different circumstance.

WIEHL: Exactly.

HARLOW: And it's interesting, you know, right, the difference between an independent counsel and that statute expiring and a Special Counsel now.

WIEHL: Exactly.

HARLOW: Thank you, both. Lis, nice to have you. David Gergen, as always, thanks.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell concedes there are enough votes to block the President's emergency declaration. Next, we'll talk to a republican lawmaker who not only supports the President's declaration, but was recently deployed for service to the southern border. Plus, he is not one of the biggest names to enter the 2020 race, but Washington Governor Jay Inslee is announcing an impressive fundraising haul. How did he do it?

SCIUTTO: And a potential major breakthrough in the treatment of AIDS, the second HIV-positive patient possibly cured for good. There are new details in what would truly be a remarkable discovery, and that's coming up as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:50] SCIUTTO: Welcome back. A rebuke unlike anything this President has seen so far. The republican-controlled Senate is set to vote against President Trump's border emergency declaration. Joining us now, one of the republican congressman who voted in favor of the President's declaration.

He was deployed to the border, we should note, as a member of the Air National Guard, Congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois joins us. Congressman, Lieutenant Colonel, thanks for taking the time.

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R), I.L.: You bet, yes.

SCIUTTO: So you said that being deployed down at the border solidified, really, your support for an emergency declaration. We were following your Tweets from there, you tell the story of the border patrol rescuing a woman lost in the mountain. You talk about the tracking of coyotes, these people who prey on immigrants coming in. You talk about a big capture of meth. I wonder, though, would a wall help solve any of the problems you were talking about down there?

KINZINGER: Yes, I think it would, Jim, and here's why. So this was my fourth deployment to the border. Three prior were under President Obama. So to all the, you know, governors that are pulling the guard away from the border, the guard has nothing to do with the national emergency. That's been going on for about a decade. The guard is the technology on the border.

But what I saw when I was there, and this is my first time doing in Arizona, the coyotes, which are the guides paid for by the cartel, the cartel raises money, the Zetas, the Sinaloans, on two basic products, drugs and human beings.

[10:20:12]

And they shuffle both of those over the border at great profit, some through the ports of entry, but a lot through the rugged terrain of the border.

So what I saw, if we saw somebody and they heard a helicopter or they thought they were going to be pursued, they drop these big bundles. We'd pursue the people. Eventually, maybe the border patrol would go back and get the bundles. A lot of the times, those had drugs in them. You would see these coyotes abandon a group and leave them out in the middle of a desert where there's no life for 50 miles from there because they're obviously afraid of getting caught and would leave people out in the desert to die, which is why you see 200 dead about a year in Arizona.

So I came back and said, because of the drugs and the human trafficking, I support it.

SCIUTTO: Okay, I get that argument. You're making your case here. The President has made that case for, really, more than two years, I've been going back to his election campaign. But the fact is, Congress did not authorize funds for that wall. Both chambers of congress did not. How is an emergency declaration to get those funds not circumventing what is the constitutional role of Congress?

KINZINGER: Well, it's not appropriating new money. And the Anti- Deficiency Act prevents basically the appropriation of new money. Through the emergency powers, I believe, and having read the having read the presidential emergency powers that Congress gave a president, that he has that authority. Now, ultimately, that will be decided in the courts. They have much more legal experience than I do. But in my read-through of it, he has that authority. That includes the transfer of funds like military construction and counterdrug. I don't think, this year, he's going to be able to get to all that.

SCIUTTO: But the courts have already ruled on this. You go back to Truman, right? I mean, this is the first time, and I know that the folks will say that there have been dozens of emergency declarations since this law was enacted, that is true. But this is the first time the President, a president, will declare an emergency after - you know, Congress hasn't stayed silent on this. Congress rejected the President's request for the money he wanted for this. That's the standard the courts established. And the President would be setting new ground here with this declaration.

KINZINGER: Yes. Well, I mean, it may be new grounds have been able to do that. As I read through, it's within his purview to do it. Because, look, I see this and this is where it all becomes kind of opinion in terms of whether you support a national emergency. I see this as a national security issue. If this was just an issue of immigration, I wouldn't support it.

But the other issues I saw, and now the fact, too, outside the legality of it, that we're seeing basically democratic governors pull their guard back and say, there's no national emergency, so I'm going to withdraw the National Guard that has been here in some cases for a decade. You know, there is no willingness on the other side of the aisle to work with us. I'm for comprehensive immigration reform. I used to be called a liberal or a moderate in my party because I'm for this. But one of the keys to that is there has to be border security.

And my friends on the other side of the aisle think that any now, National Guard or active duty or any wall is somehow racist and not compassionate, I think it's the opposite. When you have cartels recruiting people to give them their life savings, to take them on a journey that leads to either sexual assault or death in some cases, that's not compassionate, to give hope that they can make it that way instead of the legal and right way and safe way.

SCIUTTO: Listen, you've done your homework. You've done it wearing the uniform. You went down to the border. I respect your position. I do want to note that you, like many republicans, when President Obama used executive authority without congressional approval, you opposed it. I'm going to quote from you, in 2014, when the President was considering executive action on guns. You said, time and again, the President, this being Obama, has chosen to push his authoritative agenda with little regard for constitutional process. Why is the President not doing exactly what you criticized President Obama for?

KINZINGER: Because you can't change a law on guns or immigration with the stroke of a pen. If somebody was trying to change a law, that would be a very different situation than a president saying, I'm declaring a national emergency on the border. I'm not appropriating new money out of thin air. I'm actually switching resources from things like D.O.D. counterdrug to actually fighting drugs on the border through this emergency order, and it's focused on things that are a threat to the American people. Is there always consistency among republicans and democrats? No. That's something we have to accept.

But in terms of what I say and what I see, I think it is consistent to oppose a president that would attempt to change a law versus a president that would attempt to take existing resources and enforce a thing like border security.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Adam Kinzinger, thanks for joining us.

KINZINGER: Anytime.

HARLOW: All right. So he may not be the best-known democrat who has jumped in the 2020 race, but he made a big fundraising haul. We're talking about Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, big fundraising in the last 48 hours. How did he do it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:29:35] HARLOW: Washington Governor Jay Inslee says his campaign has raised over $1 million since he announced his presidential bid on Friday.

SCIUTTO: That is a big haul. The 48-hour haul puts him up there with some of the most recognizable names in the democratic field so far. Look at them, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders as well.

Let's discuss now with Alyssa Mastromonaco. She's a former Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations in the Obama White House. She's also the author of a new book, So Here's the Thing: Notes on Growing Up, Getting Older and Trusting Your Gut, advice for young women. Alyssa, thanks very much taking the time.

ALYSSA MASTROMONACO, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS: Hi. Thanks for having me.

SCIUTTO: So where did this financial support come from?

[10:30:00]