Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Former Attorney for President Trump Says Mueller Investigation is Not a Witch Hunt; House Judiciary Committee Issues Document Requests Concerning Trump Administration; Reporting Indicates Lawyer for Michael Cohen Approached President Trump's Attorneys about Possibility of a Pardon; Interview With Rep. Lou Correa. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired March 05, 2019 - 8:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: David Gregory, a CNN political analyst. Jeffrey, I'll just start with you with what we just heard from Ty Cobb. Is that significant that he's speaking publicly about this not being a witch hunt and really endorsing the Mueller probe?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: This is really just a very different approach to the investigation that has been taken since he left. He was hired basically to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, to turn over documents, to facilitate White House officials coming in to agree to be interviewed. Ever since Emmet Flood replaced him, he comes from Williams and Connolly which has a very different approach to investigations, which is to fight everything all the time. Rudy Giuliani came in, led the public offensive against the Mueller investigation. That is obviously something that the president is much more comfortable with, the full attack mode rather than the cooperative mode. And look, he's still president. So I guess it worked out OK for him so far.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: It is just striking to hear a guy who was leading the White House effort of the defense to say, not a witch hunt, not a witch hunt, two days after CPAC where the president is up there saying hoax, witch hunt.

TOOBIN: Right. But Ty Cobb, with all respect to Ty Cobb who is a very fine lawyer, he was replaced, and his approach has been replaced. And we are now in the total war White House. And that's where we are likely to stay for the remainder of the president's term.

BERMAN: And it may that total war has shifted from the White House to now include Capitol Hill, Rachael, and that's where you come in, because you are one of the reporters on "The Washington Post's" lead story into the new House Judiciary investigation, some 81 requests for documents from people and entities connected to the president. Why so many? And how much is too much? And you have got some interesting perspective inside this piece.

RACHAEL BADE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. So you talk to Jerry Nadler, who is the chairman, and the staffers on the panel. And their argument is basically that, look, Trump for the past two years has gotten away with murder. He's gotten away with a whole bunch of scandals and controversies that Republicans have not held him accountable for, whether it's Russia, whether it's a question about the Trump Organization taking money from foreign entities, which bring up emoluments questions, and that they have a lot of work to do.

But the big takeaway from yesterday, at least from our reporting, was that this is so broad in scope that it does bring up a question of strategy. We don't know where the House Democrats are going to focus their energy right now. And I spoke to a former Watergate counsel who worked on the Hill investigating the president way back then. And his response was, wow, this is really the kitchen sink strategy. Lawyers, you think there is something there. You don't know what it is. So you're just going to ask for all these documents.

But that is risky because, say the White House does turn over everything, and, trust me, they are not planning to do that at this point. They are going to fight this and try to narrow it from what we understand. But this is a ton of documents. And this is so expansive and so broad that it raises questions of what are they going to do, where are they going to go? And does this actually hurt their own investigation because they are asking for so much?

TOOBIN: I think you need to draw a distinction between asking for a lot of documents and holding a lot of hearings. I don't think the American public really cares about document requests. They'll never see that. They'll never see it. The question really is what kind of hearings does Congress hold? And I don't think anyone would argue that the Michael Cohen hearing was a worthwhile hearing. The question is, out of all the 81 people, who gets called before the committee? That's the really hard question that Jerry Nadler is going to have to answer. And we'll see. We'll see whether these hearings turn out to be productive or they look like a waste of time, fishing expeditions.

BERMAN: You're saying it wasn't worthwhile?

TOOBIN: I'm saying it was. I'm sorry. There were too many negatives in the statement. Yes, it was a worthwhile enterprise.

(LAUGHTER)

CAMEROTA: How do you see it, David Gregory?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think there is going to be a focus on tactics. I agree with you, Jeffrey, that nobody cares about the documents per se. But we're talking about tactics. The White House is going to love to talk about the tactics. Look what they're doing. They're asking for everybody under the sun. They're asking for all of these documents. What are they actually after?

And to me it raises this question about strategy, whether the investigation is more important to Democrats right now than the actual conclusion. Whether they are thinking, let's be very cautious about whether we actually initiate impeachment proceedings against the president until and unless we have Republican support and a way forward. And let's make the investigation the piece that Americans focus on. [08:05:00] I think the Cohen hearings were very impactful. They were

impactful because of the singular moment of the president's lawyer, someone who said he'd take a bullet for him, now completely changing and saying that we have a bad man as president of the United States who he alleges committed crimes and had the evidence to back it up while he was president of the United States.

So there is the oversight piece, which is also a political argument, which says, look, we know there is an investigation going on by Mueller. We'll see what those are. We'll see what comes to light with an attorney general who isn't saying whether or not he's going to share the entire report with the public and with Congress. And there's aspects that go beyond Mueller that require oversight. And the political argument is, Republicans have failed to do that when they were in charge. We, as Democrats are duty bound to push, to ask questions, to have some accountable for all kinds of things that at least raise serious questions about the president and whether he's abused power.

BADE: And I would jump on the Mueller point there, and that is that these Democrats on the Hill, they're going to do their darndest to get that report. But they know it's going to be a fight, and this could end up in the courts and it could be a while before they see the findings of Mueller's report. And so what they are doing is they're building a case on their own, or trying to, lest they not see that for a long time they want to have something else to point to.

What this also shows, though, is in the past two weeks since Democrats have started ramping up their investigations, there has been a lot of questions about who has territory over what. And I can tell you from being on the Hill we are already seeing turf wars starting between chairmen. And that in and of itself is also going to be a challenge for Democrats, because each committee has their own jurisdiction. And a lot of the stuff sort of overlaps, whether it is oversight looking at emoluments, Judiciary also wanting to look at emoluments, Adam Schiff and intelligence wants to look at Russia and also the Trump Organization. And so it's beyond just being broad. Democrats right now are really trying to figure out how to do this. How do they best conduct this oversight so that they find the best results, also can work together. And I think they are still figuring it out right now.

BERMAN: Sorry, a senior Democrat told me last week that they have weekly deconfliction meetings.

CAMEROTA: What's that?

BERMAN: The committees are all so nervous about stepping on each other's toes and they know it's such a problem that they have to deconflict the committees like it's Libyan air space or something.

CAMEROTA: I feel we could use that in the country. I feel like we all need a deconfliction meditation session. Yes, David?

GREGORY: I just think we have two data points politically right now, right, where the president's party and very much the president's brand politically was tested in the midterm elections. And Democrats won historically. We also see the president with an approval rating that's creeping back up to levels that match his predecessors at this point in their presidencies. So there's so much of this background noise about the Mueller investigation and now Congressional investigations, I'm just very interested to see how the public takes all of this in. Beyond the polarization which we'll see everybody running to their corners, I think Democrats hope at some level that there is enough smoke and there's enough substance that people say, you know what, I'm tired of the drama surrounding Trump, and that they see that support for him softening.

TOOBIN: But maybe the Democrats' strategy should be, just do their jobs. Just do an investigation and not worry about the gyrations of the polls. To quote the president, we'll see what happens. I don't know how it's all going to turn out.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

GREGORY: Yes, but the Democrats are not approaching it, frankly, that purely. There is a strategy involved here, Jeffrey, come on.

TOOBIN: Sure.

BADE: Nancy Pelosi has apparently said to people we are not going to do oversight for political reasons, but we are not going to hold back from oversight for political reasons. I know that's easier said than done right there, but basically, she's telling the chairmen, do your jobs right now. We are not going to talk about the impeachment question. If it comes down to it, we'll have the conversation. But you're right. The Democrats are very split on this on the Hill. Some people think what they heard from Michael Cohen was enough to start having these impeachment hearings. But mostly leadership saying, absolutely not. Do not use the "i" word. So we are not even close to there.

GREGORY: But Jeffrey, I do think you're right. I think that there is for Nadler, while I think there is strategy there, I do think they're saying, look, how about we just do what the Republicans didn't, which is aggressive oversight, and we'll see what comes of it. And I think that is a fair argument to make.

CAMEROTA: But obviously the devil is in the details. And the question is oversight or overkill. Some people think 81 entities and people might be in the overkill bucket.

BERMAN: I'm just wondering from Rachael, from your reporting, it is 81. It is a lot. It is the kitchen sink. But Jerry Nadler, does he have a strategy, does he have a plan? Is that clear from what you reported?

[08:10:00] BADE: Clearly, he wants to look at things that Trump has done while in office, which brings up another question of strategy, because there are other chairmen who want to look at how Trump ran his business, how he filed his tax returns. Nadler, from my understanding, is very much focused on abuse of power, public corruption, obstruction of justice, any sort of crimes or allegations that may have surfaced surrounding the president since he came to office or right before, during the transition. So that is what he's going to get down to.

But, as you know, the past few years has been bouncing from scandal to scandal, putting out a fire here, putting out a fire there. That doesn't narrow it down a lot. And with these vast document productions, they're going to see thousands and thousands of pages of documents. They're going to be negotiating. We could see subpoenas in a couple of weeks. They do expect they're going to have to do subpoenas at some point. It is just unclear to me within those three things where he's going to go. And I don't know that he knows right now, which is why they're asking for so much right now.

TOOBIN: And it's the Democrats' fault there are so many Trump scandals to investigate.

(LAUGHTER)

BADE: I'm not blaming the Democrats. I'm just saying we have less than two years until 2020. Time is already ticking. It's March, and people want to know where these investigations are going. The reality is some committees aren't even fully staffed yet. So it's a process, but this is going to be -- it's going to take a long time. We're going to be here for a while.

GREGORY: Quick point. There is another argument I think that's being made in these investigations which simply goes to competence. Do they know what they're doing within this administration? I think why they want to look, and, sure, they are looking after the stench of corruption, the abuse of power. But I think they also want to bring to light areas where they have been incompetent, which I think can be a very effective political argument to make.

BERMAN: Jeffrey, David, Rachael, thank you very, very much.

Other news from overnight, "The Wall Street Journal" reports that a lawyer for Michael Cohen approached President Trump's attorneys and, quote, raised the possibility of a pardon after Cohen was raided by the FBI last year. Joining me now on the phone is Michael Rothfeld. He's an investigative reporter for "The Wall Street Journal" who, I have to say, has broken a whole lot of news on the Michael Cohen front over the last 18 months or so. Michael, thank you so much for being with us. Explain who asked whom for what, or who inquired to whom about what?

MICHAEL ROTHFELD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": These were in various meetings, as you said, after the FBI raided Michael Cohen. His then lawyer Stephen Ryan had multiple conversations with at least five different lawyers connected to Mr. Trump. Three of them are private lawyers, and two were lawyers for the Trump Organization. In these conversations, Ryan was feeling them out about the possibility of whether Cohen might get a pardon, and suggesting that if he didn't have the possibility of a pardon from the president then he might potentially flip or that he would have to take other measures to protect himself.

So that was the suggestion, and we're told that generally those ideas were shut down, although Rudy Giuliani told us that whenever he had been asked by a number of lawyers about pardons, he would say, well, we are not considering any pardons right now. But the president always reserves the right to do that later.

BERMAN: All right, I want to come back to Giuliani in a moment. But I just want to play for people what Michael Cohen himself said last week under oath before Congress about the issue of pardons.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I have never asked for nor would I accept a pardon from President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: He says I have never asked for a pardon. Is there a distinction between what he has asked for and/or his attorney?

ROTHFELD: I certainly think what we have reported, the gist of that conflicts with what Michael Cohen said, as you just played it. But it's possible that he's relying on some kind of technical meaning like he didn't personally ask, he didn't ask Trump, or maybe it wasn't phrased as will you give me a pardon, but it was definitely discussed in the context of will you give me a pardon. So there is an apparent contradiction there.

BERMAN: The Cohen team writ large certainly was interested in knowing if a pardon was available?

ROTHFELD: That's right, absolutely.

BERMAN: I want to get to Rudy Giuliani here, because there is a paragraph in here, the president's lawyers including Jay Sekulow, Rudy Giuliani, and Joanna Hendon dismissed the idea of a pardon at the time, people said, but at least one you note, Giuliani, left open the possibility that the president could grant Mr. Cohen one in the future. Is that a big window? Is that a big disclaimer there, maybe not now, but it's possible?

[08:15:00] ROTHFELD: I mean, certainly it's potentially enough to give someone the hope that they're going to get a pardon. But the president himself made comments like that, and -- and he has unreviewable pardon power. So like in the case of Paul Manafort and others, the president said, you know, I'm not considering that now, but you know, nothing is off the table. I mean, you can't dangle a pardon in front of someone to affect their testimony or their cooperation. That could be considered obstruction of justice. But by saying, well, down the road, of course I always have the power to do that that is a way to potentially suggest that while insulating yourself against a charge of trying to obstruct justice in an investigation.

BERMAN: There was a moment in the testimony last week where Michael Cohen was asked a direct question which was when was the last time you, but presumably also your team had contact with the president or his people and his response was, I can't tell you that -- or he was asked when he said a couple of months after I was raided what it was about and then he said, I can't tell you that because that might be under investigation. Is there any reason to believe that's because it could deal with the issue of pardons?

ROTHFELD: It's possible. I mean, it's possible that -- it certainly suggests he's telling them that there is some kind of obstruction that might have been done and, you know, maybe he has some alternative description of these discussions that we've reported or other conversations he's had with the president or his associates that he's told the southern district about.

BERMAN: All right, Michael Rothfeld, as always thanks for joining us.

ROTHFELD: Thank you.

BERMAN: Your reports have driven, I think a lot of events in the country over the last several months.

ROTHFELD: Thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: All right John, so what do lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee hope to accomplish with the sweeping investigation? Well, a member of the committee joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: House Democrats launching a sweeping probe into President Trump's personal business and political life. The House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents from 81 people and entities in the president's orbit including two of his sons. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Lou Correa, he is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Congressman, good morning.

REP. LOU CORREA, D-CA.: Good morning, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: So we've been debating this morning the request from 81 people and entities, whether that's...

CORREA: 81 so far.

CAMEROTA: OK, I mean, I'm glad you are pointing this out because the debate is oversight or overreach? Do you really need documents from 81 people and entities to get to the bottom of something?

CORREA: Look, Alisyn, we are the judiciary committee. We are about upholding the rule of law. Our primary role of the judiciary has been oversight. And every time I walk down the street, every time I go to the supermarket, people want to know what's going on in Washington, you've had six people around the president that have been indicted, have been convicted. People are concerned about our government. And what we want to do on the committee is tell people we're watching what's going on. We're not presuming anything. We're going to do our job, we are going to have oversight.

CAMEROTA: I understand.

Plain and simple. CAMEROTA: I understand. What some of your critics or even just

analysts pointed out is that Robert Mueller already knows all of this, or we can assume he knows all this. He's been going a pretty exhaustive probe for the better part of two years. So is what you're doing redundant?

CORREA: Mr. Mueller is doing his job. We -- Congress, we are a separate and equal branch of government, are to do doing our job. And I think if you ask our constituents, they want to know what's going on, they want to make sure we are keeping government accountable. They want to make sure that everybody in government is operating above the law and that's what we're doing -- oversight. Plain and simple oversight. What's wrong with having a little bit of sunshine on what's going on in Washington? We can never have enough sunshine. We can never have enough transparency. That's what we're doing.

CAMEROTA: Well, I think politically speaking, one of the things it's done is given a talking point to the other side -- President Trump's supporters who say this is a fishing expedition. So you've heard that in the past 24 hours, they keep using that term, fishing expedition, fishing expedition. In fact, they have gone so far as to say what you're now doing is moving the goal posts because you're not going to like what Robert Mueller has come up with or its going to sort of underwhelm you, is I think their argument, and so now you're trying a different tact (ph). Let me play Congressman Kevin McCarthy where he talked about this on the Sunday show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY: Nadler is setting the framework now that the Democrats are not to believe the Mueller report. They're now saying we have to do our own investigation. After you have hundreds of interviews, millions of dollars spent in the Senate and House. They find no collusion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: What about that in particular, congressman?

CORREA: Again, with all respect to my fellow Californian, Mr. McCarthy, we are doing our job. Congress, a separate and equal branch of government, we are going to do our own investigation. Anything less than that in my opinion would be malpractice. What's wrong with having an independent branch of government look at these issues? We are not assuming anybody did anything. But to make sure we do our job, we have to do our job which is look at all the evidence in front of you, do your investigation. As the president said, he welcomes all the investigations. He's going to cooperate with us. And I'm glad to hear that because at the end of the day, the people of this country want to know that everybody is dealing above the law.

CAMEROTA: We just heard from one of our reporters that the White House is spoiling for a fight that they're not going to willingly cough up the documents that you want.

CORREA: Well, yesterday, I heard the president say he was going to cooperate fully. And maybe you're right, maybe he won't cooperate with us. But as Congress, I believe we are hired to do our job, and our job is to make sure we are looking at each and every bit of evidence to make sure the American people continue to have confidence in our nation, in our rule of law.

CAMEROTA: I want to ask you...

CORREA: Very simple.

CAMEROTA: ...about another one of your fellow Democratic lawmakers and that is Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. You know, she has said things in the past couple of weeks that many people perceived as Semitic. So first she tweeted it's all about the Benjamin's, baby, when somebody asked about why APAC has influence over some in Congress, and then, she apologized for that, she said she was sort of learning on the job. And then last week she was at this bookstore in which she said, I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. Do you see her comments as anti-Semitic?

CORREA: You know, I can't speak for my colleague. She's elected by her own constituents, she has to respond to them. I respond to my constituents and my perspective is, I fundraise, I do my job. I am accountable to my constituents, I represent my constituents. And so people have different opinions. That's not my opinion.

CAMEROTA: I understand. Of course. Is it your opinion that the comments are offensive?

CORREA: Well, you know, I wouldn't have made those comments. I don't speak in that tone. I understand that people have different perspectives. But at the end of the day my job is to represent my constituents.

CAMEROTA: Yeah.

CORREA: And that's what I do day in, day out.

CAMEROTA: And so you think she could be stripped of her committee position?

CORREA: That's not my job to strip anybody of her position. I think what she needs to do is continue to represent her constituents. If her constituents feel this is what they want out of her then she has to make that judgment. You don't see me, you don't hear me making those comments because my constituents expect me to go to Washington to work with people, both Democrats and Republicans. People from all walks of life to make the life of my constituents better on a day to day basis.

CAMEROTA: All right, Congressman Lou Correa, we appreciate you coming on New Day. Thank you.

CORREA: I want to thank you very much. And again, I just want to repeat to you that what we're doing in Judiciary Committee is upholding the rule of law. CAMEROTA: Got it.

CORREA: That's the job of the committee traditionally to make sure that everybody acts above the law. Thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: We hear you. Thank you very much. John?

BERMAN: All right, the senate will vote soon, maybe as soon as next week to block president Trump's emergency declaration to fund the border wall. Will Republicans be the one to force the president's first veto? That's next.

[08:30:00]