Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Statements by Michael Cohen about Pardon Under Scrutiny; Joe Biden 95% Committed to Running in 2020; Trade Deficit Sets New Record Under Trump; Dems in Congress at Odds Over Congresswoman's Anti- Semitic Remarks. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired March 07, 2019 - 07:00   ET

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

OLIVER DARCY, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: But we've repeatedly shown that we can evolve, and I think that is what we remain to see, if whether Facebook can evolve.

[07:00:08] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Oliver Darcy, thank you very much.

It will be a heavy list to make Facebook synonymous with privacy.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Look, I feel like we've all been part of this grand experiment of social media and Facebook. We've all been guinea pigs. And I don't know if, on balance, it's all helped civilization.

BERMAN: You've jumped out of that experiment, to say the least.

Thank you for our international viewers for watching. For you, CNN TALK is next. For our U.S. viewers, was Michael Cohen in talks for the president's team -- with the president's team for a pardon? NEW DAY continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: He has provided additional documents. The members found it an enormously productive session.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were several changes made, including the message of the length of time that the Trump Tower Moscow project remained alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything that Mr. Cohen says, you have to look through the prism of is he telling us the truth?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There will be a vote. There's no place in this world for anti-Semitism.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We want to make sure that we don't allow Republicans and others to divide us as a caucus.

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: He is legitimating anti- Semitism in America, but at the same time I'm afraid that the Democrats are giving up the moral high ground.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

CAMEROTA: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY.

We have new revelations and scrutiny of Michael Cohen's latest testimony on Capitol Hill. "The Washington Post" reports that Cohen told House -- the House Intelligence Committee that he brought up the subject of a pardon with the president's attorney Jay Sekulow, as well as Rudy Giuliani.

Now, "The Wall Street Journal" reports that Cohen directed his then lawyer to find out about a pardon. That puts Cohen's public testimony last week under increased scrutiny because of this statement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Lanny Davis, Cohen's current lawyer, tells CNN his client's public testimony was only referring to recent months. "When I said never, I meant never except for that time where I did ask."

Meantime, CNN has learned that Michael Cohen handed over new documents to the House Intelligence Committee. They apparently show edits to the false written statement he delivered to Congress in 2017 about the Trump Organization's Moscow tower project.

Cohen told lawmakers one of the president's lawyers had a hand in editing that testimony. Cohen's attorney does tell CNN that it was Cohen himself that authored the initial false line about the timeline.

Joining us now, Anne Milgram, former New Jersey attorney general; Abby Phillip, CNN White House correspondent; and Alex Burns, national political correspondent for "The New York Times" who has a big scoop on Joe Biden today. We'll get to that in just a moment.

First, Anne, I want to talk about Michael Cohen. This pardon issue, two major questions here. Did Michael Cohen lie to Congress when he says he never talked about pardons, when his lawyer announced, yes, he asked his original lawyer to ask about pardons?

And No. 2, what kind of legal soup does this put the president's team in, potentially? Because at a minimum, there appear to be discussions about pardons here.

ANNE MILGRAM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. So -- so I think we've all had this theory or this question of whether or not the president was discussing pardons through his lawyers.

One of the interesting things here is Michael Cohen said, "I never had that discussion." He didn't say, "My lawyer never had that discussion." And this is one of the things I think frustrates us to no end about people, because obviously, your lawyer's speaking for you; and if your lawyer has a conversation you should say, "Look, of course we looked into this, because I was trying to figure out what my options were."

For the president, it's even more dangerous. So for Michael Cohen, it's a question of did he tell the full truth? Was he parsing words?

For the president, that's something that raises this question of was the president throwing out a potential offer of pardons to silence people, to get them to not cooperate with investigators? And that gets very close to this conversation about obstruction of justice. And I think really interesting for the criminal investigation.

CAMEROTA: And, Abby, has it been hard for the president's team to say definitively whether or not they ever discussed a pardon with Michael Cohen?

ABBY PHILLIP CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It has been incredibly hard. And not just with Michael Cohen, but with several other players in this sprawling investigation, the special counsel investigation, and the others that are related to it.

The White House repeatedly says, "We're not having that conversation right now." But they often don't say -- don't say in a broad way that the president never talks about it because, in fact, he does. He does talk about it all the time with people that he speaks to on the phone; and it's not clear whether he has substantive conversations with his counsel about it. But it's clearly something that is always brewing in the White House.

And what's interesting about the Michael Cohen situation is that it seems that both sides are acknowledging that there was some kind of conversation happening about pardons at some point in this process, either initiated by Michael Cohen's lawyers or -- or by someone else in the process.

And what happened is that Michael Cohen didn't get a pardon. And this was happening at a time when Cohen is still in a joint prosecution agreement or joint counsel agreement with the White House and with the president's lawyers.

[07:05:08] And after that point, Cohen decides basically to cooperate. He becomes -- he is pushed out of the president's circle at the point at which it becomes clear that he's not getting a pardon.

So I think it's important here for us to understand that this could be a factor in why there is such embitterment from -- on Michael Cohen's part toward the president. Because the pardon is an option, because he's the president of the United States.

But it was never offered to someone who was a long-time personal lawyer of his, someone who was his fixer, someone who was supposed to have dealt with some of this dirty work. The president clearly didn't go so far as to try to bail Michael Cohen out of these legal troubles that Cohen appeared to get, in part because of the president.

BERMAN: And just one more question on this subject. Is it probable at this point that the Southern District and/or Robert Mueller's team already is well into this discussion? We're just learning that Congress is asking questions about it. But they're probably deep in already.

MILGRAM: Exactly. I mean, we're learning of this for the first time, because Cohen testified publicly last week. And now there's information about his testimony yesterday coming out. But there's no question they know everything we know and more.

CAMEROTA: OK, Alex, let's talk about the 2020 field.

ALEX BURNS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Get to dessert.

CAMEROTA: The first time Joe Biden maybe have been referred to that on national television.

Joe Biden, you have a big story today that his strategist has been calling around and telling people that he is 95 percent sure that Biden will be getting in?

BURNS: Ninety-five percent likely. This is his former chief of staff in the vice president -- vice presidency, Steve Ricchetti, his closest political advisor, has been briefing a number of people, including other potential candidates, saying, "Listen, if you're going to get into this race, you are almost certain to have Joe Biden as a competitor for the Democratic nomination."

There's a big difference between 95 percent and 100 percent, especially where Joe Biden is concerned. And you're starting to hear -- you've heard from a little while Democrats in the early presidential states that, you know, it's about time to make up your mind.

But it does feel like we have moved into truly the final, final stages of Joe Biden's decision making. He is talking to old political allies in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. He is calls influential Democrats, activists like Al Sharpton, to address some of the parties' concerns about issues in his record in the past.

And maybe most importantly, they're extending provisional job offers to people who would serve in the senior leadership of a campaign. They're not allowed legally to hire people at this point. They'd actually have to declare a campaign if he were to start do that. But the conversations they're having are to the effect of, you know, Alisyn, "If Joe were to run, and we were to offer you this job, could we count on you?"

And they were not doing that a month ago. They were not doing that two weeks ago.

BERMAN: This isn't the official announcement, but it feels to me like it's the official float. It's the official "This is about to happen. If you have any last-minute objections, speak now or forever hold your peace."

BURNS: It's absolutely the closest we are going to get, short of Joe Biden himself saying, "Green light, let's go," beginning of April. That's the timeline that they are currently talking about.

He's already blown past a couple deadlines. I'm old enough to remember when he was going to --

CAMEROTA: Last week.

BURNS: -- make up his mind by the end of 2018 and then the end of January. But at this point, the current thinking is that it's all about getting past the end of the first fundraising quarter, which is the end of this month, and declaring pretty close to the beginning of April.

CAMEROTA: And do we know what his reservations are? Why isn't he jumping in with both feet?

BURNS: It's mostly about his family at this point, that the big question hanging over his deliberations used to be, would his family be on board? Would they want him to run?

The answer to that is yes. Jill Biden especially totally gung-ho about running for president once again. But he is concerned about just the toll that a campaign would take on the people in his family. His youngest son, Hunter, especially has had sort of a checkered personal and professional history that there is some concern. The president doesn't really observe the traditional rules of engagement around people's family in politics.

BERMAN: And his entry into the field, were it to happen, were that final 5 percent to be achieved there, it would be a big impact in the Democratic race.

CAMEROTA: To Abby?

BERMAN: Abby.

PHILLIP: Yes, absolutely. I mean, it would have a huge impact. But I think Alex is right that, at this point, most of the Democrats out there recognize that Joe Biden is likely to jump in, and they've factored that into their calculus.

I think Biden is -- is trying to run in a lane that a lot of the Democrats currently in the race right now aren't in. One, it's a little bit more politically moderate, although I think that's a bit overstated, given that his eight years in the Obama administration.

But secondly, Joe Biden is one of the few people who has a really long record on foreign policy. He's -- he's been second in command to the president of the United States. There's pretty much no one in the race right now who can really count that kind of experience to -- to his credit.

And as far as the White House is concerned, you know, this is someone that the president is -- is concerned about to the extent that he's concerned about this wide Democratic field. I think he recognizes that Joe Biden has a reach to middle America that is similar to his own, that he would have some trouble with.

The president made some inroads with union voters, even though he didn't get the nomination or the endorsement of the organizations themselves in 2016. And Joe Biden, I think, could potentially erase that slight advantage that he had over a normal Republican candidate in 2016.

So for even President Trump, this is a potential problem, though it should be noted President Trump has already given Joe Biden several nicknames. One of them is Crazy Joe Biden. I think the gaffes in Biden's history is something that everybody, Democratic or Republican, believes that they can use, potentially, to their advantage. He is not always the most disciplined candidate in a presidential race.

CAMEROTA: Hmm. I feel like we've seen that somewhere else, a lack of discipline sometimes.

But, Alex, if people are voting on electability, with Joe Biden's name recognition and that he does seem ready for a fight. He's willing to engage on some level.

If the election were held this week and if Joe Biden were in, it might spell good signs for him, because we've been talking about some of the president's policy challenges and setbacks that he's been having this week, between North Korea not doing what he wants and there being activity around their nuclear program. The immigration numbers spiking at the border. I mean, this has -- just in terms of straight policy, it has not been a good week for the president.

BURNS: No. And in some ways this is kind of the push and pull of a potential Joe Biden primary candidacy. That on the one hand for Democratic voters, and there are a lot of them who just want to win and who just want someone who seems clearly prepared do the job, Joe Biden is kind of the obvious potential choice in the race for those folks.

On the other hand, he doesn't represent newness. He doesn't represent change. He doesn't represent diversity of any kind. And as Abby alluded to, he has had a relatively moderate record over the years, including on some issues that are pretty central to the Democrat Party's identity like banking regulation and criminal justice. And that's all stuff that he would have to address in a totally different way as a candidate.

I do think he has, as Abby also wisely said, something of a halo coming off of his years in the Obama administration, where a lot of Democrats may be reluctant to believe that he's a conservative.

BERMAN: And you work in criminal justice, or have for a long tie here, and you know where the issues have really changed or the focus on the issues have changed from when Joe Biden was getting through the crime bill to today. MILGRAM: There's no question that the world has changed enormously in

criminal justice, and just the view in the Democratic Party is very strong for reform in a way that it wasn't when Joe Biden was doing the crime bill.

And I think one of the questions will be is Joe Biden judged by 2019 criminal justice reform standards or by the criminal justice world that he lived in when he was a senator? And so I think it's yet to be seen. And also, where is he now on many of these key issues?

BERMAN: Right. When he was senator, when Pete Buttigieg was ten years old, by the way, which is also, you know, a contrast.

CAMEROTA: Well, that's a great point. That is the challenge for people who are the old guard and who have been around. They have a lot of experience, and with that comes some dirty laundry.

MILGRAM: Even Kamala has the same question. Right? I mean, the standards have changed so much in the last five years that people who have been in criminal justice, the world is different today.

BURNS: That was actually a point that Al Sharpton himself made to me on the phone. That, look, Joe Biden is going to have to account for his record, but there are a couple other candidates, including Senator Harris, who have to do the same thing.

BERMAN: Abby Phillip, I want to talk about the trade deficit, because I know that's what everyone in America wants to talk about.

No, look, new numbers out yesterday; and when you talk about the manufacturing deficit in terms of manufactured goods, it's the biggest ever. It is -- it's crazy. It's crazy to think that it's getting bigger when this is the very issue that President Trump campaigned on, said that China was basically screwing over the United States and he alone could fix it.

Well, the opposite is happening. It's getting bigger, not smaller.

PHILLIP: Well, it's crazy if you believe President Trump's view of this, which is that a trade deficit is terrible, and it means that permanent stealing money from the U.S. economy. Or, it could mean that American consumers are buying goods from other countries, because they have more money.

So I think that, first of all, the trade deficit, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. But for President Trump, what it demonstrates is that he hasn't actually completed the job.

He's made a lot of promises about stopping people from ripping off the United States, particularly China; and for some reason, Mexico and Canada, he's picked fights with those two allies of the United States. And he's renegotiated a NAFTA deal that hasn't been ratified yet. It hasn't gone through, so it hasn't taken effect.

And the China trade situation is still ongoing. They blew past their March 1 deadline, because they haven't been able to get to a deal. They're hoping to get something by the end of this month, but it's far from a done deal.

And frankly, you know, President Trump's ability to say that he fulfilled this promise really hinges on this next month. Is he going to be able to get something out of China that addresses these trade situations so that he can say, even if the trade deficit is as high as it is, that we are on a path toward it becoming a more even playing field?

[07:15:21] If he can't do that, I think he's going to have a lot of trouble. Because obviously, this is a macroeconomic situation. There are U.S. companies that are stopping -- for example, there was an announcement from G.M. this week stopping manufacturing in the United States. It's a mixed bag out there. And President Trump is not going to be able to run on "I did this the way I promised."

CAMEROTA: Yes. Abby, Alex, Anne, thank you all very much for the conversation.

Meanwhile, Democrats are facing a division in their ranks. The heated argument over a House resolution aimed at condemning one member's alleged anti-Semitism. All that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Sources tell CNN there is a messy debate behind the scenes over how to deal with controversial comments by freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. The in-fighting has kept a resolution to condemn anti- Semitism off the House floor.

[07:20:10] So joining us now to talk about this and more, we have Andrew Gillum. He was the 2018 Democratic nominee for Florida governor and is now a CNN political commentator.

Mayor, great to have you here.

ANDREW GILLUM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good to be with you. Good morning.

CAMEROTA: Where are you with Congresswoman Omar's comments? What do you think should happen?

GILLUM: Well, I mean, obviously, all of us reject anti-Semitism; and she does, as well, and says so in her own words.

What I really find really baffling is that it has this controversy over anti-Semitic or not, has really allowed to cover over and paper over, I think, some otherwise legitimate questions that are fair to be raised. She talked about the power of special lobbying interests in Washington, D.C.

CAMEROTA: But she used, as you know, some tropes and "It's all about the Benjamins, baby." And she said, you know, "Why do people have" -- I mean, I'm paraphrasing -- "allegiance to a foreign nation?" And those things perked people's antenna up.

GILLUM: That's true. CAMEROTA: Because those sounded like anti-Semitic comments.

GILLUM: Well, rightfully so. And I will tell you, I have visited Israel three times. I had a sister-city relationship with Israel, a city called Ramat HaSharon, when I was mayor of Tallahassee. My support for Israel had nothing to do with money but deeply held beliefs and a relationship.

That being said, I do believe that it is fair for to us engage in a real conversation and debate around special interests' influence on U.S. foreign policy. I think it is appropriate for the Congress and for a member of Congress to talk about foreign policy in the U.S. relationship with other countries. I think that's -- that's wholly appropriate.

The problem, however, is I think we've got to do a better job of not allowing the name calling to distract from what are, I think, important public policy debates. She's got to make atonement and make sure -- I'm sure she has figured this out -- there are some supporters of hers that she's angered through this process and people who have been hurt by it. And if her intention was not to do so, you have to govern your language much more appropriately.

But the response by Democrats, in my --

CAMEROTA: Has she -- for the second -- for the second comment, has she apologized adequately?

GILLUM: Well, I think -- so one of the things she ought do is, I think, make very clear what was being said there. Now, what I heard was that U.S. members of Congress are, first and foremost, loyal to the United States of America and U.S. interests. I think you can say that and at the same time be supportive of Israel.

BERMAN: Let's play exactly what she said here.

GILLUM: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ILHAN OMAR (D), MINNESOTA: I want to talk about -- 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So the issue here is, and I think you're 100 percent right, no one would disagree with the fact that there needs to be a way to discuss the decisions that are made in Israel, and U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, and whether the Israeli government is enacting the best policies without questioning the motivations of Americans --

GILLUM: Yes.

BERMAN: -- who are giving their support or not support for those policies here. And what Representative Omar did for a third time, depending on how you count it here, was talk about the motivations of Americans here.

GILLUM: Yes.

BERMAN: And there are American Jews, particularly in Congress, who have said, look, you know, "Don't tell me that I'm not loyal primarily to the United States of America."

This sounds like people when they were saying John Kennedy would be loyal to the pope and not to the U.S. Constitution. And it's the fact that this has now happened again and again that I think people are drawing attention to it.

GILLUM: Sure. Well, I think what she said is that she believes that these are conversations that should be had. And I think --

BERMAN: Which conversation? The Israeli policy or what motivates Americans?

GILLUM: Well, I will tell you what motivates me. I don't fit into a category that says I'm motivated by anybody's money when it comes to my support for Israel.

That set to the side, it is important that we be able to have a full public policy debate around the U.S. role in those areas.

And as I said before, the congresswoman, if her intention is not to be harmful, to a constituency that I think she cares about, and an issue she cares about, then she will have to govern her language appropriately.

I find it, however, a quite different reaction from what is happening right now in Congress as it relates to this resolution and the continued sort of pushing by members of Democratic leadership on a resolution --

CAMEROTA: You do think they need a resolution or no?

GILLUM: I don't. And I will tell you, I think this ought to be a conversation that is happening within our party without a doubt.

I just have to say, when you consider the comments that have been made by members of Congress, some of the anti-Semitic, some of the anti -- the Islamophobic, the LGBT, antiblackness comments that you've seen from my own member of Congress in my own state, Matt Gaetz, where has been the resolution on that? Where's been the kind of, I think, sanctioning that we're seeing in this conversation happening there?

[07:25:07] And I don't mean to say that by any means to excuse comments that have come off as hurtful to a particular part of our constituency but also our country. And we have to be respectful and responsive to that.

But we cannot allow our critique of that to dissolve of what is a much more important and deeper public policy debate around how it is U.S. policy affects the world. BERMAN: All right. Let's talk about Joe Biden, because Joe Biden is

talking about Joe Biden, perhaps getting in the 2020 political case. And Steve Ricchetti, who's his main political guy, calling people, telling them he's at 95 percent.

You are part of the young new guard in the Democratic Party. How would you feel about Joe Biden, who is decidedly not part of the new guard of the Democratic Party, getting in the 2020 race?

GILLUM: Well, we should ask him whether he thinks he's part of the new guard, as well. But in all seriousness, I think Vice President Biden will offer something very interesting in this race. He is, I think, in a lane largely that, if he gets in it, he could potentially own.

BERMAN: Which is what exactly?

GILLUM: Well, I mean, I think he's probably one of the candidates that we would consider on our side on the more moderate end of the Democratic spectrum. He's someone who, I think, appeals across a range of voters who I think some in our party feel we must more actively go after.

But the question will be, I think, is -- is the vice president prepared to offer a vision about the future of the country that people can wrap themselves around?

Elections are always about the future, and if we fall into sort of just a throwback situation where we're not talking about big, bold ideas, I think it will be problematic.

CAMEROTA: But what if his critics, or even just people who are scrutinizing him, insist on looking at his long past and his record through a 2019 lens? Is that fair?

GILLUM: Well, I think it's fair. Obviously, if you've served in public office, there is a reckoning of your record; and you've got to be able to say where you were at the time on those issues. And I think this completely fair play.

And I have confidence that the vice president will be able to defend or say, "You know what? I've evolved on this issue." And he should be allowed to do that in the context --

BERMAN: We don't have time for this, but I want to give you credit where credit is due for this voter panel we had the other day.

CAMEROTA: Thank you very much.

BERMAN: When you talked to Democratic activist voters about the possibility of Joe Biden getting in the race. Let's just listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: How many of you would like to see Joe Biden get in? Show of hands. What's happening, people?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His time is done.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll be honest. I used to think, like, you know, because obviously, he was riding kind of the Obama wave. And I thought he was the -- I thought he was the person that would unite the party. But to be honest, you know, Senator Biden really comes from the kind of the good old boy politics of the past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. We're just about out of time, but that response surprises you.

GILLUM: Well, I missed that. I'm sorry, Alisyn, but --

CAMEROTA: You need to watch every minute of NEW DAY every day.

GILLUM: I -- you're right. I've got to do that homework.

But I will tell you, as I've said, elections are about the future. And that group of individuals, I think, spoke to that in their own way, that they really want someone to be able to speak about where it is that we're going.

Again, I don't think it's beyond Vice President Biden to be able to do that. But he will have some shortcomings to overcome, largely a record, a very long public record, that will be scrutinized to the hilt in the court of this primary election.

BERMAN: Andrew Gillum, former mayor of Tallahassee. Great to have you here with us.

GILLUM: Good to be with you all.

BERMAN: Thank you very much.

Greater scrutiny about what Michael Cohen said under oath about pardons and new documents that he gave lawmakers about his false statement involving the Moscow tower -- Trump Tower project. We're joined by Senator Tim Kaine next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)