Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Former Vice President Joe Biden To Announce 2020 Bid Tomorrow; Father Breaks Silence About Losing His Children In Sri Lanka Bombing; Boston Marathon Survivor On Bernie Sanders Position On Felon Voting Rights. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 24, 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] DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CNN HOST, "THE AXE FILES": -- luxury to wait until now to get in the race. So he has to raise money, which is going to be a big question about him.

If you were to reverse engineer this race you would maybe pick Joe Biden to be the nominee because he, more than any of the other candidates, has a reach into those swing voters who will determine the outcome of this election and particularly, in the Upper Midwest in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin. Middle-class Joe, roots in Scranton. That's what Republicans fear.

The question for him isn't that. The question is can he, as someone who has been in politics for 45 years, cast a lot of votes that now seem controversial but didn't at the time, made a lot of controversial statements -- can he navigate his way through the contemporary Democratic primary? And that's going to be the big question.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: That's such a great point.

And you know Vice President Biden better than most of us. Can he reinvent himself? On a personal note, what do you have -- what do you think these next months look like?

AXELROD: Well, let me just say one of the strengths of Joe Biden is he's an authentic person. He is who he is. You know, people talk about his gaffes. He speaks his mind.

And the idea that at the age of 76 he's going to reinvent himself and perform differently than he has in the past or be someone who he hasn't been in the past, highly unlikely.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So we had five hours of town halls on CNN Sunday night and it was fascinating.

AXELROD: Yes, I watched them.

BERMAN: And part of it was the differences that emerged -- the policy differences that emerged among the candidates, but also was how these different candidates are in different places in the campaign right now.

I want your general sense of what happened Sunday night, but I'll go to specifics first.

Pete Buttigieg, who is someone you've spoken to and a have a relationship with --

AXELROD: Yes.

BERMAN: -- and come to you for advice over time, he's in a different part of this race now. He is now a player here.

AXELROD: Yes.

BERMAN: So what are the risks and rewards of that?

AXELROD: He's leveraged his way into this race in a remarkable way, largely by using forums like this to introduce himself to the American people.

And so now he's cleared the bar. But in presidential politics, the bar always gets raised. If you clear a bar, the people have the questions about well, what's next, and the what's next question is what he has to answer.

Is there substance behind his general presentation? He's spoken thematically, he's spoken about values, but he now needs to fill in the blanks and say well, what exactly does that mean? And I think he's kind of maxed out on the first phase, which is the introductory phase.

CAMEROTA: Senator Kamala Harris is the candidate who rates the highest in terms of viewers. When she's on the screen viewers tune in. It's not yet reflected in the polls, necessarily.

However, people are very interested in what she has to say. And the feeling of the town hall was that she missed some opportunities.

AXELROD: Yes. You know, I think she is a very telegenic, charismatic person and she does command the screen.

The thing that was striking in the town halls was how many times she was faced with controversial questions and her answer was, well, we ought to have a discussion about that. Well, hey, you're here. Let's have the discussion right now.

An example was on the question of Bernie Sanders' proposal to allow people in prison to vote -- a controversial question. Her answer was, well, we -- she hesitated -- she said we should have a discussion on that.

Buttigieg was asked the same question and he said no, and he explained why.

CAMEROTA: And that was just -- it was fine because that was just a gut impulse. Like, he was -- he actually asked for clarification.

He said, like, you mean still in prison felons? No. Like it was just his gut reaction. AXELROD: It was his gut reaction, but let's be fair. He was fifth of five candidates so he had a lot of time to watch the others and anticipate --

CAMEROTA: OK --

AXELROD: -- what might come.

CAMEROTA: -- that's fair.

BERMAN: And, Elizabeth Warren is someone who drove a lot of the policy discussion.

AXELROD: Yes, as she has throughout this race.

I mean, Elizabeth Warren began as a policy wonk and ended up as a politician. And you can see the policy roots that she has. She has led the field in very, very thoughtful, far-reaching policies, and they were very much on display at the town hall.

My question about her is more presentational than about substance. She was very polished, she's very good.

She's very much a professor. And I said on Sunday night that it felt like every answer was a TED Talk -- that it had been well-prepared, that she was schooling us.

That has -- it is impressive in some ways, it has dangers in another, which is that people feel like you are talking down to them. And to the extent that that happens, it is a very --

She was back-to-back with Bernie Sanders. On the basis of just the substance of what she's proposing she should be cutting more deeply into that Sanders base. They're both populists. They have essentially the same message.

She has much more meat on the bone and yet, she hasn't yet advanced. In the debates, though, it may make a difference that she is so -- you know, she is so well -- you know, so thoughtful and so well-prepared on these issues.

[07:35:06] CAMEROTA: I'll be interested to see the poll numbers after those town halls because I just want to see if that moved the needle.

AXELROD: Yes, it will be fascinating to see, yes.

CAMEROTA: David Axelrod, great to see you.

AXELROD: Always good to be with you guys.

CAMEROTA: All right. Up next, we have CNN exclusive. An American banker opens up to us about the bombings that killed his two children in Sri Lanka.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEW LINSEY, SRI LANKA BOMBING SURVIVOR WHO LOST TWO CHILDREN: Maybe I should have just stayed and covered them with my body.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: His heart-wrenching story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: All right. Moments ago, President Trump tweeted on the 2020 census case, writing, quote, "The American people deserve to know who is in this country. Yesterday, the Supreme Court took up the census citizenship question -- a really big deal."

It is a really big deal but critics say the citizenship question that President Trump is pushing would actually do the opposite, giving us less of a look at who is in the country.

How does that math make sense? Luckily, John Avlon is here with our reality check -- John.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. My new role is the math whisperer, Ali.

Look, you've got to hand it to the Trump administration. They've got a knack for weaponizing just about anything, including something as boring as counting people.

Yes, the census wars headed to the Supreme Court yesterday and deciding whether the Trump administration can add a 9-word citizenship question to the 2020 census.

[07:40:02] Now, this may sound kind of meh on the surface but one federal judge said the question, quote, "threatens the very foundation of the democratic system." So it's kind of big deal.

Let's take a step back for perspective. The census, of course, is the constitutionally-mandated counting of everyone in the country every 10 years. When I said everyone, I meant everyone -- citizens and non- citizens alike.

And this is by design because the census is supposed to accurately count the U.S. population and then use it to determine everything from the way political districts are drawn to the allocation of some $880 billion in federal funds for constituents.

So this fight began when Commerce Sec. Wilbur Ross testified before Congress and said something that just isn't true.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILBUR ROSS, U.S. SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: It also says, you know, initiated the request for inclusion of the citizenship question. It is from the Department of Justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP) AVLON: Now, we don't like to throw around the "L" word around here lightly but that certainly seems like a lie. Justice -- Ross said that the Justice Department needed the question to help better enforce the Voting Rights Act. He said it would actually help protect the minority vote.

Now, this has not traditionally been a priority for the Trump administration and documents reveal the case proved that not only didn't the DOJ come up with the census question, they didn't even want the question attributed to them, period.

Ditto the experts at the Census Bureau, itself, which opposed adding the question, a fact the Trump administration freely admits.

So just who was pushing for this change? Well, it turns out that Ross was under pressure from immigration hardliners, like Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach.

Kris Kobach explained that the absence of the citizenship question, quote, "Leads to the problem that aliens are still counted for congressional apportionment purposes." Now remember, that's how the census is supposed to work.

And at a time when refugees are being blocked from our nation and migrant kids are being put in cages, it might not surprise you that study after study shows that such a question would depress responses amount the non-citizen population by as much as five percent.

Now, three lower courts found that Ross's justification for the question was false.

Enter the Supreme Court. Remember Ross's apparent lie? He wasn't sworn in when he told it and the first thing the Supremes did was to shield him from testifying under oath.

Then just yesterday, a five-four conservative majority seemed in lockstep.

Judge Gorsuch noting that the citizenship question has been asked before prior to 1950. Justice Kavanaugh pointing out that plenty of other nations asked about citizenship in their census. And, Justice Alito suggesting that studies saying that five percent would be undercounted were flawed. The only Latino justice, Sonia Sotomayor, pushed back hard on the Trump administration's argument.

Tensions are running high and it's no wonder why. This case could impact American politics for more than a decade, undercounting our actual population, benefitting Republicans in redistricting by design while depriving more populist Democratic districts of millions in federal funding for their constituents.

And whatever the court decides, we know that this proposed change was born not out of principle but to gain partisan advantage.

And that's your reality check.

BERMAN: It definitely has consequences -- very, very big consequences that will last a long time.

John Avlon, thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: Thanks, John.

BERMAN: We have a CNN exclusive. An American businessman opens up to us about losing his two children in the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka. He says he tried in vain to save their lives.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh had the exclusive interview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LINSEY: And when the bomb went off and, you know, there's a -- it's hard to describe. It's like a wave coming through.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The pressure.

LINSEY: The pressure.

And my children were so nice. They had actually went down to the buffet before me and got the food for me and filled up my plate. And then I wanted a little bit more to drink. I was going to get it and my daughter said, "No, I'll get it."

And then the bomb went off and they both were running toward me. And I'm not sure whether that's what killed them or not but we started -- and I knew there would be another bomb because there always is in these things. Another bomb went off and that's --

WALSH: And your instinct was to get out as fast as you can --

LINSEY: Yes, as soon as possible.

WALSH: -- to move them with you.

LINSEY: Yes, but it -- I mean, maybe I should have just stayed and covered them with my body.

WALSH: And there was a second blast near the elevator.

LINSEY: They both were unconscious. My daughter seemed to be moving; my son wasn't.

A woman offered to take my daughter downstairs to the ambulance. I needed help moving my son. Someone helped me move him down the stairs. And they both ended up in the same hospital.

WALSH: And you traveled with them to the hospital?

LINSEY: Absolutely. I traveled with my son because my daughter got down before -- and I traveled with my son to the hospital.

WALSH: Do you recall in the hospital finding your daughter? LINSEY: I mean, this is the worst part because I got -- I yelled for help -- that's why I've lost my voice -- for my son and tried to massage his heart. And the people were very helpful. In their rudimentary facilities there, they did their best.

I mean, a doctor there has been kindly -- he took me to the U.S. Embassy. I was there eight hours and they got me out of the country.

And they were very, very efficient and very kind and I want that to be noted. That's really important. You know, if anyone important at the State Department is watching or whatever, please -- the job done by your U.S. Embassy in Sri Lanka was fantastic.

[07:45:15] WALSH: Incredibly hard to --

LINSEY: Yes.

WALSH: -- explain to anybody what it must be like to --

LINSEY: Yes.

WALSH: -- go through a situation like that. Has it left you full of rage?

LINSEY: My daughter and I -- one of our favorite songs was a song called "Love is the Answer." And when my dad passed away my daughter and I -- that became sort of our song.

WALSH: Right.

LINSEY: And she was only six.

And yes, you want the government to do what they have to do to stop these people. I agree with that completely. But also, the people on the other side -- you know, love is the answer, ultimately, and helping people.

And what would be good is giving Sri Lanka -- helping the medical facilities there. Money to go to the country to help because a lot of local people died and probably unnecessary. And my children -- maybe they could have survived if there was the right medical facilities.

But I took that risk going to that country and I have to blame myself for that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: Gut-wrenching.

CAMEROTA: God bless that father. It is so -- I mean, the idea that he can speak so thoughtfully already about all of this. And it is gut-wrenching, I mean, as you say. It's just -- to imagine what you would do in that situation is really heartbreaking.

All right. Meanwhile, back here, Connecticut's attorney general has filed a new lawsuit against Purdue Pharma.

It claims that the Sackler family, who own the company, illegally shuffled hundreds of millions of dollars to other family-owned businesses in order to claim bankruptcy and avoid paying restitution. The suit also alleges the firm misled doctors about the addictive nature of opioids.

Purdue Pharma denies these allegations.

All right. On a much lighter note, more than $1 million and counting for current "JEOPARDY!" champ James Holzhauer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEX TREBEK, HOST, "JEOPARDY!": You're going to add $50,000. That takes you up to $118,816 and now, a 14-day total of $1,061,554.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh. Holzhauer is a professional sports gambler. I guess that helps.

BERMAN: And apparently, pretty smart.

CAMEROTA: Very smart. He becomes just the second contestant to ever win more than $1 million.

The other all-time "JEOPARDY!" champ is John Berman. He -- no? You've played but you didn't want that.

BERMAN: I think Ken Jennings had a slightly better result than I did.

CAMEROTA: You're right. OK, it was Ken Jennings.

BERMAN: I only won once.

CAMEROTA: I want to hear all about that.

BERMAN: All right.

CAMEROTA: It was Ken Jennings. He had a 74-game winning streak that netted more than $2.5 million.

OK, how much did you win?

BERMAN: I think it was like $25,000 for charity. Well, no, they got $50,000. They actually got $50,000.

CAMEROTA: That is fantastic.

BERMAN: Yes, but that's not the point here --

CAMEROTA: Yes, it is.

BERMAN: -- although we can talk about that any time you want -- me winning "JEOPARDY!". This guy -- this guy James Holzhauer, he's got his whole different strategy where he --

CAMEROTA: What is it?

BERMAN: -- goes and hunts for the daily double before doing anything else.

CAMEROTA: But how do you know where the daily double is?

BERMAN: You don't, you don't, but you try to find it. And if you get it big, you bet everything you have. He just goes big every time.

And he starts -- instead of starting at the top of the category at some low money, he's starting down below for the $2,000 and $1,000 prizes. He's got a plan here.

CAMEROTA: Why didn't you think of that?

BERMAN: I'm not anywhere near as good as he is, although I did win "JEOPARDY!". The dumbed-down version, but I did win.

CAMEROTA: No, I'm aware of that. Very impressive.

BERMAN: Thank you for bringing that up.

CAMEROTA: Any time.

BERMAN: All right.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who I don't believe has ever won "JEOPARDY!" -- he says the Boston Marathon bomber should be allowed to vote. We're going to ask a survivor who was severely wounded in that attack what she thinks. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:52:42] BERMAN: So should prisoners, including the Boston Marathon bomber, be allowed to vote while in prison? That question was posed to Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders at CNN's town hall on Monday night and here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think the right to vote is in inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people.

Because once you start chipping away and you say well, that guy committed a terrible crime, we're not going to let him vote or that person did that -- not going to let that person vote, you're running down a slippery slope.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Joining me now is Roseann Sdoia. She lost part of her right leg in the attack on the Boston Marathon, and she is the author of "Perfect Strangers: Friendship, Strength, and Recovery After Boston's Worst Day." Thank you so much for being with us today, Roseann.

And I'm just curious. When you heard what Bernie Sanders had said, that even terrible people should be allowed to vote while they're in prison -- and in this case, a terrible person, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is responsible for the fact that you have a prosthetic limb now -- what was your reaction?

We appear to have lost Roseann Sdoia. All right, she's back.

Roseann, you are back with us right now.

ROSEANN SDOIA, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING SURVIVOR, AUTHOR, "PERFECT STRANGERS: FRIENDSHIP, STRENGTH, AND RECOVERY AFTER BOSTON'S WORST DAY": Hi, yes.

BERMAN: Great to have you here.

Your reaction to Bernie Sanders?

SDOIA: Thank you, John.

I would -- I heard -- I heard it yesterday morning and I was shocked for his response, especially being directly affected by the bombing and the situation that I'm in now. I just couldn't imagine allowing someone to have the right to vote that in this one particular situation has even admitted that he did it.

So, you know, to allow people to be -- to have the right to vote that are incarcerated, I really don't think that should happen. I mean, they made the choice to break the law and I think at that point, they made the choice to give up their rights as an American to vote until they've done their sentence.

BERMAN: What would you say to Sen. Sanders if you saw him?

SDOIA: I would like to ask him what his reasoning is on it.

And remember, one of his comments was that if you start doing that and allowing them not to vote there's a slippery slope. I think it's reverse. I think it's a slippery slope if you do allow them to vote.

[07:55:03] So I'd like to understand what he meant by that and understand where his reasoning is on it.

Again, these people have taken away the rights of those who have passed that were involved in the bombing and we're more worried about these people that are incarcerated rights to vote? I just think it's crazy.

And maybe after they've done their time, that's one thing. But to be in the middle of serving your sentence to have this American right to vote, I think is just not right.

BERMAN: One of the things -- one of the arguments that Bernie Sanders, and supporters of his and people who feel strongly about this issue as he does will make is that you've got to have these protections for the worst among us -- even the worst among us because if you are unwilling to protect them then maybe -- you know, unwilling to protect those who have done less.

You don't buy that?

SDOIA: I don't. I believe that we have laws in place and I think that when our Constitution was written so many years back that these things were taken into consideration.

And again, when you have someone who has been convicted, who's been found guilty, who has admitted their wrongdoing, I think that they have given up their right when they have been proven guilty and have been incarcerated.

So at that point in time, I think that they have lost their right to participate in the American society.

Now, I don't want to ask you about your politics but would you be less inclined to vote for someone who held the position that people in prison for something as terrible as this should be allowed to vote?

SDOIA: So, I really don't discuss my politics whatsoever. However, in this situation, I don't -- you know, it doesn't have anything to do with Democratic or Republican parties, but I would be less inclined, yes, to vote for someone who would be in favor of having those incarcerated to vote.

BERMAN: So this was the sixth anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing.

SDOIA: It is.

BERMAN: I know you were at the race last week in the rain. What was that like --

SDOIA: Yes.

BERMAN: -- for you?

SDOIA: You know, it's something that I've tried to take that day back from myself because it was always my favorite day in the city --

BERMAN: Mine, too.

SDOIA: -- and I've done so each year, slowly, surely getting back into the crowd. But --

BERMAN: Oh, we lost Roseann Sdoia again, which is too bad because she has made it her life again to take back that day and to take back her story.

And, Roseann, you like to talk about this, which is a painful moment, because you do want to take back your story and make an example for others.

SDOIA: Correct, I do. It's something that I strongly believe in. They took enough from me that day and I want to make sure that I can reclaim what I can.

BERMAN: Roseann Sdoia -- and we know you married one of the firefighters who helped rescue you. It's a great story. Again, thank you so much for being with us.

SDOIA: Thank you.

BERMAN: Thank you for sharing your story. And we are so proud of you and your success in these last six years and wish you the best going forward.

SDOIA: Thank you, John. I appreciate it.

CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh, she's an inspiration. I mean, separate and apart from any politics here --

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: -- she is an inspiration to want to take back that day and not have it be tainted.

BERMAN: She is an inspirational speaker. She'll go out and talk about it whenever.

CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh.

All right. There's this stunning new report on why President Trump's top officials cannot discuss Russia with him or their attempts to interfere in the upcoming election.

"NEW DAY" continues right now.

And good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Wednesday, April 24th, 8:00 in the East.

And we begin with this fascinating and damning new report in "The New York Times." Now-ousted Homeland Security Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen tried to protect the U.S. against future Russian interference in U.S. elections but was told not to bring it up in front of the president.

Here is an excerpt from the "Times."

Quote, "In the months before Kirstjen Nielsen was forced to resign, she tried to focus the White House on one of her highest priorities as Homeland Security secretary -- preparing for new and different Russian forms of interference in the 2020 election.

But in a meeting this year, Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff, made it clear that Mr. Trump still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with about the legitimacy of his victory.

According to one senior administration official, Mr. Mulvaney said 'it wasn't a great subject and should be kept below his level.'"

BERMAN: CNN's political director David Chalian gave this sobering assessment of the "Times" report moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: I can't think of a bigger example of sort of a real abdication of responsibility for President Trump throughout his tenure than this topic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. Joining us now is David Sanger. He is the national security correspondent for "The New York Times." He is also a CNN political and national security analyst and the reporter -- one of the reporters on this story.

David, great to have you with us. We wanted to get you on the phone right away when we saw this report because it was stunning.

Look, we know that the president doesn't believe, I guess, that anything happened in 2016.

END