Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
Trump: McGahn Should Not Testify Before Congress; NYT: FBI Sent Undercover Investigator to Meet with Trump Aide; Stephen Moore Out of Contention for Federal Reserve Board. Aired 6-6:30a ET
Aired May 03, 2019 - 06:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The White House has no leverage over McGahn.
[05:59:28] DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've had him testifying already. I don't think I can let him and then tell everybody else you can't. It's done.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Executive privilege is there. He has a really strong case.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: "Why don't you ask Bob Mueller?" And I said, "Well, I will."
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): The attorney general is not telling the truth. That's a crime.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The argument that he lied is overwrought. The attorney general still doesn't know whether Mueller agrees with that conclusion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need a respectful rule of law. It will be in the best interests of our country if he resigns.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Friday, May 3, 6 a.m. here in New York. And the news continues.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Oh, yes.
CAMEROTA: It does not change. Because House Democrats and the Trump administration are heading towards a showdown. This one over Attorney General Bill Barr. Democrats think he lied to them and that he's blocking them from getting vital information. President Trump is also blocking a bid by Democrats to get former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify. McGahn's been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary chairman, Jerry Nadler, but President Trump does not want him to talk.
BERMAN: So how will Congress handle that? That might be the most significant stiff-arm from the administration in a long list.
Democrats are threatening to begin contempt proceedings against the attorney general for failing to turn over the unredacted Mueller report. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is accusing the attorney general of committing a crime by lying to Congress.
And all this as one of the most significant moments of congressional testimony that you could imagine looms large. Robert Mueller himself could testify and soon. One date being mentioned is May 15, which is less than two weeks from now.
Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Lauren Fox. She is live from Capitol Hill -- Lauren.
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, there is not a lot of faith in the attorney general from Democrats this week on Capitol Hill, which is why now they want to go around him and talk directly to Robert Mueller.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FOX (voice-over): Pressure growing for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to break his silence. Democratic lawmakers ramping up their demands to have him testify.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We're going to move on as well to make sure that we secure the testimony of Robert Mueller.
FOX: While they wait, the White House filling the void, lashing out at Mueller and his team. In a letter to Attorney General William Barr, top White House lawyer Emmet Flood slamming Mueller for not making a determination on whether President Trump obstructed justice, saying, quote, "The one thing the special counsel's office was obligated to do is the very thing the special counsel's office intentionally and unapologetically refused to do."
Mueller citing Justice Department guidelines that a sitting president can't be charged, instead, laying out ten episodes of possible obstruction by the president, leaving it to Congress to decide what happens next.
The letter also accusing the special counsel's team of bias, writing the team, quote, "failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors."
PELOSI: This is very, very serious.
FOX: Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi taking aim at the attorney general.
PELOSI: He lied to Congress. He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime.
FOX: Nancy Pelosi referring to the exchange last month about complaints from some on Mueller's team about Barr's characterization of the special counsel's findings. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what they're referencing with that?
WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, I don't.
FOX: Her accusation also fueled by Mueller's recently revealed March letter to Barr, criticizing the attorney general's memo as creating, quote, "public confusion about the critical aspects of the results of our investigation."
The Justice Department firing back at Pelosi writing, quote, "The baseless attack on the attorney general is reckless, irresponsible and false."
Pelosi going further at a private leadership meeting. "The New York Times" reports that Pelosi called Barr a "lapdog" for Trump and an enabler of obstruction.
On Capitol Hill, House judiciary chairman Jerry Nadler threatening to hold the A.G. in contempt of Congress for not releasing the unredacted Mueller report.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Mr. Barr's moment of accountability will come soon enough.
FOX: But President Trump continues to stonewall Democrats, saying he won't let former White House counsel Don McGahn testify before Congress, despite a subpoena.
TRUMP: I've had him testifying already for 30 hours.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So is the answer no to --?
TRUMP: And it's really -- so I don't think I can let him and then tell everybody else they can't. Because especially him, because he was a counsel.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congress shouldn't --
TRUMP: They shouldn't even be looking anymore. This is all -- it's done.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOX: And of course, Democrats are clear that they want to hear from Don McGahn because Mueller report -- the Mueller report chronicled, essentially, that Don McGahn was asked by the president to fire Mueller. McGahn refused, saying he'd rather resign than trigger another potential Saturday Night Massacre -- John and Alisyn.
CAMEROTA: Lauren, thank you very much for setting all of that up for us.
Joining us now is Anne Milgram, former New Jersey attorney general and CNN legal analyst. We have Joe Lockhart, former Clinton White House press secretary; and CNN senior political analyst John Avlon. Great to have you at the table. Happy Friday. So Anne, how does Don McGahn going to Congress change anything? I
understand that they have lots of questions, because they saw ample evidence of obstruction in the Mueller report. So obviously, Democrats feel they need some answers, but at the end of the day, it's all in the Mueller report, as Lauren just said. They know that he -- he threatened to quit, because he thought that he was being asked to commit crimes. How does him going before Congress change anything?
ANNE MILGRAM, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think there's two points. One is, what we know from the Mueller report, we know a lot about Don McGahn. But there could be other conversations and pieces, things that the public would be interested in, that Congress would be interested in that we haven't seen. So we've only seen the sort of summary report.
The second thing is that there's no question that the McGahn obstruction piece is one of the strongest parts of the Mueller report. And so I think what Congress has done is focused in on one of the places where it appears that the president had -- you know, took an action to obstruct justice.
CAMEROTA: To what end?
MILGRAM: Right. So your question is -- the interesting question is this is an impeachment. And so that's the question I sort of -- I think is the fair question of should they be doing this through another form if they want to litigate the obstruction question.
BERMAN: Well, I mean, if you look at the Mueller report, what Robert Mueller says Don McGahn says is that the president told him to fire Robert Mueller and create a fake paper trail.
CAMEROTA: Absolutely.
BERMAN: That is what's in the Mueller report.
CAMEROTA: That sounds like obstruction of justice, and they won't do anything about it.
BERMAN: So William Barr says it didn't happen that way. The only jury that matters in this is the U.S. Congress. So the U.S. Congress wants to get Don McGahn in front of them to get his version, to cross- examine Don McGahn on what is in the Mueller report, especially after Bill Barr now. That's why they want it, and that's why it could change.
My question is once they say no, and I have to says, you heard the president there last night. I think the most significant thing to happen in the last 24 hours is the president told us that he's not going to let Don McGahn testify. And then Emmet Flood wrote this five-page letter, which is this bizarre legalese wind-up to saying we are not going to let Don McGahn testify.
So Joe, once that happens, once they stiff-arm Congress, what's Congress going to do about it?
JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, let me answer both questions.
CAMEROTA: Thank you.
BERMAN: Fantastic.
CAMEROTA: Thank you.
LOCKHART: Because I think -- I think it was a political question of why they want to do this. They want to animate the Mueller report. People haven't read it. Let's not pretend that everybody has gone through it out in America, who --
CAMEROTA: Of course, of course.
LOCKHART: -- potential voters who will be deciding on whether he should be re-elected or not. And this is to animate it.
On the letter, they've expressed their view that Don McGahn should not testify. And they'll take whatever steps they believe they have for them. But Don McGahn does not work at the White House anymore. Don McGahn is subject to contempt. Don McGahn is a lawyer in good standing who might put that good standing at risk if he doesn't. And Don McGahn has been called a liar by the president. He may have reason.
So I wouldn't expect him to go up there willingly, but I -- my prediction is that he'll say, "If you subpoena me, I will show up."
JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
CAMEROTA: I guess my point, John, and I'm sorry if I sound like they've broken my spirit. However --
BERMAN: But that's what it sounds like. But I think that's the goal, too.
CAMEROTA: Well, it's worked. Because I think that I am channeling many members of the American public who feel that these past two years have been disheartening for people who believe in justice.
Between -- I mean, and the reason I say that is because you see in the Mueller report ample evidence laid out of obstruction, of what Robert Mueller considered obstruction, but nothing happens. You see violations of the Emoluments Clause, but nothing happens. You see nepotism, but nothing happens.
AVLON: Well, the emoluments -- the emoluments issue is going forward in the courts.
CAMEROTA: Fine. I'm saying that at this point, I think there is a feeling of -- I don't know -- exhaustion, I guess, from -- We know this from polls. We know this from voters turning away after the Mueller report, that they think that Congress is going to continue this, and there will be more legalese and there will be more nuance. But I'm just not sure to what end.
AVLON: I mean, to the end of checks and balances and a functioning democratic republic. I mean, you know --
CAMEROTA: You and your details.
LOCKHART: There's that. The Constitution.
AVLON: I just -- you know -- I mean, look, you can't just say this movie is getting exhausting and boring. I'm going to turn the channel. It's not a reality show.
CAMEROTA: It's never worked.
AVLON: This is real life. Never boring.
Look, I think there are questioning about congressional strategy, right? What hill to fight and die on. Was Jerry Nadler right to sort of, you know, focus on the outside -- you know, the congressional -- outside counsel or inside counsel asking Barr questions that created the stand-off yesterday.
McGahn is obviously a key witness in getting more information. And obviously, Joe is right about the optics and the politicization of it, as well.
Bob Mueller is really -- the testimony that everyone is going to be watching to get clarity on the report.
CAMEROTA: Well, sure.
AVLON: And Barr, we know, is an unreliable narrator, to put it mildly.
The real focus should be, though, on the ongoing House investigations into, for example, Trump finances and the potential connections with, you know, Russians and, you know, allegations of money laundering which they have said they're going to pursue, that the Mueller report apparently did not. Open questions about which Florida county was hacked by the Russians.
CAMEROTA: Sure.
AVLON: Cambridge Analytica. There are plenty of open questions that are meaningful.
BERMAN: Why should focus be -- If Robert Mueller laid out ten cases --
CAMEROTA: Yes.
BERMAN: -- where he thinks there's evidence of obstruction of justice, why shouldn't Congress, which is the only body -- everyone seems to agree on now -- the only body that can do anything over this or has any oversight over it. Why shouldn't they get involved? Why shouldn't they hear testimony --
[06:10:11] CAMEROTA: Because people generally like an outcome.
BERMAN: Who's "they"?
CAMEROTA: I speak for all Americans when I say that.
BERMAN: The Constitution -- the Constitution says Congress is the one that gets to decide here. So why shouldn't they hear from someone who was in that report?
AVLON: They should.
LOCKHART: And they should. They should.
BERMAN: That's what I'm saying -- but I'm saying -- John, you were saying, oh, they should focus on finances or other things. To me, if there's evidence of obstruction, if there is this Mueller report which lays out -- I don't want to use the road -- road map, because that's loaded here -- but lays out the evidence of obstruction, shouldn't they ask questions about it?
AVLON: They should ask questions. But I think the other investigations are actually a better use of everybody's time, because there are significant unanswered questions that still need to be answered that it appears the Mueller team did not look into that go to the heart of questions of why, for example, you know, outside of questions of collusion, why Donald Trump has this odd affinity for Vladimir Putin. These are reasonable questions to ask that we need more information on.
And we know they're throwing everything in the way of getting any financial records released. I mean, they are clearly panicked about this. This isn't principle.
LOCKHART: I mean, I think this is a false choice. And impeachment is the last step. We are in the first couple of steps.
The only way Democrats should bring impeachment is if they have some reason to believe that there's a bipartisan support for it. The way to get bipartisan support for it, just go back to 1974.
AVLON: Yes.
LOCKHART: Republicans were supporting Nixon. And they were all behind him, and they were all behind him. Then the tapes came out, and they were not behind him anymore. And that's why he resigned.
So this is a process. And it's probably boring to a lot of Americans, but it's an important part of the process. And at the end of the day, if they don't, through this series of hearings, build bipartisan support, I suspect they'll wait till the ballot box. Also relevant to what the next year is, this --
BERMAN: I want to take -- I want to take issue -- hang on.
CAMEROTA: And again, I don't think boring. Never boring.
BERMAN: Well, OK, I want to take one issue with something Joe said, because everyone's taking issue with everyone -- CAMEROTA: Let's do that.
BERMAN: -- this morning. Joe said that Don McGahn, you know, might be forced to testify, because it would look bad if he's held in contempt. I see no evidence that anyone cares about being held in contempt of Congress right now, because it has no teeth.
MILGRAM: Well, this is a huge problem, I think. What they could do, you know, there's not going to be a prosecution if someone's held in contempt. So let's say Don McGahn said, "I'm not showing up." They bring this to the House. The House votes to hold him in criminal contempt. The Department of Justice isn't going to prosecute him.
So the other route is the civil route, which can take three years. And so, in some ways, they're running down the clock.
The one thing I will say about Don McGahn that's different than a lot of the administration folks is that the White House and the administrative -- the administration controls people in the executive branch.
Don McGahn is out. And so he's going to want to come in. And Congress is saying to him directly, "We want you to come in." And if he gets a subpoena, McGahn, I think, will honor it. And so --
LOCKHART: His reputation is on the line --
MILGRAM: But just a --
LOCKHART: -- as a straight shooter. And I think that is incentive to --
MILGRAM: Just to go one step forward, and I agree with Joe completely. He's -- he's not going to be the person who resists. But if he says, "I'm willing to go with a subpoena, then the White House has to -- has to come and try to block him." So they have to start the court process.
BERMAN: That's what they're telling us they're going to do.
AVLON: Yes.
BERMAN: That's what this letter tells us they're going to do.
CAMEROTA: All of that back and forth.
All right. We have many more questions for you.
BERMAN: All right. You good?
CAMEROTA: Yes. I mean, sort of.
AVLON: It's a process. It's a process.
CAMEROTA: I respect the process. Joe, I respect the process. And I hear you. But I do think that there is also a feeling of fatigue. And again, I get this from our voter polls and from, just anecdotally, what people say. And I think that we have to find a way to explain what you did of why they want to go back through this retread material.
BERMAN: All right. We are learning more about the early days of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign, ties to Russia. The word that the attorney general used was "spying." Is there evidence of that? A new report worthy of discussion next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:17:41] BERMAN: A "New York Times" report sheds new light on the FBI's counter-intelligence investigation into President Trump's campaign.
It describes meetings set up between an undercover investigator and campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in London after he told an Australian diplomat about a Russia offer to released hacked Democratic e-mails. This part of the report in "The Times."
"The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The FBI sent her to London as part of the counter-intelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign's links to Russia."
Back with us, Anne Milgram, Joe Lockhart and John Avlon.
So we will dig much deeper, but the basic first top-line question here is when you send an undercover agent to pose as something in a discussion, is that spying?
MILGRAM: So I think -- I think Bill Barr has chosen to use that term to describe all of the counter-intelligence work that the American government does on a regular basis. I personally would not call it spying. I understand he wants to say anytime we do something covert it's spying. And if that's the definition, which I don't believe it is, then you know, this is a covert operation.
This is normal in the course of these types of questions. And the first thing you do is send someone out to say is there anything here? What's happening? We've gotten this information. And let's see if we can make the first cut of -- can we corroborate it?
CAMEROTA: Of course. It's called investigating.
LOCKHART: That's the word.
CAMEROTA: It's called investigating. What -- what does Bill Barr think the FBI does when they find out that somebody might have been turned into a Russian stooge? What does he want the FBI to do with that information?
MILGRAM: And if anything, this is a pretty minimal first step, right? To send somebody out and say, "Hey, what's going on?" and ask that question.
AVLON: Look, I mean, this fits the colloquial definition of spying to most humans at home. Somebody came -- went out and spoke to this person under false pretenses for information.
CAMEROTA: And they were in a trench coat.
AVLON: Yes.
BERMAN: Basically.
AVLON: I'm not going to get beyond the trench coat.
Look, but let's just pull back for a second. OK? This was an inquiry that was being kept under wraps at a time when everybody knew about the investigations into Hillary Clinton.
There was an effort to really hide the fact that the FBI was looking into allegations of Russian influence in the election, because it could have hurt Donald Trump's prospects in the election. That's the first thing.
Second thing is, the thing they were looking into, saying the Russians had Hillary Clinton -- dirt on Hillary Clinton, e-mails they were going to release, happened. That happened.
[06:20:11] So let's not forget those things in light of this is new information. It's significant. It sheds light on Bill Barr's testimony. But don't let's ignore the bigger picture here.
CAMEROTA: Why does the FBI have to defend themselves for doing what their job is?
LOCKHART: Because Bill Barr is part of a political operation. He's the president's personal defense attorney here. And he's trying to muddy the waters. He's trying to do what Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity and a bunch of other crazies have been doing over the last year and a half, which is to say, "Oh, it's not about the crimes that were committed. It's about how the people found the crimes." It's not new.
And the other thing I'd say on the -- you know, being involved in a campaign, there are a lot of public corruption -- and Anne is not -- and thankfully -- I hoped she wouldn't contradict me. And in public corruption cases, they go in and they don't go in and say, "Hi, I'm with the government. Are you doing anything wrong?" They send somebody in. And is that spying? Of course it's not.
BERMAN: You know, it's funny. You asked the question -- you guys asked the question before. You know, what were you supposed to do? You know, what does Bill Barr think is supposed to happen when someone says -- he was asked this in the hearing, and there was one of those pregnant pauses.
LOCKHART: Yes. BERMAN: He didn't come forward immediately and say, "You go tell the FBI when a foreign country is going to spy on an entire campaign or hack e-mails." That was a moment of pause there. So I do wonder what he thinks.
MILGRAM: Important as we come to the 2020 election, as well, right?
AVLON: Yes.
MILGRAM: You know, it's -- like, this moment is real and this is this moment.
AVLON: Especially because the door is now open to additional influence operations and questions of whether that information is utterly legit, which is the president's attorneys' own position.
And look, Joe's worked on a lot of campaigns and worked in campaigns. Eighteen individuals, over 120 contacts with the Russians is not typical best practice for a presidential campaign. That's like more people than they met from entire states. So it's -- that's a lot of smoke that's worthy of investigation if you're the FBI. And again, the actual email disseminate dump did occur.
BERMAN: But just to go back, you did say colloquially, most Americans would consider this spying.
AVLON: Yes.
BERMAN: And Barr knows that, and Barr is, you know, craftily choosing the words and the timing for which he springs.
CAMEROTA: Because it is a good word. It's a catch-all word. It is a good word. It gets your attention.
LOCKHART: It's part of this overall effort to misrepresent the entire thing that -- his own department has embarked on it. His own department has spent the last three years looking into this, various elements of it, counter-intelligence, obstruction of justice.
And you now have the attorney general, who's acting like someone who, his job is to say, "Pay no attention to what my professionals have done. Pay attention to what the president says." And that's bizarre.
CAMEROTA: OK. Our old friend, Stephen Moore, has been forced to withdraw his name, or the president, I guess, preempted that, announced that he would be withdrawing his name from Federal Reserve board.
It's not the first time that something like this has happened. There's been lots of questions, as you know, in the White House about their vetting process, or lack thereof. Here are some recent examples forced to -- nominees who were forced to withdraw: Herman Cain, most recently; Stephen Moore yesterday; Dr. Ronny Jackson, Veterans Affairs secretary. Heather Nauert, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., she was forced to withdraw her name from consideration for that. Andy Puzder, the labor secretary. And then there's also a whole other list of people who the lack of
vetting just caused major problems. And this seems self-inflicted, Joe.
LOCKHART: Well --
CAMEROTA: This is one that they could -- I mean, this is embarrassing, obviously, for the White House any time somebody has to withdraw. And they could do something about this.
LOCKHART: Yes, listen, I think the vetting for the White House is what the president sees on TV. And most of the time it's at FOX, but with Mr. Moore it was here on CNN. And he came on, and he argued forcefully. And he -- you know, he argued up is down and black is white. And the president loved it.
And the really interesting thing for me, though, is I -- my experience in the White House, you know, we had couple failed nominees. It would be a story for weeks. And it would be, you know, the president's setback. This is like, "Oh, it's Friday." You know, we're done. And we're on to something else. So I don't think they care very much.
I think -- and in fact, if you asked the Trump people, they'll say they sent a -- they sent a pretty strong message over the last couple weeks to the Federal Reserve board that they better get right on cutting interest rates by sending these people up. It's -- it's a silly argument, but it is an argument.
AVLON: I mean, the trial ballooning of Herman Cain and Moore, the nominations by the president itself was so topsy-turvy because of their utter lack of relevant experience particularly Moore for the board. It is obviously a brushback pitch to the Fed. I agree with Joe about that.
Ultimately these things fail of their own weight. You start going through Moore's record.
[06:25:00] My wife Margaret Hoover seems to have been -- her interview with him was the straw that broke the camel's back here, because she pulled a clip from 2016 where, right after the election, he was chortling about how, you know, it because he thought it was funny that Donald Trump took a black family out of public housing. Ha, ha, ha. That didn't play so well.
At some point, you get to indefensible, and that's what occurred, the sheer tonnage of it.
The problem is it will get spun as a return to normalcy. These crazy ideas, these impulses the president had. But at the end of the day, they didn't get on the Fed, so it's OK. We're cool, right?
But no, we're not.
LOCKHART: And really quickly, the Republicans in the Senate are glad that all of this writing came out. Because they would have voted for him, even though they knew he wasn't qualified. So this -- they're relieved.
AVLON: That's right.
BERMAN: Also, Stephen Moore didn't think he was getting pulled until 20 minutes before it happened.
LOCKHART: Until he checked Twitter.
BERMAN: Until he checked Twitter.
CAMEROTA: There you go.
BERMAN: Thank you very much.
CAMEROTA: Thank you very much. So a cruise ship owned by the Church of Scientology is under a measles quarantine. It is heading back to its home port. We have the latest on this situation next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
