Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
New York Times Reports FBI Sent Undercover Investigator To Meet With Trump Aide; Admitted Terrorist Set To Walk Free In Days; Mother Defends Paying $6.5 Million to College Scheme Mastermind. Aired 7:30- 8a ET
Aired May 03, 2019 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:30:27] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: "The New York Times" reports that the FBI sent an undercover investigator to meet with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos in London about two months before the 2016 election.
Here's what Papadopoulos told Fox about that encounter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, FORMER AIDE, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: She barely spoke English. She was very flirty and was trying to do two things.
One, to extract information about my professional connections in the Middle East, and 2) to see if I had any information that she could potentially extract from me about Trump and Russia which, of course, is nonsense.
I was very suspicious and from that moment I knew there was something wrong and I was laughing about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Joining us now to talk about this is former FBI senior intelligence adviser and CNN counterterrorism analyst, Phil Mudd.
Phil, why on earth would the FBI ever send an undercover investigator to investigate something suspicious?
PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST, FORMER SENIOR INTELLIGENCE ADVISER, FBI: Well, I mean, it's happened since the beginning of time. Right after we decided that prostitution was a good thing for humans, politicians, about 10,000 years ago, decided that taking bribes and political corruption was a good thing.
I mean, seriously, every day in America, if you look at city councils up to the U.S. Congress, the FBI has to investigate allegations that someone who holds an office of public trust is taking money, for example, to turn a contract one way or another.
To be simple about this, one of the ways you've got to investigate this -- any of those allegations of corruption -- is to have human informants. It's a classic -- since the beginning of time, a classic way to collect intelligence.
The difference in this case, obviously, is that you have an allegation of involvement with a foreign adversary in a presidential campaign. But the actual tactic of using an informant in a political investigation is pretty common. I would bet you it's happening today.
CAMEROTA: How can the attorney general not know that?
MUDD: I don't understand how he doesn't know that.
I mean, one of the basic -- if you look at the top, let's say, five priorities of the FBI -- when we used to discuss those all the time -- you have counterterrorism, you have counterintelligence.
You go any field office, especially an FBI field office in a place that's a state capital, they're going to say one of our priorities is investigating dirty politicians all the time. It's common practice.
And again, there are only two ways you collect intelligence. One is wires. That is listening to somebody's phone or collecting on their e-mail.
One is informants. Sending someone in to elicit information and see what they say when you ask a question. George Papadopoulos, what are you doing with the Russians? This is pretty simple.
CAMEROTA: Well, for some reason, the Attorney General of the United States sees it in a different category. Here is what he said to Congress in April.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think there was -- spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): Well, let me --
BARR: But the question is whether it was predicated -- adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated but I need to explore that. I think it's my obligation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Was surveillance on George Papadopoulos adequately predicated?
MUDD: Boy, I think this is going to go ugly early. And anytime you investigate a complicated case like this you look at the volume of information, files, et cetera, that the Mueller team acquired. That's a lot of court orders, that's a lot of interviews by witnesses who might feel intimidated, that's a lot of informants.
When you have the inspector general go through that kind of information and look, in this case, at a very unique, in some ways, investigation, the likelihood in the next, let's say, 30 to 60 days, the inspector general of the FBI or the Department of Justice doesn't come out with a report saying there's some dirty stuff here -- it's going to happen.
The question is how significant it is. And I guarantee you whatever it is -- it could be a speck of dust on my lapel -- the White House is going to say wow, this shows you that the FBI was corrupt and we did nothing wrong.
The investigation, Alisyn, will show that there were problems in the case and I suspect those problems will include predication. The question is their significance.
CAMEROTA: But what does that mean? You predict that there will be problems in the predication. In other words, it wasn't --
MUDD: Yes.
CAMEROTA: -- warranted to go and find out what George Papadopoulos was up to?
MUDD: No. It's like the IRS looking at a rich person's tax return. If you want to look at a 1,000 pages of a tax return you're going to say on page 66, you probably should have declared that that dinner you had with a friend was actually not a business expense. You want to make sure that -- or you could say there's $10 million that you didn't declare and that's significant.
But what I'm saying is anytime the inspector general looks at a case, including predication, they're going to find something. Their business is to find something. I predict they're going to find something in this case.
[07:35:00] I never saw an inspector general's report where they said you guys are geniuses -- there's nothing wrong here.
But I can't tell you whether that's going to be significant. I can tell you I will be reading it from moment one to determine whether the public portrayal of it from the White House represents what the inspector general said. I'm going to guess there's going to be an air gap there.
CAMEROTA: Look, Phil, I think that what -- the point I'm trying to ask you about is that obviously, spying has a connotation of sort of dark cloaks --
MUDD: Yes.
CAMEROTA: -- and skullduggery, and all of that.
MUDD: Yes.
CAMEROTA: And I just want you to keep reminding people that that's kind of what you're tasked with doing. That's kind of what the FBI has to do every day.
MUDD: Well, let me give you another word. How about investigation?
CAMEROTA: Yes.
MUDD: It's an investigation. Would you prefer that American law enforcement officials don't investigate public corruption? When they investigate they're going to send an informant in because they have to figure out if the -- if the politician wants to take a bribe.
What would you -- is -- would you call that spying or would you call that protecting America's Constitution? I'd go with the latter.
CAMEROTA: Phil Mudd, great to talk to you, as always. Thank you.
MUDD: Thank you.
CAMEROTA: John.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, an admitted terrorist is about to be a free man. The reasons why a federal judge feels he is a changed person. This is a fascinating and an important story. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: New overnight, a convicted terrorist who planned to bomb New York City's subway is set to be released from prison in just days. A federal judge sentenced Najibullah Zazi to time served after he spent nearly 10 years helping the federal government catch terrorists.
[07:40:10] CNN's Miguel Marquez joins us now with much more on this. This is a fascinating story and to me, Miguel, a sign of the times.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is amazing to see where we've come from so many years ago. It was expected that he would spend most, if not all, of his life behind bars -- not anymore.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUEZ (voice-over): The terrorist who plotted to blow up New York City's subway system nearly 10 years ago set to be free in just days after prosecutors cited his, quote, "extraordinary cooperation" with U.S. investigators that "led to terrorism charges against numerous individuals."
J. MICHAEL DOWLING, ATTORNEY FOR NAJIBULLAH ZAZI: Justice was definitely served in this instance.
MARQUEZ (voice-over): At the sentencing, the judge praising Najibullah Zazi's 10-year transformation, saying, "Is this the same Mr. Zazi I saw so many years ago? All indications are it is not."
Zazi had hatched his plan after meeting with al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. Investigators say he then planned the suicide bombing with two others on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks in 2009.
But authorities had been surveilling them for months and followed Zazi on his way from Colorado to New York, foiling the plot and arresting them.
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder said, upon Zazi's arrest, that there is no doubt that American lives were saved.
ERIC HOLDER, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is one of the most serious terrorist threats to our nation since September the 11th, 2001. It could have been devastating.
MARQUEZ (voice-over): Zazi pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in 2010 and faced life in prison. But he earned a lighter sentence after cooperating with the government and meeting with them more than 100 times.
Prosecutors say he "provided critical intelligence and unique insight regarding al Qaeda and its members." Adding, "He cooperated at great personal cost to himself and his family," and his help "came in the face of substantial potential danger."
Speaking to the judge, Zazi denounced his past radical Islamic views saying, "I tried my best to correct my horrific mistake by cooperating with the government. I am not the same person. I find it almost hard to imagine what I was involved in, in 2008 and 2009."
The judge telling Zazi, "This once unthinkable second chance has come your way and you earned it." His attorney agrees.
DOWLING: I have witnessed that transformation over the past approximately 10 years. The reality is that the light at the end of the tunnel is extremely bright for him.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUEZ: Now, Zazi was born in Afghanistan and came here when he was 15, and said that he loved New York's sports teams and was supportive of the U.S. invasion in Afghanistan. And then in 2007, '08, '09 became radicalized. Now, set to get out in days.
BERMAN: What so fascinates me about this is that in the wake of September 11th and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a period when you had a sense that everyone connected to terrorism would go away forever. If they were going to be put in prison they'd be put away forever.
Well, things change, things change, and this reminds us that some of that was 10 years ago now or longer.
MARQUEZ: Yes, the fear was like a steel trap that seemed inescapable. And now, with this -- such a shocking sort of conclusion to this -- you can see almost anything. It will probably cause a revisiting again of Guantanamo and many other things that have happened after September 11th.
BERMAN: They better be sure, though. I mean, are -- they seem sure that he is rehabilitated.
MARQUEZ: The judge, the prosecutors -- it is amazing to read through that transcript and read through that trial and see how certain they are that this man has changed. Time will tell, certainly.
CAMEROTA: All right. Miguel, thank you very much.
OK, so Facebook is banning several far-right extremists from its services because it considers them dangerous. This includes the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Also banned, Paul Nehlen, an anti-Semite who ran unsuccessfully for Congress, along with fringe personalities Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, and Paul Joseph Watson.
BERMAN: A crushing setback for SpaceX. The company confirms its Crew Dragon capsule built to carry humans was destroyed during a test fire. That could derail plans to send astronauts to the International Space Station this year.
The Crew Dragon was undergoing engine tests in Cape Canaveral two weeks ago and the capsule just erupted in flames. You can see those images right there. At the time, SpaceX would only say an anomaly occurred.
CAMEROTA: A sad day for "Star Wars" fans, like John Berman. Peter Mayhew, who played Han Solo's loveable Wookiee sidekick Chewbacca in the "Star Wars" films has died.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY DANIELS, ACTOR, "STAR WARS": He made a fair move. Screaming about it can't help you.
HARRISON FORD, ACTOR, "STAR WARS": Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
[07:45:01] DANIELS: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
FORD: That's because a droid don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lost. Wookiees are known to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: That's a good scene.
This is -- was a 7-foot actor. That's who played Chewy. I did not know that until today.
This was, of course, in the original "Star Wars" trilogy. He reprised the character in two later films.
Mark Hamill -- Luke Skywalker, himself -- called him the "gentlest of giants."
Mayhew was a guest on NEW DAY in December of 2016, talking about his friend and "Star Wars" co-star Carrie Fisher who had just passed away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER MAYHEW, ACTOR, "STAR WARS": I think it was probably my size, as well as -- you know, you get security from someone that's a lot bigger than you are and I'm quite a bit bigger than Carrie is. So -- OK, Carrie is and we do --
It was nice to be able to just have someone on the -- on the set that you could look up to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Well, a lot of people looked up to him at seven -- above seven --
BERMAN: He was 7'3".
CAMEROTA: Seven, three.
BERMAN: Seven, three.
Look, I brought C-3PO today. This is my original C-3PO today from the late 70s --
CAMEROTA: It's beautiful.
BERMAN: -- because the loss of Peter Mayhew, who was 74 -- in a way, it was our childhood and more and more of it seems longer and longer ago. It's very, very sad to see.
CAMEROTA: I liked when Carrie Fisher, in the movies, said out of my way, you walking carpet.
BERMAN: He was the walking carpet.
CAMEROTA: Yes, I thought that was a good line.
BERMAN: He was the walking carpet.
All right, Democrats want Robert Mueller to testify and answer this question. Why did you punt on obstruction of justice?
A former Watergate lawyer joins us, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:50:54] BERMAN: If and when special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before Congress he will be asked why he did not come to a conclusion on obstruction of justice despite detailing 10 potential episodes of obstruction by President Trump in his report.
Mueller's decision to punt caught the attorney general -- at least the attorney general claims it caught him by surprise.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): As to obstruction of justice, were you surprised he was going to let you decide?
BARR: Yes, I was surprised. We were, frankly, surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: The special counsel explained in great detail about why he didn't reach a decision. It was because Justice Department guidelines are that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
Joining us now is David Dorsen, a former assistant chief counsel on the Senate's Watergate investigation and the former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Thank you so much for being with us right now.
Because it is in contention at this point, I do want your opinion. Do you think it was right for Robert Mueller to decline any kind of suggestion about whether he thought the president obstructed justice?
DAVID DORSEN, FORMER ASSISTANT SENATE CHIEF COUNSEL, WATERGATE COMMITTEE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, it's a complicated issue.
I feel that he should have come to a conclusion.
But he was being very generous to Donald Trump by not coming to a conclusion because he felt that his choice of possibly either exonerating him or indicting him was not an appropriate one here because, as you said, the Justice Department guidelines prohibited indicting a sitting president. So he did not want to be in the position of accusing a president of something and not being able to follow through with an indictment.
BERMAN: And to be clear, it's Justice Department guidelines, it's not the law. But those guidelines do state clearly, at this point, that a sitting president cannot be indicted, correct?
DORSEN: That's correct.
BERMAN: And you say that based on your reading of the 448 pages or what you've read -- and I've read them -- when you do read them you do get the sense -- or let me pose this as a question. Do you get the sense that if push came to shove Robert Mueller would say to the American people he does think that the president obstructed justice?
DORSEN: Well, I won't predict what he'll say. I'll say that the case for obstruction of justice is a very strong one.
Robert Mueller is a very careful person and he may not want to be put in that position. But he laid out evidence of a strong obstruction of justice case. As a former federal prosecutor, I would think this was a very strong case for obstruction of justice.
BERMAN: That's why I think it's odd, to an extent, that the administration and William Barr and Flood, who is the White House counsel -- he wrote this 5-page letter complaining about the Mueller report, saying that Robert Mueller should have made a ruling on obstruction.
I feel like that might be disingenuous because had Mueller actually come down on one side -- at least based on the evidence and the way he states it -- it does seem that Mueller might have said there was obstruction, we might learn more.
What do you think Mueller will say if he's asked about that in House hearing?
DORSEN: Well, I think he certainly would say that he did not pass the buck to William Barr. I think that was totally disingenuous and wrong of William Barr to say that he was the designated decider.
I think what Robert Mueller did was lay out the facts for somebody who could do something about it, which was the House of Representatives or the Senate -- and later, the Senate.
So I think Barr's assumption or claimed assumption that Mueller wanted him to decide is just totally wrong -- totally wrong.
BERMAN: Despite the guidelines, though, you do wish that Robert Mueller had come to a conclusion?
DORSEN: Yes, I do, and the reason is that unlike most people who if they're criticized in a report have no access to the media to defend themselves, Donald Trump has access. So the point would be that this is a unique situation where Robert Mueller could have said I would have indicted or sought an indictment against the president because the president can and has responded. So I just think that his reasoning was flawed.
[07:55:08] I hope he comes out and says what he thinks. I'm not sure he will.
BERMAN: All right. Let me play you something the president said yesterday, which gets to what could be the next step in this whole episode, which is will Don McGahn, the White House counsel and in some ways the star of the Mueller report -- will he testify before Congress.
The president seemed to suggest that doesn't want it -- listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've had him testifying already for 30 hours --
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: So is the answer no?
TRUMP: -- and it's really -- so I don't think I can let him and then tell everybody else you can't. I would say it's done.
HERRIDGE: Over.
TRUMP: We've been through this. Nobody has ever done what I've done. I've given total transparency. It's never happened before like this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Does privilege cover Don McGahn if he's no longer in the White House?
DORSEN: Well, it would cover him except he's waived the privilege. President Trump just makes things up.
We had total access to everything in Watergate. The idea that what is going on now is unprecedented is just false.
And I also want to say if Donald -- Mr. McGahn is subpoenaed he's going to have to testify or go to jail, and I don't think Donald Trump is going to take his place in prison.
So, Donald Trump -- President Trump says I won't let him testify. It's not for President Trump to decide whether he will let a witness testify, now a private citizen, before a House of Congress. They are equal branches of the government and they could subpoena him and have him testify without the permission of the president, which I just think the president has an exaggerated view of his status and powers.
BERMAN: David Dorsen, thanks for coming on and sharing your experience in these matters. Really appreciate it.
DORSEN: Thank you very much, John.
BERMAN: Alisyn.
CAMEROTA: OK, now to the college admissions scandal.
The mother of a Stanford student involved in this scandal is defending her actions. Through her attorney, she basically justifies the $6.5 million that she paid to the scam's ringleader and says it was supposed to be a donation.
Video has also surfaced of the woman's daughter saying she, quote, "worked hard to get into Stanford."
CNN's Brynn Gingras joins us now with more. What's this new wrinkle?
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and what she says really could have bigger implications and I'll explain that in just a minute. But first, let's go over that.
The mother, only identified in this statement from her attorney as Mrs. Zhao, admits to paying $6.5 million to Rick Singer -- again, the admitted mastermind of the college admissions scheme. However, she says she thought the money was a donation and did not intend to buy admission for her daughter into Stanford University.
She identifies her daughter in this letter as Yusi Zhao.
Now, CNN found a video of Zhao from 2017 where she speaks for 90 minutes ahead of going to Stanford. And she says, in part, quote, "I want to tell you all that I gained my
admission into Stanford through my own hard effort. For example, I wasn't doing well academically when I was in elementary school, but I can now to go Stanford after working hard."
Now, Mrs. Zhao says her daughter got good grades and lots of acceptances, so why use Singer?
Well, the mother says Singer was allegedly helping guide the family through the American admissions process. She says that Singer asked for the donation to Stanford through his foundation, which we now know was a fake, and adding Singer said, quote, "The money would go toward the salaries of academic staff, scholarships, athletic programs, and helping those students who otherwise will not be able to afford to attend Stanford."
And part of her statement goes on to say, "Since the matters concerning Mr. Singer and his foundation have been widely reported, Mrs. Zhao has come to realize she has been misled, her generosity has been taken advantage of, and her daughter has fallen victim to the scam."
Now, the father, the head of a Chinese pharmaceutical company, also released a statement on his company's Web site today, saying none of the money connected to Singer came from his company and this is a family matter.
Well, it's important to note the Zhao family hasn't been charged in this case and Stanford says it never received any money from a family connected to Singer or from Singer himself for that amount.
But here's why this is so significant. It shows, really, how global Singer's business was.
But it also shows how much of a conman he was, too, which talking to defense attorneys throughout this whole process, his persuasiveness, the way he got business -- we're likely going to see more of that. More from the dozens of other parents -- more than a dozen, rather -- other parents who have pleaded not guilty in this case and may actually take this to trial -- John.
BERMAN: Yes. They're going to say they were scammed here by Singer in all of this.
GINGRAS: Exactly.
BERMAN: It will be interesting to see.
All right. Brynn Gingras, thanks so much --
GINGRAS: Thank you.
BERMAN: -- for your continued reporting on this matter.
NEW DAY continues right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We're going to move on to make sure we secure the testimony of Mueller.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Flood slammed the special counsel, claiming they were playing politics.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is definitely is a shot across the bow. If you are not going to prosecute, then why include all of this other information?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the letter is a diversion. The special counsel went out of his way to be fair to the president.
TRUMP: 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 FEMALE: The White House has no.
END
