Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

President Trump Says He Will Not Authorize Further Testimony to Congress on Mueller Investigation; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Says Attorney General Barr Lied to Congress; Sanders Wanted to Immediately Engage Biden on Trail; Maduro Hangs on to Power As Guaido Urges More Marches. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired May 03, 2019 - 08:00   ET

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


[08:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- a way to be fair to the president.

DONALD TRUMP, 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 FEMALE: The White House has no leverage over McGahn. If he wants to testify there's nothing the president can do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Executive privilege is there. He has a really strong case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it goes to court he will be able to delay it, but he will lose.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Friday, May 3rd, 8:00 now in the east. Former White House Counsel Don McGahn had a lot to say when he spoke to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team for more than 30 hours, but if President Trump has his way, McGahn will not be doing any more talking, despite a subpoena from Congress. So what do Democrats do now about the stonewalling coming from the White House?

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is already threatening to begin contempt proceedings against the attorney general for failing to turn over the unredacted Mueller report. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she is accusing the attorney general of committing a crime by lying to Congress. So all of this, though, might be an afterthought if one man appears before Congress in the next few weeks, Special Counsel Robert Mueller himself. Jerry Nadler says there are negotiations under way and that testimony could come as soon as May 15th, which is less than two weeks from now.

Joining us now, Nia-Malika Henderson, CNN senior political reporter, Abby Phillip, CNN White House correspondent, and Laura Coates, former federal prosecutor. I think the movement over the last 24 hours with the president -- and I played that sound just a few minutes ago saying that he doesn't think Don McGahn should testify, and this letter -- CNN broke this story -- this letter that Emmet Flood, the White House attorney, sent about the Mueller report saying that they might very well still exert executive privilege. To me that's the most significant development over the last 12 hours or so, Laura. It shows that the White House is going to fight to keep more people from answering any questions to Congress about the Mueller report.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They're going to fight tooth and nail, John. And they're digging in their heels in a way they did not do for Special Counsel. Remember, they handed over and they kept boasting about the thousands upon thousands, I think a million pages worth of documents to cooperate with Special Counsel because Special Counsel fell under the purview of the executive branch, and there was some coordination and some idea that they would need to be deferential to somebody in their own branch of government.

But now they're saying when it comes to Congress, who happens to have this division between Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate, they're not going to be deferential. They're not going to allow another, as they call it in the letter, coordinate, no the co- equal, coordinate branch of government to try to come into their affairs. That is an example yet again of this theme we've seen, John, where when it comes to these two battling branches of government, one is actually really professing their hierarchy on matters like this and it is extremely significant.

The one thing I will say, though, John, it's hard to put the cat back in the bag. A lot of volume two is about those matters which they could have asserted privilege and they chose not to. How are they going to retract that information is going to be all eyes on that.

CAMEROTA: But Abby, as you know, the president is using a different argument. Rather than different branches of government, the argument he's using is Don McGahn already testified for 30 hours. You can read about it in the Mueller report. He's done.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, exactly. He's saying that there is nothing more for Don McGahn to say.

And I also thought it was interesting something else that he said. He said I can't let him testify -- him being Don McGahn -- and not let other people testify as well. So the president is basically referring there to this idea that it's not just going to be Don McGahn, that he is worried that it's going to be Don McGahn and then it's going to be all these other White House officials who they encouraged to testify as part of this probe being dragged before Congress to give testimony, and he wants to stop all of them from testifying.

So I think that he is making it clear that he can't allow Don McGahn to be the one person who goes forward because then it will be harder for him to say no to all the others. And his lawyer, Emmet Flood, is backing him up by writing this letter that takes issue with the entirety of the second volume of the Mueller report. The obstruction portion, he's basically saying the obstruction portion was ill- conceived from the beginning, and not to mention all of the underlying information that went into the second portion, we reserve the right to use executive privilege on that.

This is the president's lawyers basically trying to back him up in his desire to stonewall Congress so that this investigation doesn't snowball into something bigger than obstruction, potentially impeachment.

BERMAN: It seemed to be a five-page preamble to we are done with you, and we are about to exert every type of privilege that we think we are able to. The other big story and where I think we are now today, Nia, is the question about what will Democrats do about this, because there is this strange incongruity here.

[08:05:03] Let's play Nancy Pelosi here if we can. We haven't heard this sound. I want to play what Nancy Pelosi said about William Barr's testimony to illustrate what I mean here, so let's listen to the House speaker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) HOUSE SPEAKER: What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America was not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That's a crime. He lied to Congress. He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law, not the president of the United States, and not the attorney general.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: The House Speaker, a constitutional officer, just accused the attorney general of lying and committing a crime. So what do you do about it? And I'm not sure we know the answer, Nia.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: That's the big question, I'm not sure Democrats at this point know the answer, either. So far they obviously want to highlight this, Nancy Pelosi obviously a pretty good strategic thinker in terms of politics and keeping her caucus together so far hasn't wanted to go down the impeachment line. But certainly I think once you highlight certain themes, and you saw her there talking about this idea that not only Bill Barr isn't above the law and neither is the president above the law. So that's something they clearly want to do.

There are other avenues, do you basically cite him with contempt, something like that, but again, the idea of compelling him to testify, it's not likely that will happen under the circumstances that you see the House Judiciary wanting him to do, meaning that some staff aides and staff lawyers would also ask him questions. That's something that he doesn't want to do. The House Judiciary and the House in general basically saying, listen, we have the authority to create the sort of atmosphere we want to create for these witnesses, and how dare somebody like Barr essentially say no and not cooperate.

But there is an echo chamber that people like Barr have, people like obviously Donald Trump do as well, this idea that the Republicans themselves are also saying there is nothing to see here, this is over, this has been two years, it's been litigated, there are 400 pages that the public can certainly read. But Democrats also know that I think something like three percent of Americans according to the "Washington Post" poll actually read the Mueller report.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

HENDERSON: I imagine it's probably actually lower than that is correct it's probably like one percent.

CAMEROTA: But this is different, Nia. I think this is different. Bill Barr, the attorney general, everybody could hear with their own ears --

HENDERSON: Yes.

CAMEROTA: -- he lied to Congress when he said that he didn't know what they were talking about with questions of Robert Mueller's team expressing any sort of frustration with his summary. We now know he got a letter before he went to Congress and he had a phone call with Robert Mueller before he went to Congress.

And, Laura, this is what's so confusing. When a regular person lies under oath, they face consequences. They can be fined. They can go to jail. Why is this such a tough one? Why is it so tough to figure out what to do about Bill Barr?

COATES: I think it's because of the political consequences. We have a sense of deja vu here. We've had an attorney general recently, Alisyn, who we were thinking was committing perjury about his perhaps feigned amnesia about Russian contacts as well. Here we are about two years later having the same discussion about whether somebody has parsed words, or they've hair-split, or they've simply forgotten a very consequential element of a discussion.

But the standard for actually having a court proceeding involving perjury is high. It's about willful intent. That idea of willful intent means to many people if they lied, they lied. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's the same thing. In reality the fight would have to be that he got a question that was specifically about not the team and Mueller and chose not to answer it.

He has a little bit, although it's a shifting sand argument to stand on, but really the issue is going to be whether or not Congress is going to hang its hat on this particular element in face of all the other information. One of the good things that Barr did in his testimony is he has people talking about whether he lied, not whether the president did.

BERMAN: I will say one of the problems is that in order to go after this you would have to refer it to the Justice Department to prosecute, and I'm not sure William Barr is going to prosecute William Barr over potential lies to Congress right there. That might be tough.

Abby, I am curious what the atmosphere in the White House is this morning. After the Barr testimony, before what could be the Mueller testimony, where do they see things? Do they think they are winning, for lack of a better word?

PHILLIP: They do. They think that Barr's testimony probably could not have gone better for the president at least, although clearly Barr's reputation is something of a lot of -- a matter of a lot of discussion. but for the purposes of the president of the United States, the White House thinks that Barr held his ground, he held the line against questioning that the White House doesn't think broke any new ground really. They don't think that it created any problems for the president.

[08:10:03] And I think this is where Bill Barr was really skillful. He refused to answer a lot of questions about what is right. Not about what is legal, but what is right. He was asked repeatedly was it OK for the president to ask his White House counsel to get rid of Special Counsel Robert Mueller? Was it OK for the president to do anything else? And Bill Barr basically refused to answer. And to the White House that's a really important sign of Barr's unwillingness to give into Congress. It was a very positive thing from the view of the president who has been praising Barr, who now believes Barr is doing what Jeff Sessions as attorney general refused to do for over a year. And so he couldn't really be happier with the situation as it stands right now, and I think they believe that they have a partner in the Justice Department in terms of holding the line against Democrats as Democrats try to delve deeper into what was in the Mueller report, and potentially get Robert Mueller to testify, which I think is an open question.

And I think they may not be able to do anything about that, but I think the White House views Barr as being someone who thinks that this is a closed case, but that there are all these other things about the origins of the Mueller probe that deserve investigating, that's music to Trump's ears.

CAMEROTA: Nia, Abby, Laura, thank you all very much.

BERMAN: Senator Bernie Sanders wasting no time going after Joe Biden's policies. And it was Senator Sanders's decision. So could this strategy backfire on the Democrats in 2020? We'll discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:14] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Democratic presidential Bernie Sanders decided he wanted to go right after former Vice President Joe Biden's record as soon as Biden entered the race last week. Repeatedly highlighting part of Biden's past that he thinks, Sanders thinks could be a turnoff to progressives.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I helped lead the fight against NAFTA, he voted for NAFTA. I helped lead the fight against PNTR with China, he voted for it. I strongly opposed the transpacific partnership, he supported it. I voted against the war in Iraq, he voted for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BERMAN: Sanders' campaign manager tells CNN that the decision to go after the vice president's record came from Senator Sanders himself. Here to discuss is Andrew Gillum, Florida's 2018 Democratic candidate for governor, former Tallahassee mayor and a CNN political commentator.

So, what is the right way for the Democratic presidential candidates to talk about the other candidates' records?

ANDREW GILLUM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first good morning, John, and I have to tell you I'm relieved that this is going to be a contest of ideas, of differences over policy and not personality. Compare that to the 2016 Republican contest and it was a race of barbs, of insults, a race to the bottom, personal destruction and character attacks. That's not what we have here on the Democratic side.

Senator -- Senators Warren, Senators Harris, obviously Mr. Sanders, Biden, Castro, a number of others are out there fighting around ideas and a vision for the future of this country. And that's exactly the kind of contest I would expect in a Democratic primary. Certainly, one as packed as this one. Put simply, the difference between the way the Republicans approached their primary and the way that Democrats have approached so far this primary are extremely stark. And as long as this stays about a contest of ideas, you got me all day long.

BERMAN: So is it just about ideas, though, because it was day one, it was right after Joe Biden got in and Bernie Sanders -- and it was his choice according to his campaign manager -- wanted to go out there and he did it right here on CNN on TV and say, this is how I'm different. Joe Biden is not me and this is how. And you're OK with that?

GILLUM: Well, I'll tell you, absolutely I'm OK with that. And by the way, I assume Vice President Biden is OK with that. He's a big boy. He's prepared to get out there, defend his record, talk about his vision for the future of the country just as Senator Sanders is prepared to do the same.

What I think we want to avoid, however, is a debate about character flaws, a debate about personality differences and insults between the two. Again, if this is a debate in this primary that stays on the issues, that's exactly what I expect as a Democratic voter, that's exactly what I believe Democratic voters around the country are going to be looking for. They want to know what's different, who's offering something different and I believe that they're going to make their choices off of substance and not off of insults.

BERMAN: Let me tell you one of the issues that Senator Sanders has highlighted and others, too, and it comes about China. I want you to listen to what former Vice President Joe Biden has said about China.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D-DE), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is going to eat our lunch. Come on, man. They can't figure out how they're going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. I mean, you know, they're not bad folks, folks, but, guess what, they're not -- they're competition for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So Senator Sanders jumped on this and he tweeted, "Since the China trade deal I voted against America has lost over three million manufacturing jobs. It's wrong to pretend that China isn't one of our major economic competitors. When we are in the White House we will win that competition by fixing our trade policies."

A legitimate difference of opinion there?

GILLUM: Yes, I mean, a completely legitimate difference of opinion. I don't think it's smart to underestimate the role China plays on the global stage. We're no longer competing against one state over another. We're now competing globally and that means we've got to resist being arrogant about the United States being able to stay permanently on top. And every day we have to wake up fighting to ensure that we remain on top and that means by adopting real policies that protect the U.S. economy.

And, again, I think this is an area of debate that is worth having and I think Vice President Biden probably if given the opportunity will go deeper on his analysis there, and we, the voters will make a decision about which we agree with.

[08:20:08] BERMAN: He already has cleaned it up to a certain extent. The senator's campaign has suggesting what the vice president is saying is the U.S. is much better positioned going forward than China is. This is the type of thing he has said in the past. That is how they defended it.

But you do think, it seems like on all of these issues, Mayor, and you are a key figure, look, you're from an important state and you have a national profile, you do think that Senator Sanders' approach and, in fact, his positions on some of these might be more where the Democratic Party should go than former Vice President Joe Biden?

GILLUM: Well, no, I won't draw that conclusion. I mean, I think we have to debate the ideas. There may be some areas in which I agree with Senator Sanders or Senator Warren or Senator Harris or Vice President Biden more on. But I think the distinction we want to draw here is that Democrats are having a debate over ideas and over public policy.

And, again, I'll take that any day of the week over what we saw from the Republicans and, quite frankly, what I expect to see from the president which is a continued race to the bottom, a race over insults. You're not going to see the president tweeting out about public policy issues.

BERMAN: Yes.

GILLUM: You're going to see him tweeting out about how somebody looks, about a superficial issue which I think are less important to the future of this country. BERMAN: I've been very careful the way that I've asked this question and posed the question because Senator Sanders up until this point has been very clear that his questions are about Joe Biden's record and they have been about the record. If you rewind, you talked a lot about the Democratic contest from -- the Republican contest from 2016, but the Democratic contest the Sanders team at that point said when he was questioning Hillary Clinton it was always about her record, but people on the Clinton side there were times where they felt it went beyond that or there was an implication when there were questions about the record that it was getting to questions of character. Do you feel that that happened or the Sanders people were guilty of that in 2016?

GILLUM: Well, I was one of those Hillary people, by the way, I was a surrogate for Secretary Clinton, both Secretary Clinton as well as Senator Biden were both supporters of me in my race for governor. What I would say is this, I would caution any Democrat competing -- and it's a crowded field and I know that we want to make and draw distinctions between one another, but I think to the extent that you and your supporters personally go after, personally attack another Democrat, that is when you will lose me and I suggest that that's probably when you will lose a number of Democrats.

We're not interested in a food fight over individual personal attacks, we're interested in differences over public policy. So I think fair warning to every one of the candidates competing for the nomination to keep this thing at a high level. And by the way, when you become the nominee, keep this at a high level. Donald Trump wants to wallow in squalor. He wants to be the pig in the race that wrestles in the mud and what we're looking for is a president, a commander-in-chief, not an insulter in chief.

We want a restoration of American values, a higher place, a place where we inspire people toward their better angels rather than divide and deride people based off of the color of their skin, the language they speak, the country of origin they may have, the state that they may come from, what their mother or their father did for a profession. That's not who we are. And I'm looking for a Democrat who's going to establish us at a higher plain and not a race to the bottom.

BERMAN: Mayor Andrew Gillum, thanks so much for being with us, really appreciate it.

GILLUM: Of course.

BERMAN: Alisyn?

GILLUM: Thank you, John.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: After days of violent protests in Venezuela, the uprising against dictator Nicolas Maduro appears to have failed. What will the U.S. do now?

Ian Bremmer is here, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [08:27:48] CAMEROTA: President Trump says, quote, very tough options are on the table in Venezuela. The U.S. is now looking for ways to finally support opposition leader Juan Guaido. It has been a violent week of protests there as Nicolas Maduro hangs on to power.

So here to discuss all of this is Ian Bremmer, he's the president of the Eurasia Group. Ian, how do you explain what's happening there this morning? What's the status of what's happening in Venezuela this morning?

IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: Well, I mean, Guaido is a free man, he's on the streets, he is talking about having more demonstrations this weekend, but he's also admitted that his effort to get the military to unseat Maduro has failed. It is -- it was not really coordinated with the United States, his hand was clearly pushed, he thought, I think, that he was going to be arrested with this big nationwide day of protests.

The people in Venezuela, a lot of them don't have information on what's going on, the internet is spotty, there's been electricity outages and they're tired. They are exhausted. They've been called for these demonstrations for months and months now, they wait in line for hours every day for food. It's getting really challenging.

And, you know, as much as the United States is saying we recognize Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of the country, the fact is that on the ground Maduro is still running things. And that doesn't look like it's changing at all right now.

BERMAN: And, in fact, it may be that he's in a stronger position now than he was at the beginning of the week. And it's not clear to me whether or not this administration was caught a bit flatfooted in all of this. They were saying things this week like, well, we thought that the Venezuelan military leaders were going to flip. They didn't.

BREMMER: I think that's disinformation on the part of the White House. We saw John Bolton come out a couple of days ago and repeatedly use the names of the head of the court system, of the minister of defense, saying that they had been in direct contact with them. That's not verified.

If they had -- those that have tapes, if they did, you'd think that they would be able to play them to use it, they didn't. It certainly doesn't seem to me that that is actually true. It seems to me like that is an effort to kind of sow a level of uncertainty on the part of Maduro and people around them. Oh my God, maybe these people are really flipping, maybe we should go, too.

You know what, it's not working.

CAMEROTA: What about Russia's influence? Russia, you know, all the stories about there was a plane waiting on the tarmac to take Maduro. What's happening with that?

BREMMER: I have no doubt that there --

[08:30:00]