Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Refuses to Provide Congress with President Trump's Tax Returns; President Trump's Reelection Campaign Fundraising More Traditional than Previous Campaign; Michael Cohen Begins Prison Sentence; Sen. Angus King (I-ME) is Interviewed About the Mueller Case. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired May 07, 2019 - 08:00   ET

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


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- White House is stonewalling them at every front.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Meghan and myself have a baby boy. It's been the most amazing experience.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was an incredible day. Harry and Meghan managed to evade the paparazzi.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm over the moon. You have a new American prince.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: I like our new music, our new open music.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: It's like "Deliverance." Just saying.

CAMEROTA: A little bit.

BERMAN: Different ending.

CAMEROTA: I hope so. Good morning and welcome to your NEW DAY. It's Tuesday, May 7th, 8:00 in the east.

A new battleground in the growing feud between the White House and House Democrats. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin refusing to hand over President Trump's tax returns, insisting that the request, quote, lacks a legitimate legislative purpose. Mnuchin's refusal sets the stage for a potentially lengthy legal battle.

And today members of the House Judiciary Committee are set to meet with Justice Department officials who have refused to turn over the full unredacted Mueller report. If they cannot reach an agreement Democrats are planning to vote tomorrow to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt. Former White House counsel Don McGahn could also face a contempt citation if he doesn't turn over documents connected to the Mueller investigation by 10:00 this morning. So contempt on McGahn, contempt on Barr, it could all happen this week.

Joining us now is Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent for "The New York Times" and a CNN political analyst. Maggie, thanks so much for being with us. Do you get the sense that the administration cares about being held in contempt, if that's a stick being held up by Congress, is it one that the administration is afraid of?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Not particularly. I think you have to remember that unless you use the most exotic form of trying to hold somebody in criminal contempt through Congress, that this would then end up as a referral back to the Department of Justice, and where do you think Bill Barr is going to end up on this? So I don't think that they care particularly. I think that we have seen the president use a strategy of stonewalling over a very long period of time, and I think politically it has more often than not been successful for him.

I think that you are going to see both the president's folks within the White House and his private company as well as Congress increasingly turning to the third branch of government, the courts, to try to adjudicate this going forward.

CAMEROTA: Let's talk about the president's taxes, because so many inquiring minds on both sides obviously of the aisle wanted to know what was in them. And President Trump has been completely resistant, though he promised to release them. So people thought that maybe when the chairman of the House Ways and Means sent that request, that suddenly they were going to be able to see what was in President Trump's taxes, and now Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, is putting the kibosh on that and saying that he won't release them. And so this, too, I suppose, will go to court. This was an interesting decision by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin because he didn't have to decide. That the law says that he shall furnish them upon request.

HABERMAN: Lawyers are pretty clear on where the law is. I think what Steve Mnuchin did is completely unsurprising. Mnuchin is a loyalist to the president. I think that his body language for months had indicated that this is what he was going to do ever since Democrats took over the House and made clear they were going to go for the president's taxes.

What's interesting to me about what Mnuchin said in explaining why he is not doing it is he's hewing to the same line that the Trump Organization did when it filed a suit to try to quash subpoenas against two companies related to the president's financial records, which is these serve no legislative purpose. And so what you are seeing the broader Trump orbit try to do is relegate Congress' only role to legislation. That is obviously not Congress' only role. Oversight is part of their role, too. It's going to be up to a court to decide at this point whether trying to get the taxes is part of the oversight or not.

BERMAN: And winning may not be the ultimate goal here.

HABERMAN: Right.

BERMAN: The delay might be enough.

HABERMAN: That's right.

BERMAN: The delay could easily work in the administration's favor. And Maggie, I want you to talk about that also in light of the new poll numbers that are out. Gallup has the president at 46 percent approval, which is an all-time high in Gallup's rating. Does the White House see this and say why not fight, why not just do this more? We are not paying a cost for it.

HABERMAN: I think if the president was at 29 percent he would be doing the same thing. This is what he does, and this is his playbook, and his playbook is basically to get others to bend toward his will, whether it is people or institutions. We have seen it over and over for four years. And if you covered him before that, we saw it prior to that. So none of this is a surprise.

Do I think that they have a data point that they can say, see, look, there is no harm to us? Yes. I'm not personally compelled at 46 percent in Gallup is some massive improvement for him. It's definitely a high. He still has a majority of voters disapproving of him, and so I don't think that's a great place for a president who is facing reelection.

I do think it's a reminder of something that some folks around him talk about, which is that the economy if it stays strong is going to be his calling card. It's why he has focused so extensively on China and on the Fed. And could there be a lag in the kind of support that he sees with the public in terms of the economy and approval ratings.

[08:05:15] CAMEROTA: OK, let's talk about another one of your reporting -- some of your reporting today, and that is all of the talk about how exorbitant the inaugural parties were, just record breaking. Something like $26 million spent on them. People always wondered where the money went, what the money was for. And one of the women who took the fall at the time was Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. She organized some of it. You have a quote from her saying, "Was I fired? No. Did I personally receive $26 million or $1.6 million?" her fee, "No. Was I thrown under the bus? Yes." So why a year later is she speaking out now and what does she say happened?

HABERMAN: So she gave us a statement in response to a different project that we were working on, and the request was about the inaugural spending, she wouldn't discuss that. So said she couldn't because of the legally binding nondisclosure agreement that she had signed, said that if she was exempted from she would be delighted to talk. But instead she did talk about her parting of the ways with the White House, which was acrimonious, and it was right after the "Times" report about the 990 filing that the Inaugural Committee made which detailed this spending and showed this company that she had incorporated, WIS, as the top recipient, that a cut from that that went to a firm that she had was $1.62 million, and then that was spread among a bunch of employees.

The information that we were given was that she received $500,000 of that personally, and not $1.6 million directly to her, and that the bulk of the $26 million went to a company that was created by producers affiliated with Mark Burnett, the creator of "The Apprentice" with Donald Trump.

The inaugural was this hodgepodge of different people from different aspects of the Trump life who were all sort of forced to work together. They raised a record amount of money, $107 million. It chaired by Tom Barrack, the president's close friend, and they spent exorbitantly on a lot of things. We now know that the Southern District of New York in one of the outgrowths of the Michael Cohen case is looking at not just the spending but the fundraising. We don't know where that will go, but there was clearly a lot more that Stephanie Winston Wolkoff wanted to say and how she felt about how she was treated by people in the Trump world as she was parting ways with them, which was she, in her words, was basically being thrown under the bus because of other controversies they were facing at the time.

BERMAN: If I'm in Trump world and I see the phrase in the "New York Times" "Was I thrown under the bus? Yes," I see that as a threat going forward. We know she has testified in various investigations. We don't know what about obviously because it's part of the nondisclosure agreement, but that was fascinating. Another scoop you have, Maggie, is about the president's fundraising operation. Traditional fundraising is not something he really did in 2016.

HABERMAN: No.

BERMAN: Small dollar donations and a lot of his own money in the 2016 campaign. This time he has a very traditional bundling operation from traditional Republican donors who are now including themselves. I want to read one quote from this article. It was from Rick Perry's 2012 Texas finance chair. He says "I've seen heavy momentum from Bush, Romney, and McCain people, who are circling up with the president because they want to be on board and have influence with the administration." A lot of these people, Maggie, were people who weren't in any way aligned with Donald Trump as a candidate in 2016, and now they're giving.

HABERMAN: Most of them. I think there are still going to be some holdouts. But yes, look, for a president who still likes to act as if he's an outsider and campaign as if he's an outsider and who is more comfortable as an outsider, this professionalized fundraising operation that he is putting in place is the most tangible example of the fact that he is, he is the establishment. He's going to have some version of what George W. Bush had, which was the pioneers, the rangers, the groups of donors who were raising and bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And I think that you have a number of people who have accepted that he is the leader of their party, and if they want to be involved in their party, that they're going to have to give to him. The complaint that I've heard from some people who were resistant to him in 2016 who are with him now but maybe not so aggressively involved is this is not a team that really remembers who has helped them. And so I think that traditionally under George W. Bush or the Clintons or other fundraising models with presidents, you have people who expect that the administration that they're helping sort of remembers them, even though no one is actually supposed to say that. I don't think there is a feeling that the loyalty works both ways with Trump, as is often the case.

CAMEROTA: As Michael Cohen can attest.

HABERMAN: And many others.

[08:10:00] CAMEROTA: So yesterday Michael Cohen checked into his three-year prison stay, and he made a parting shot on his way in about what he knows. So let's play it, and I want to hear what you hear in this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY: I hope that when I rejoin my family and friends, that the country will be in a place without xenophobia, injustice, and lies at the helm of our country. There still remains much to be told, and I look forward to the day that I can share the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: What did you hear there, maggie?

HABERMAN: I think what I heard is that we're going to continue to hear more from Michael Cohen, whether it's in the form of additional information to prosecutors or the committees that are working with him. I will say prosecutors declined to give him what's called a Rule 35, which is interceding in his case to try to get him a lesser jail sentence before he went off to jail. I'm not sure how much more prosecutors feeling like he has to share with them that is of note.

There were a number of names that the Trump organization was told that prosecutors were interested in speaking with, many months ago, and as I understand it from multiple sources, they never followed up on that. So I don't know what more there is to say. Look, I think Michael Cohen is going to jail for three years, maybe a little bit less with time for good behavior shaved off, but I think it's harrowing, and I think that he was making a final shot as he left.

CAMEROTA: Maggie Haberman, thank you very much for sharing all of your new reporting with us.

OK, we're also staying on top of breaking news right now, because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's overseas trip is taking an unexpected turn. This morning he canceled a trip to Berlin hours before he was set to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and that country's foreign minister. Meanwhile, the press pool who is traveling with Pompeo is not being told where they are going next. They have been told they may not be able to report from the country where they are going until after they leave.

We do know that Pompeo will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a week from today in Sochi, Russia. No idea if it's connected to that or if it's connected to what's been happening with Iran. So we will keep you posted.

BERMAN: The Pompeo mystery comes as the U.S. moves an aircraft carrier and bombers off the coast of Iran. Is there any connection? We're going to speak to Senator Angus King who just returned from that region to get his insights on all this. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:16:38] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: House Democrats are moving closer towards holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after the Justice Department failed to provide an unredacted version of the Mueller report to lawmakers.

Joining me now to discuss this and also important developments on the international scene is Independent Senator Angus King from Maine.

Senator, thank you so much for being with us.

I want to read you some reporting from our congressional reporter Manu Raju whom you know from running away from him probably much of the time on Capitol Hill. He reports this morning: Mitch McConnell will take to the floor this morning to say it's time to move on from the Mueller probe and call the case closed, per his office.

Do you think the majority leader is right, that it is a matter of case closed? He doesn't want to hear from Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): No, I think -- I don't think the case is closed. I went back last night, John, and read sections of the report, reread, I read the whole thing a couple weekends ago and Mr. Barr really did misrepresent what was in the report. In the first place, the first section of the report about collusion, he didn't find no collusion. What he found was no criminal conspiracy that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There were some really serious matters in that, to me one of the most significant was on page 140, you have a meeting between Paul Manafort and Kilimnik who has been identified by the FBI as connected to the Russian government giving up polling data and talking about battle ground states, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Does that sound familiar?

I mean, that to me is a very serious matter that needs further examination. There are matters like that throughout the report. There's a place where Mr. Gates, Manafort's assistant, quotes Donald Trump in a car ride saying there will be more leaks. There will be more emails coming out soon.

I mean, there are lots of threads like that, maybe not a criminal conspiracy, but a very serious matter. And that gets to the basic point here. I think the American people need the facts. They are going to have to make a decision in 2020 about whether they want to continue this presidency and in order to do that, they need the information.

And I think Robert Mueller's testimony would be important, although I think nobody should expect any bombshells. He is not going to come in and say anything different than what he said in the report. He is a very careful guy, the report is over 400 pages long, I think they made their point.

So, I think it would be useful to hear from him and perhaps set the record straight to some extent from what Attorney General Barr said, but I don't think people should expect, you know, there's going to be some great new smoking gun that's going to change the course of this. I think the information is pretty damning and it should be out there.

My recommendation is read the report. It's pretty readable, it takes maybe a couple days on a weekend, but it's stunning and it's full of very disturbing information.

BERMAN: About 3 percent of voters in polls say they've actually read the full report.

Very quickly one more question on this. This won't happen in the Senate with Republicans in control of the Senate, but the House is threatening various types of contempt if documents aren't turned over, if Don McGahn doesn't testify.

Can you level with the American people, though, and tell them what's the impact of that?

[08:20:02] Say the House holds Don McGahn in contempt, say the House holds William Barr in contempt, what does that matter?

KING: Well, I think the House has to be careful here, and I'm not in a position to advise the House as to what to do. They're going to make their own decisions. But I think as a parent, I used to always say pick your battles and I think they should pick the most important issues that they believe will contribute to the public discourse on this issue and not get around -- get distracted by every conflict they have with the administration.

On the other hand, Congress as I've heard probably 20 times in morning is a co-equal branch of government. It has a responsibility to do oversight, has the responsibility and power to obtain documents and there has to be a line drawn somewhere where they say the administration can't just totally stone wall.

BERMAN: I want to talk to you about Iran which is obviously a very important issue this morning. The United States has made the decision to send a carrier group to the Persian Gulf, also send bombers to the area. National Security Adviser John Bolton says it's to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on U.S. interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force. We've learned in the last 24 hours, the administration feels there was specific intelligence about plans the Iranians have made, maybe not imminent plans, but plans they have there.

You just returned from the region, you went to Iraq. The United States has between 5,000 and 7,000 troops in the region.

What is your view of the Iranian threat to U.S. interests? KING: Well, the first thing I want to say is I'm not John Bolton,

although there may be a superficial resemblance. I get that occasionally in airports.

I think this is a very difficult and what dangerous course. I don't usually read things on television, but I want to read something that I think may put this into important context.

This is John Bolton in 2017, two years ago, just before he became national security adviser. He says: The outcome of the president's policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 revolution will not last past it's 40th birthday, which was this past February. The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the mullah's regime in Tehran, the behavior and objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that's why before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran.

You take that sentiment and add to the fact that we've drastically increased the sanctions on Iran, we have just declared the Quds Force a terrorist organization, we're moving carriers.

I have this creepy feeling that this is weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that there are motions toward a confrontation with Iran that it would be -- it would be a very, very serious conflict. When I was over there --

BERMAN: Hang on one second, though. You don't think that Iran poses a threat to U.S. interests in the region? Because if you're making the weapons of mass destruction comparison, there weren't weapons of mass destruction.

KING: No, I don't want to go that far. Clearly, they are a malicious actor and they have Hezbollah in Lebanon and they are affiliated with Hamas. I'm not saying they are good guys, by any means, but the question is, are we taking steps that are going to lead us toward a war or, you know, a real conflict that are -- that's dangerous?

Now, what I heard in Iraq was that the Shia militias who are not really controlled by anybody, some are connected to Iran, some of them aren't, they are not controlled by the government, they are restless and they would like to take shots at some of our people over there. Ironically, what I was told was Iran is holding them back. Iran is avoiding a confrontation with the United States and has issued what amounts to a moratorium on a attacks on Americans.

So, what somebody said was, you've got to be careful when you poke the bear, especially when you are in the cage with the bear. I mean, we are very vulnerable over there and our people are doing a fantastic job. I spent the better part of a week there and met with politicians in Iraq and our State Department people, our military people. They are doing a great job.

But this is a -- we don't want to cave into Iran's militia's actions but we also don't want to slip over into provoking a confrontation that would be damaging to our people in Iraq, but destabilizing Iraq, but also lead to a real serious confrontation with Iran. That's what worries me as you got Bolton's predisposition and then you've got three or four actions in the last two weeks designed to poke Iran in the eye. I just -- I'm uncomfortable about where this is headed.

BERMAN: And now, we're hearing that Iran may remove itself or suspend parts of the nuclear deal they still have in place with Europe.

[08:25:05] Senator Angus King from Maine, we appreciate you being with us.

I wouldn't say John Bolton. I would say Tom Selleck if I ran into you at the airport.

KING: OK, there you go.

BERMAN: Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate it.

KING: Thanks, John.

BERMAN: Alisyn?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Now to something love-based. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are expected to introduce their new baby boy to the world tomorrow.

John is waiting with baited breath. You'll bring you --

BERMAN: I would love to see the baby. I like babies.

CAMEROTA: Do you love love, John?

BERMAN: I love love.

CAMEROTA: All right. We will find out when we bring you the latest details after this break.

BERMAN: I'm not sure I like --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Anticipation growing this morning as the world waits for their first look at the new royal baby. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are bucking royal tradition and making their own rules.

Take a listen to the beaming new father.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: As every father and parent would ever say, you know, your baby is absolutely amazing, but this little thing is -- is absolutely to do die for. So, I'm just over the moon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. Let's bring in Kate Williams, historian, and CNN world commentator, and Victoria Arbiter, royal expert and CNN royal commentator.

Great to have both of you here.

Victoria, let's talk about what they are doing,

END