Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is Interviewed about Troops to the Mideast; Retired Justice John Paul Stevens Interview on his Legacy; Supreme Court Overruled 40-year-old precedent. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired May 14, 2019 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00] JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Expect the American president to stand up against autocrats, not embrace and empower them.

And that's your "Reality Check."

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, John, thank you very much.

All right, so tensions between the U.S. and Iran continue to escalate. President Trump is warning that Iran will, quote, suffer greatly if they provoke the U.S. "The New York Times" reports that the White House is reviewing a contingency plan that would send more than 100,000 troops to the Middle East if Iran were to attack U.S. forces. This comes as the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo briefed European allies on the threat that Iran poses.

Joining us now to talk about this and so much more is Democratic Senator Robert Menendez. He is the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Good morning, senator.

We're so glad that you're here to help us understand what is happening with Iran.

Do you understand what has transpired in the past basically ten days that has led the Trump administration to believe that Iran is such an escalating threat?

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): Well, I think that after maximizing the pressure on Iran, Iran is feeling the consequences of the economic pressures and they are doing certain things, particularly to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, that in preparing for potential actions has caused alarm.

But what we need -- what --

CAMEROTA: But can you tell us what those certain things are? It's all so vague.

MENENDEZ: Yes, well, this is part of the challenge that we have asked for a briefing, a classified briefing, by the administration. And it's pretty alarming that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not had a briefing by the secretary of state, by the intelligence community to understand the exact deep nature of the threat, the specifics of the threat and the views of the intelligence community and the national security establishment to understand what the (INAUDIBLE) responses are there.

CAMEROTA: So -- so just to be clear, as you stand there today, you don't know what the nature of the threat is or what the certain things are that seems to have ratcheted up the tension?

MENENDEZ: I don't -- I don't know the depth of it. I know elements of it, but I don't know the depth of it. And obviously the elements that I know, I can't speak to. But the reality is, is what we need is a diplomatic surge because if Iran is reeling from all of the consequences of the sanctions that the Trump administration has re- imposed, the purpose of sanctions is not a means to an end. It's a means to get Iran back to the negotiating table.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

MENENDEZ: And because our European allies are so concerned about the possibility of conflict, it's an opportunity to leverage that and get a coalition to bring Iran back to the negotiating table and clear up the mistakes and rectify the mistakes of what was done in the JCPOA, the agreement with Iran on its nuclear program.

CAMEROTA: Has the acting defense secretary, Shanahan, briefed you?

MENENDEZ: No.

CAMEROTA: OK. Because, I mean, our reports was -- was that he said that he had briefed some members of Congress. And I just didn't know if it was the Foreign Relation Committee.

Let -- let me just head to you what "The New York Times" is reporting and you can tell us if you have any insight into this. According to "The New York Times," as recently as April, American intelligence analysis found that Iran had no short-term desire to provoke a conflict. But then there was a new intelligence report that surfaced on May 3rd, so just about ten days ago.

Do you know what happened -- what it said in that intelligence report that has now gotten us to this point?

MENENDEZ: No, I don't know the specifics of it.

CAMEROTA: So when you hear that top advisers are considering this contingency plan to send 120,000 U.S. troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran makes some other move, what do you think?

MENENDEZ: Well, it's extremely alarming. And I don't even think the president understands or knows whatever information exists to justify the preparation of 120,000 troops, because his whole view in the Middle East has been to extract our forces that are still there, not to add forces. So you have to wonder who's driving that type of policy view. I understand contingencies, but when you speak of 120,000 forces, that

is not a contingency, that is a major escalation. And so that's why the secretary of state, the defense secretary, the intelligence community has to come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Even so I would say before all the members of the Senate in a classified briefing to give us a sense of what are the reasons for any potential escalation. And what are you doing to deescalate the tensions and the potential for conflict and what are you doing to get Iran back to the negotiating table.

[08:35:06] If you've weakened them economically and they are now acting in ways because they're hurting economically, now is the time to open the door to the negotiations that can lead you to the conclusion that clearly stops Iran from a nuclear pathway and helps them get sanction relief.

CAMEROTA: I mean I guess that, you know, part of the concern is that some foreign policy analysts are saying that they already hear echoes of what got us into Iraq, which is this kind of opaque intelligence. So as the situation of tension seems to be ratcheting up, people who are supposed to be in the know, like you, don't know what it's predicated on.

MENENDEZ: Well, this is the standard operating procedure for this administration. We have to, you know, just constantly pound away at getting briefings to understand. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee as a senior Democrat. I cannot make decisions on what U.S. foreign policy should be in anyplace in the world, in this case Iran, or in the upcoming summit that the secretary is having with Russia, unless I know the facts and the assessments of the intelligence community and to what degree of veracity are those assessments taken. Otherwise, we end up in an Iraq type of situation and we can ill afford that as it relates to Iran.

CAMEROTA: As we speak, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is meeting with foreign minister of Russia, Sergey Lavrov. Later he'll be meeting with President Vladimir Putin.

Do you trust Secretary Pompeo to deliver a tough message to Vladimir Putin?

MENENDEZ: Well, I certainly hope he will. I have not seen the administration, either the president or the secretary to date deliver a tough message to Putin. And Putin only understands strength. That's why I wrote a letter to the secretary of state before his trip and said basically three things, number one, you should announce sanctions under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Act for the Skripal attack that took place in the United Kingdom. We're way behind the curve on having responded to that. You should send a very clear message to the Russian foreign ministry that, in fact, we will continue to support Ukraine with lethal weapons, and they continue to violate the international order there, not only with its annexation of Crimea, but a continuing conflict in eastern Ukraine.

And, thirdly, don't mess with our elections in 2020. The Mueller report is, you know, incredibly detailed as to Russian activity to try to undermine our elections. And those activities are sanctionable under a law that I helped write while countering Americans adversaries through sanctions act. That's the type of message that the secretary of state should send to the Russian foreign ministry.

CAMEROTA: Do you know if your message was received by Secretary Pompeo?

MENENDEZ: Oh, yes, I'm sure the -- yes, the delivery of the letter was received. Now we'll see whether or not the delivery of those items and the strong message that Russia needs to hear -- this is not a time for a reset with Russia. You don't reset out of weakness, you reset if you choose to at some point out of strength. And when Russia begins to once again observe the international order, not to continuously violate it.

CAMEROTA: While we have you, I want to ask you about the other -- some other news of the day, and that is that the attorney general, Bill Barr, has launched a third investigation basically investigating the investigators of the Trump team's ties to Russia. He has enlisted the help of a U.S. attorney in Connecticut. This is in addition to what the inspector general of the Department of Justice is doing, as well as another U.S. attorney in Utah.

Is this a good use of taxpayer money to your mind?

MENENDEZ: Well, absolutely not. And what is alarming about this is that the Justice Department, the attorney general, who is supposed to be the attorney for the American people, not for the president, seems to be used by the president at his own attack force. And it is a chilling set of actions that ultimately I would see in Hungary with Viktor Orban, not that I would see in the United States of America. Using the Justice Department for these purposes basically to go after those who legitimately investigated and came to certain conclusions as to why that investigation should proceed, as we saw in the Mueller report, is a perversion of the Justice Department. But, unfortunately, we seem to have an attorney general who is willing to follow that line.

CAMEROTA: Senator Bob Menendez, thank you very much for sharing all of your information with us this morning.

MENENDEZ: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, is the landmark abortion rights ruling on Roe versus Wade in danger? The liberal justices on the Supreme Court seem to think so. We'll bring you an update.

And, my interview with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 99 years old. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:43:55] BERMAN: The Supreme Court making headlines on several fronts, and today one prominent former justice is weighing in. In his new book, "The Making of a Justice," retired Justice John Paul Stevens reflects on nearly a century in American life. I sat down with him to discuss President Trump, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the future of the high court.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: What do you think your legacy is?

JOHN PAUL STEVENS, FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Well, I don't know. I'd really like more people to think I was right on the important decisions than think right now.

BERMAN: You want more people to come around to your views eventually.

STEVENS: Yes. Yes.

BERMAN: I think that what we all want in life.

STEVENS: Yes, it's very nice.

BERMAN (voice over): Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is reflecting on life a lot these days.

BERMAN (on camera): First of all, happy birthday.

STEVENS: Thank you very much.

BERMAN: I understand we just missed your 99th birthday.

STEVENS: You did.

BERMAN: Happy birthday.

BERMAN (voice over): The third longest serving justice in the high court's history, he turned 99 just last month, and discusses just about each of those years in his new memoire, "The Making of a Justice." He recounts growing up a child of privilege in Chicago, personally witnessing Babe Ruth's famous called shot in the 1932 World Series, serving in World War II. But, most of all, his time on the high court. Appointed by Republican Gerald Ford, he quickly found himself in the minority on many landmark decisions with the court's rightward drift.

[08:45:18] BERMAN (on camera): Do you think about the fact that in some ways your dissents may have had more impact or you might be better known for your dissents than your decisions?

STEVENS: Well, apparently that's true, but I wish it weren't. I'd much rather my dissents had spoken for the majority.

BERMAN (voice over): He feels that most strongly on issues surrounding guns, in the 2008 Heller decision which recognized an individual's right to bear arms.

STEVENS: It's really, as a matter of history and as a matter of what the courts should do with the settled law, it was just a really atrocious decision.

BERMAN: And also the case that decided an election, Bush v. Gore.

STEVENS: Ever since then I think the court has been adversely affected by that case.

BERMAN (on camera): How exactly?

STEVENS: People thinking of the court of more of a political institution than it really is.

BERMAN (voice over): That has been a theme for Stevens in his retirement. He sparked controversy last year when he spoke out against then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, whom he felt was too political in his confirmation hearing.

STEVENS: He has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities.

BERMAN (on camera): You caused quite a stir last year.

STEVENS: Yes, which is unfortunate because he's really a good judge.

BERMAN: Judge Kavanaugh?

STEVENS: Yes.

BERMAN: Do you think he's doing a good job as justice?

STEVENS: Yes.

BERMAN: Do you regret, then, saying during the confirmation hearings that you didn't think he should be confirmed?

STEVENS: Perhaps I shouldn't have said what I did, but I think his decisions will determine how good a judge he'll be.

BERMAN: So to be continued?

STEVENS: Yes.

BERMAN: What's your view of President Trump in regards to the courts?

STEVENS: Well, I would not have made the appointments that he's made, but I think he's getting advice from people who are knowledgeable about judges and I hope he won't do too much damage.

BERMAN: Do you think he understands the role of the judiciary in the country?

STEVENS: No.

BERMAN: Why not?

STEVENS: Well, I think he often speaks about them as Obama judges and other kind of judges, but I think John Roberts was dead right when he said that there are only one kind of judges and they're all working for the federal government.

BERMAN: Are you still a Republican?

STEVENS: I can say I do not expect to vote for the Republican candidate for president at the next election. I don't know whether I'm a member of the party or I'm not. I'm not active politically.

BERMAN: Has the party changed from when you were more active politically?

STEVENS: Well, yes, everything's changed since then.

BERMAN: You're hearing some Democrats talk about court packing again, putting more justices than the nine. What's your view on that?

STEVENS: I don't think they should do that. I think in time the court will straighten itself out. It may take longer, but I don't think the answer is increasing the number of justices.

BERMAN (voice over): Stevens stepped down from the court in 2010, when a mini stroke affected his speech while reading from the bench. He discusses the difficult retirement decision all justices face.

BERMAN (on camera): Justice Ginsberg is 86, and there's a lot of pressure on her from people in the Democratic Party and the left who desperately don't want her to retire while there's a Republican in the White House.

STEVENS: Well, I think that's right. And I think she's really in better health than people generally assume because she has survived both the cancer and similar episodes some years ago. Apparently she has a trainer, too.

BERMAN: Well, I saw -- have you seen the movie? She's a big time movie star now.

STEVENS: Yes. Yes.

BERMAN (voice over): As for Stevens himself, how does he stay so spry at 99?

STEVENS: I don't play tennis anymore, though, I play ping-pong instead.

BERMAN (on camera): You play ping-pong still?

STEVENS: Yes.

BERMAN: Are you good?

STEVENS: Yes.

BERMAN: And modest also.

STEVENS: Yes. No, I really am pretty good. I'll be honest about that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: He's a good ping-pong player. Who's going to argue with him on that? So that was Justice John Paul Stevens at 99 talking about the court, looking past, but also looking forward.

And it's significant because the Supreme Court just overruled a 40- year-old precedent concerning whether a state could be sued in the court of another state. The justices broke along ideological lines with the more conservative justices in the 5-4 majority.

Now, in a scathing dissent, Justin Stephen Breyer criticized the decision, warning today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.

Joining me to talk about that, CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic.

[08:50:01] Joan, first of all, thank you for your help in preparing for the John Paul Stevens interview.

Second of all, this decision yesterday Stephen Breyer -- you know, it's a -- it was a case about states, but Stephen Breyer clearly thought it was about something else as well, which is settled law. And by that he was suggesting not too subtly that perhaps Roe versus Wade is in jeopardy.

Is that how you read it?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I did, John. And, thanks, and I thought that was a great interview. It really shows an end of an era there.

And I think end of an era is what Justice Breyer might have been warning about. I think he had two purposes. One is to just talk about the value of precedent and what some of our viewers might not know is that, you know, the Supreme Court builds cases based on its past cases and it believes that when a new justice comes on, he or she shouldn't just reverse a decision because he or she doesn't like it. You know, there's a certain reliance that the public and lawyers and their clients have on past cases. Ad Justice Breyer, first of all, wanted to talk about the value of stability in the law. But the other point he made about his references to a key decision on abortion rights was to say, look at what might be next. I think it was a subtle warning, although everyone kind of took it loud and clear that coming down the road will -- would be -- and I do believe there will be an important challenge to the 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

BERMAN: The issue here is stare decisis, it's the idea of settled law. And Stephen Breyer, again, wrote a lot about this yesterday. He said to overrule a sound decision like Hall (ph), which is the case that was in question yesterday, is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases. To make more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay.

So what's the status of challenges to Roe at this point?

BISKUPIC: OK, right now the justices have a couple cases on their doorstep, not direct frontal assaults on Roe, but potentially building blocks that could lead to an ultimate showdown over a woman's right to end a pregnancy. And the justices so far have shied away from taking any of these cases, but pretty soon, John, they're going to have to decide whether to take up a Louisiana law where there's a conflict in lower courts and actually a conflict with one of the justices own precedence from 2016 where, with the help of Anthony Kennedy, now retired, the justices struck down a Texas regulation that is similar to this one right before them from Louisiana.

And let's just remind everyone of the context here. With Justice Kennedy, the key fifth vote for abortion rights gone, Roe is in more jeopardy and President Donald Trump, when he campaigned for office, vowed to appoint justices who would oppose Roe v. Wade. So all this is on center stage because of the larger context.

BERMAN: A couple connections to the John Paul Stevens interview I just did. Stevens, by the way, I asked him directly if he thought Roe would be overturned. He said he didn't think so. He said he thinks the settled law is so clear. But you're smiling there. Is that because you think he's an institutionalist?

BISKUPIC: Yes. And I have to say, when I saw that in your transcript, John, I smiled because I thought, that's kind of what I'd been saying all along. You know, oh, come on, they would never do -- they would never throw it out. It's so -- it's been entrenched for four decades. As controversial as it is, people have come to rely on it, expect it. But this court is different. We saw a 5-4 vote at the end of last term reversing a precedent from the 1970s and we saw what we -- yesterday's. And I think that was a purpose behind Justice Breyer's dissenting statement in a case that very few people were paying attention to nationwide saying, pay attention to everyone with each of these precedence that goes down the groundwork is laid for the real battle.

BERMAN: All right, Joan Biskupic, it was an interesting dissent yesterday from Stephen Breyer.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

BERMAN: Thanks for helping us mark it. Really appreciate it, Joan.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: All right, John, we've had a lot of singing in this show.

BERMAN: I know.

CAMEROTA: This has been a very musical show, which I think has been wonderful. We should do more of that, including getting some of the presidential candidates to sing.

BERMAN: Why not?

CAMEROTA: OK. So in case you were sleeping, Jimmy Fallon's latest slow jam featured 2020 Democratic hopeful Pete Buttigieg.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): He's ready and prepared for a primary battle. His name is worth 800 points in Scrabble.

JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JIMMY FALLON": I've got a question for you, marvelous, Mr. Mayor, you may run a city, but what makes you think you can measure up to the presidency? Aren't you worried about performance anxiety?

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Actually, I'm not. As mayor of South Bend, I re-energized the economy and invested in the industries of tomorrow.

[08:55:05] I'd support getting rid of the Electoral College, even if it means fighting these issues out in court.

FALLON: Court is in session. And the honorable Butti (ph) judge is presiding.

BUTTIGIEG: I want to invite everyone to join this campaign, Democrats and Republicans.

FALLON: Democrats and Republicans? So what you're saying is, you go both ways?

BUTTIGIEG: No, I'm just gay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: That's funny. Butti judge. Why didn't we think of that?

BERMAN: Well, that was inevitable. I think that one was inevitable.

CAMEROTA: Now, what was not inevitable is that you didn't slow jam the news, you rocked it out earlier on the show.

One more time, please, maestro.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN (singing): I knew that I would. So good. So good. I got you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Big scream.

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: (INAUDIBLE).

You did do a big James Brown scream -- scream. BERMAN: There's no other way to do it.

CAMEROTA: That was so great.

BERMAN: Either you scream or you don't.

All right, that was singing.

Coming up next, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not singing. He's meeting with his Russian counterpart at this moment.

CAMEROTA: Don't be so sure.

BERMAN: Our coverage picks up right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END