Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Administration Purging Disloyal Government Employees?; Warren vs. Bloomberg; Judge Orders Deadlocked Harvey Weinstein Jury to Keep Deliberating. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired February 21, 2020 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: And, Jim, you now have new information that there may be a bigger purge coming inside the Trump administration.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brooke.

I mean, this has been a running theme ever since the president's acquittal in the impeachment trial. He has been out to get people he sees as never-Trumpers, people he sees as being disloyal to him and his agenda out of his administration.

And from what we understand, our reporting coming from myself, Jeremy Diamond, Kaitlan Collins, and Kristen Holmes is that Johnny McEntee, who was once the president's body man, but heads now the presidential personnel office over here at the White House, some of the meeting yesterday.

At that meeting, he told top agency staffers across the federal government that his office is going to be on the lookout for so-called never-Trumpers, people who are viewed inside these various departments, inside these various agencies as being disloyal to the president.

I talked to one White House official about this earlier today who said that this is probably a bad idea, that this is not going to work out well for McEntee or for a lot of other people who may be unfairly targeted as being disloyal to the president.

And so this has the potential to be very disruptive across the federal government. But, Brooke, when you put this aside next to what has been going on for the last couple of weeks, the president has talked about, he wants to unload people who have been disloyal to him, people like Alexander Vindman, who was shown the door a couple of weeks ago.

You have Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff. He was at Oxford earlier this week talking about the deep state and how there are elements inside the administration who aren't sufficiently loyal to the president. And then, of course, you have Peter Navarro, the president's trade adviser, who has apparently been on the hunt for the author of that scathing op-ed about the president, the so-called anonymous writer. And you add it all up, and it does appear to be a purge that is under way inside this administration. You put that next to what transpired last week, when the president lashed out at the acting DNI, Joseph Maguire, and it sounds as though the president is very much in the mood to make sure that people across the federal government, across his administration and inside this White House are sufficiently loyal and not getting in the way of his agenda -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: It's a circus.

Jim Acosta, thank you.

ACOSTA: You bet.

BALDWIN: Let's talk about this.

Max Boot is here. He's a CNN global affairs analyst and a columnist for "The Washington Post." Brett Bruen is the president of the Global Situation Room, an international consulting firm. He was the director of global engagement in the Obama White House.

So, gentlemen, let me again just reiterate for everyone the headline here from Jim. White House officials said John McEntee, the president's former body man elevated to run the presidential personnel office, made it clear his office will be on the lookout, all right, for staffers across the bureaucracy who are seen as disloyal to Trump.

Max Boot, what does on the lookout mean?

MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, I think what it means is to get rid of anybody who dares challenge Trump, especially when the president does something that is unethical or illegal, because clearly Trump does not want to be impeached again, and the way he wants to avoid impeachment is not by avoiding impropriety, not by avoiding doing things that might deserve impeachment, but rather by getting rid of anybody who might blow the whistle on his offenses.

And that's why he got rid of witnesses like Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Ambassador Sondland. And now he's going through the institutions and making a purge. He just got rid of the director of national intelligence and replaced him with this paid propagandist who is -- has no background in intelligence.

And, of course, now he's got this 29-year-old former body man, basically a gofer, who's in charge of all personnel in the administration, on this massive purge of anybody who is -- quote, unquote -- "disloyal."

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: It's feel like on the hunt, yes.

BOOT: I mean, this was like something that happens in authoritarian regimes. This is not something that normally happens in a democratic country like the United States. BALDWIN: You're working in these agencies and you hear someone can be on the hunt for you if you are not espousing all things pro-Trump?

BRETT BRUEN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT: It has a chilling effect.

BALDWIN: Yes.

BRUEN: And we're not just talking about the insufficiently pro-Trump, because everyone in the government should be working to advance the administration's agenda.

BALDWIN: Of course.

BRUEN: What we're talking about is speaking truth to Trump.

Trump doesn't want to hear it. That's what the intelligence community did when they went up to Capitol Hill and briefed members of Congress, as they're required to do by law, about this threat to our country. And the president takes the director of national intelligence and chews him out for speaking about a threat to this country?

And now all of a sudden -- and these are individuals who don't have the political weight of someone who's a Cabinet member, and they are going to crawl under their desks and try just to ride out the storm and not create any offense, not create any reason for Trump to lash out.

BALDWIN: What's the net effect of that behavior?

BRUEN: I think what we're seeing is that there will be a paralysis in the government.

No one will want to make a decision, no one will want to pass on reports of threats that could spark the ire of President Trump or any member of his Cabinet, any member of his movement, because we have seen these days something emerges on the outer elements of the extreme wing of Trump's movement, and all the sudden it's taken into the Oval Office as being true, including career members of the government service.

[15:05:24]

BALDWIN: Let me come to this, because it seems that the president's actions all have this one thing in common. He's putting his personal and political gains ahead of this country's well-being.

And 17 agencies and organizations make up the U.S. intelligence community. So what do these employees do now, Max?

BOOT: I think they try to hunker down and try to do their jobs. But it's very, very hard, because what the president is doing this week is sending a very clear signal that he does not want the intelligence community defending America from Russian attacks on our elections.

That is the message he is sending by firing Joe Maguire as director of national intelligence and putting in Ric Grenell, who is utterly unqualified, who is a total Trump sycophant. And he's doing this because one of Admiral Maguire's subordinates briefed Congress that the Russians are trying to intervene again in our election, and again to help Donald Trump.

And instead of trying to protect our country, Donald Trump is saying, no, let -- basically, the message he's sending is, let the Russians come in. I don't want to stop them.

And so if you're a dedicated member of the intelligence community, what do you do under those circumstances? It's very hard.

BALDWIN: That's my question to you. Do you -- it just hearkens back to within -- we have talked so much about justice, right, and this -- what's happened within the Justice Department.

And I think of those four prosecutors who withdrew from the case of Roger Stone because they -- I mean, I would imagine, it would be tough to sleep at night, right, when you're dealing with something like this.

And so what do these members of the I.C. community, intelligence community, do? Do they do they resign in protest, or do they stay the course and wave red flags in their own way whenever they possibly can?

BOOT: Well, I think they have to stay on the job and try to do the job, in spite of this political pressure.

But, remember, the reason we found doubt about Trump trying to blackmail Ukraine was because of a courageous whistle-blower in the intelligence community. And Maguire, when he was director of DNI, passed that information ultimately to Congress.

(CROSSTALK)

BOOT: Do you think there's any chance that Ric Grenell would ever pass that kind of complaint to Congress? It'll get bottled up. It'll get trapped in the bureaucracy.

That's what Trump wants. He doesn't want the truth coming out.

BRUEN: And the career officials, the intelligence officers who work on the front lines of these issues, will face consequences. Their careers will be stalled. In some cases, they may face administrative punishment.

And let's also remember, Congress is not powerless here.

BALDWIN: I was going to say, what can Congress do, as I'm listening to both of you?

BRUEN: There's several things.

One, I think when it comes to the Russian threat, Congress can and should dedicate more resources to this. There is a meager sum of money that Congress allocated just back in 2016; $20 million is all the U.S. government's budget is for fighting disinformation.

It should be 100 times that. Then, on top of it, they absolutely have to hold hearings. They have to encourage members of the career intelligence service, the diplomatic service, other parts of our government, the Justice Department, to come forward, as members of the State Department did.

BALDWIN: But what about those Republicans over in the Senate who are blocking those election security bills? They're not going anywhere. They're protesting in silence, perhaps out of their own personal survival.

But that's happening.

BRUEN: But this is a threat to our country. And I think pressure can be brought to bear against Republican members that there are -- this isn't any longer a question of impeachment. It's a question of the security of our country.

And I think there are Republican senators still to be found who will stand up for that.

BOOT: I hope you're right. I'm not quite as optimistic, because Republican senators had a chance to stand up and be counted. And exactly one member of that caucus, Senator Romney, called Trump out for his incredibly egregious misconduct, for which he was impeached.

Everybody else looked the other way and said, oh, we hope you he's learned a lesson. Well, the only lesson he's learned is he can do anything and get away with it, and the Republicans will not hold him to account. And now you're seeing the consequences of that.

BALDWIN: Which brings me to the original reason we were going to talk to you, was your column in "The Post," right, where you talk about how Major League Baseball, cheating scandal with the stealing signs, and now with politics and the acts of clemency with this president, I mean, close us out with your -- me just quote you.

"I can't remember a point in my lifetime when the cheaters were as brazen as they seem to be today or the checks on their misbehavior so weak."

How do we course-correct?

BOOT: It's very tough, because, I mean, this was prompted -- this column was prompted by looking at the fallout from the Houston Astros scandal where they cheated in won the World Series in 2017. They have suffered some consequences, but they get to keep their trophy and no players have been disciplined

So, in a way, they have gotten away with cheating. And this happened -- I'm watching the fallout over this baseball scandal at the same week that we have President Trump pardoning people, like the corrupt former governor of Illinois, who showed no remorse for trying to sell a U.S. Senate seat or Michael Milken, or all these other well- connected white-collar criminals. [15:10:08]

It just sends, Brooke, a very dispiriting message to me about what -- how modern America functions, that we don't seem to reward virtue, and we don't punish vice. We have a culture of injustice and impunity. It extends from the ballpark into the White House.

And I think that's a terrible message to send. And I can't imagine what kids who are growing up today, what are they thinking as they're watching this? What kind of lessons are they drawing?

BALDWIN: Something for us to think on.

I have one more for you, sir, because this just came in. Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire has now formally resigned from the U.S. government service, according to a source familiar.

And this is something we expected. It is now official.

BRUEN: And it is a loss for the intelligence community. He served as a shield for many members of the intelligence community who are hanging on, hoping that things would get better, hoping that Trump would change course.

His departure is going to open up direct attacks now on the whistle- blower, on other members of the intelligence community who are saying and doing things that run afoul of the message that Trump wants to hear.

And this should set off alarm bells on Capitol Hill. Republican members who said Trump has learned his lesson now owe it to the American people to show that they meant it.

BALDWIN: Brett and Max, thank you guys very, very much for all of that.

Here's some other breaking news. Let's pivot to the Harvey Weinstein rape trial.

The judge has just dismissed the jury for the day, after it has indicated they're deadlocked on two of the five counts, so no verdict today. We will get you updated on what they're asking for next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:06]

BALDWIN: Here's the update on the Harvey Weinstein rape trial, the breaking news this afternoon that the judge has just dismissed this jury on this Friday afternoon for the day after it's indicated they are deadlocked on two of the five counts.

Now, the counts in question here are counts one and three, predatory sexual assault. Those are the most serious charges he's facing. The defense says it is open to a partial verdict, but prosecutors are not interested.

And here he is, live pictures, as Harvey Weinstein is leaving the court today.

CNN's Jean Casarez in the thick of it all outside the courthouse.

And so, Jean, so close, yet not quite there. They have been dismissed for the weekend, back Monday morning, huh?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They have.

And they have deliberated for 24.5 hours. Brooke, this note is very interesting, because if you look at it on its face, it's actually a little ambiguous in parts, because it says that, if we are hung on counts one and three, as you say, the most serious counts, but we find unanimity, we can be unanimous on three, four and five, two, four and five, can we do that?

Unanimous. OK, now we know the defense said will accept a split verdict. But, really, when you're talking about unanimous, you have got to be unanimous if you find someone not guilty. You have got to be unanimous if you find someone guilty.

So how do you interpret that word in the note from the jury? Can we be unanimous on two, four and five? I think that is a question.

BALDWIN: Well, I have got two incredibly smart lawyers sitting to my right who can sort of see what their interpretations are, Paul Callan and Joey Jackson.

Joey, first to you.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BALDWIN: What do you make of this?

JACKSON: So I think, just in slowing down a little bit, here's the point.

This will not be the first time ever that a jury has come back and said, Judge, we have a problem. And what is that problem? There are 12 of us and we just cannot reach accord. We cannot be unanimous. What do we do?

And so I caution that that does not mean that they cannot and will not ultimately reach a verdict, because the judge generally instructs the jury, we call it Allen and dynamite charge, and says, you know what? You jurors are smart. There's no reason in the world to believe that any other juror could do a better job than you.

Not asking you to all to shift your position in any way. I'm just asking you to keep an open mind, go back and deliberate.

So early indications are that they cannot reach a verdict as to the predatory counts. I will tell you about that in a minute. But that does not mean nor should we conclude that, come Monday morning, after thinking about it, being with their families, coming back, that they will not ultimately reach a verdict.

That's the first thing of caution. Second thing, when we talk about the predatory count, that's what they're having trouble with. What does that mean, to be a predator? Remember Annabella Sciorra, right?

She's the one who she -- they cannot charge as to her, because her conduct falls outside of the statute of limitations.

BALDWIN: Correct.

JACKSON: So even if Harvey Weinstein did something that they felt was untoward, inappropriate, illegal, it cannot constitute, for legal purposes, a conviction to a specific charge relating to her.

Here's the rub. You can use that to demonstrate that he is a predator. So when you combine that charge with the other two charges involving Haleyi and the other, now you could get to that. So it seems to me that they're having problems potentially with her testimony, that is, Sciorra's testimony.

BALDWIN: Are you surprised they got so close to a resolution, but yet not quite there?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, yes.

And I'm also shocked that the judge sent them home at 3:00. I mean, obviously, this jury is getting very, very close to making a final decision in the case. So I'm sure the judge had a good reason to end.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: Not an interruption, Paul, but, apparently, one of the lawyers had a death or a friend had a death, and they asked to go home. That was the basis for it.

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: OK. Fair enough.

But, usually, when a jury is asking these kinds of questions, the judge gives an instruction, they go back out, they deliberate for another half-an-hour, 45 minutes and you get a verdict.

[15:20:07]

That's what you customarily see. Now, I agree with Joey's reading of these tea leaves, but they're difficult tea leaves to read. There are a number of possibilities.

BALDWIN: Yes.

CALLAN: And I will tell you that it could mean that there's a conviction on something coming down the road here.

But we do know that the defense attorneys said we will take a partial verdict, because they think that their client has been acquitted on some of the very, very important counts. And they want to lock that acquittal in, because, remember, when the jury comes back on Monday, they can change their mind about this, and they can -- they haven't taken a final vote.

BALDWIN: I was wondering if you're -- I mean, I got to ask the question. Like, if you're Harvey Weinstein, if you're Harvey Weinstein's attorneys, and you're going home for the weekend thinking you have no idea what this jury is thinking and they may have come down with a verdict on Monday, what are the lawyers telling you?

JACKSON: So, Brooke, this never gets old.

No matter how many times you do it, the heart is pumping out to here. It's crazy. And, as Paul said, things can change during the weekend, people can come back with other things. So you're letting your client know potentially you're confident. At the same time, read nothing into it.

I think that the defense's mantra all along has said, look, this is about two specific witnesses. You can bring four prior bad act witnesses, you can bring 10. We're talking about the specific two. And let me show you e-mails and correspondence and the nature of the relationship and how the relationship was, and it was not in any way nonconsensual.

Now, the prosecution, he's a predator, look at his modus operandi, look at him as a whole. So they're trying to extend it every which way.

BALDWIN: Yes.

JACKSON: But I think the fact that they have this predatory hangup with one and three, and they're kind of hung on that is a good indication for the defense.

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: Although we can't forget what Jean Casarez said about, what are they unanimous about?

If they're unanimous, that doesn't mean on counts, one and three, that there's been an acquittal. It just -- it could be something else.

BALDWIN: It looks like we're having this conversation again Monday to see how this jury perhaps pushes it forward.

Chloe Melas, though, has been in the courtroom this week. She is in Los Angeles.

And, Chloe, you have been speaking with Harvey Weinstein's team, as well as a lot of the women who started the MeToo movement. What are they telling you?

CHLOE MELAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT REPORTER: So, Brooke, thanks for having me. Just moments ago, I spoke to members of Weinstein's inner circle. And

they are telling me that he is -- quote -- "cautiously optimistic," but nervous.

I also have spoken to Times Up just moments ago, and, again, members in the Times Up camp and the Silence Breakers, they are incredibly nervous. Why? Because this is the story that kicked off the MeToo movement.

This investigation by "The New York Times," by Ronan Farrow, this is what kind of catapulted this into the spotlight. And I have been covering this for years, and obviously so many of those women that were brave enough to come forward with their allegations of assault and harassment by Harvey Weinstein, more than 80, women, Brooke, they're concerned.

They're concerned that, if he walks, right, and if that is what the jury comes back with, either not guilty, or it's a hung jury, that this will keep other women and men from coming forward with their stories.

BALDWIN: From speaking out.

MELAS: I will also tell you, after being in the courtroom, listening to Jessica Mann's testimony, listening to the closing arguments, I can tell you, it's really confusing. It's confusing for the jury, and you see them taking their notes on their notepads.

You can kind of look at their facial expressions. I'm not surprised that it might be a hung jury. And that's because the defense has really laid it out there with all the e-mails saying that Mimi Haleyi and Jessica Mann, that they went on to have admitted consensual sexual relationships with Harvey Weinstein for years after these alleged sexual assaults.

OK? So, again, it is very confusing. Who knows what will happen this weekend? But, again, hearing from Weinstein's team, he's nervous.

BALDWIN: No, and to your point, I mean, so many eyeballs are on this trial, those who have a personal investment and those who aren't directly, but who care.

This kicked off the MeToo movement.

Chloe Melas, thank you so much for your insight and for sitting in that courtroom for me, for all of us. And, Joey and Paul, thank you as well.

Let's move on.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, she is launching a new attack on Mayor Mike Bloomberg, taking it upon herself to create a legal document that Bloomberg could use to release these women from their NDAs, these nondisclosure agreements.

So we will talk about this with a lawyer who once represented a former Bloomberg employee.

And a dark new chapter in the president's attempt to stock his administration with die-hard loyalists. The president's head of personnel now is ordering agencies to be on the lookout for disloyal staffers.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:29:44]

BALDWIN: We're back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

Senator Elizabeth Warren is launching a new attack on her Democratic rival Michael Bloomberg amid accusations he made misogynistic and sexist comments.

And this comes after she really pushed back at him during that Democratic debate. Last night, during her CNN town hall, Senator Warren presented a contract that she herself actually drafted for Mike Bloomberg to sign in order for his accusers to speak freely.