Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Warren Taunts Bloomberg With Document to Release Women from NDAs; Trump Personnel Chief to Agencies: Look Out for Disloyal Staffers; GOP Blocks Election Security Bill as Russia Interferes. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired February 21, 2020 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Bloomberg said that there were, quote, a very few nondisclosure agreements, adding, quote, and we'll live with it. But now Warren is saying that she will text him her documents pointing out she taught contract law and Senator Warren actually went as far as to read the release to the CNN Town Hall audience.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Bloomberg and the company release any and all obligations contained in any agreement including, but not limited to, any employment settlement, severance or nondisclosure agreement between Bloomberg and/or the company and any other person to the extent those obligations preclude the other person from disclosing information relating to sexual harassment, discrimination, or other misconduct at the company or by Bloomberg himself. Under this release, it is now the other person's choice to disclose such information or not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: And attorney Bonnie Josephs once represented one of Bloomberg's accusers. She says her former client Sekiko Sakai Garrison sued Bloomberg and his company in 1997 after she was terminated as a sales representative. And so Bonnie, thank you so much for coming into CNN.

BONNIE JOSEPHS, ATTORNEY WHO ONCE REPRESENTED BLOOMBERG ACCUSER: Thank you for inviting me.

BALDWIN: Let's start with you formally represented her. She then changed attorneys. You didn't see the case through to the point where she had signed that NDA. But you did not sign an NDA.

JOSEPHS: I wasn't asked to, and I did not.

BALDWIN: So can you speak freely about the case?

JOSEPHS: I can.

BALDWIN: Can you just tell me about your former client and what she said happened?

JOSEPHS: Sekiko Sakai Garrison, she's a Japanese -- a person of Japanese origin, and she was working selling the Bloomberg machine in an early time when she helped them build the company.

And she came to talk to him one day and tell him that she was pregnant with her first child and she was so pleased. And his response was, she said, kill it. Kill it. We have 16 pregnant women here.

And later she sued him for that, and she was asked to leave the company, and she sued him and at some point, during the lawsuit, which I brought for her in the State Division of Human Rights, she changed counsel. We agreed on the change of counsel. So I am not subject to an NDA, although she is.

BALDWIN: Did she share with you after he had allegedly said, kill it, what did she say back?

JOSEPHS: She really couldn't speak at all. She was very upset. She was -- it was her first child, and she was very upset by the tone of the voice, and she felt that it was a hostile act, and she couldn't continue, and she was worried about her own child, unborn child.

BALDWIN: I just have to ask you, did you find her believable?

JOSEPHS: She was totally credible, and we know now that there was actually a witness to his saying this, which I did not know until very recently, who has said he heard Bloomberg say those words. So this case is against Bloomberg himself, which many of the other cases are not.

BALDWIN: In reference to Bloomberg saying to her, kill it, when Garrison told him that she was pregnant, his spokesman said Bloomberg, quote, did not make any of the statements alleged in the Sekiko Garrison case. Adding this, quote, Mike openly admits that his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life, and some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong.

Care to comment on that?

JOSEPHS: It's not a statement that you can take as credible because I know what the facts are. Not that I was present, but I'm confident that Ms. Garrison was telling the truth. And this is a -- not a candid statement.

BALDWIN: Again, you weren't with her when she ultimately signed the NDA.

JOSEPHS: I was not.

BALDWIN: With Bloomberg, but can you just generally speaking help everyone watching understand under what circumstances would someone want to sign an NDA versus fight it?

JOSEPHS: Well, there was a lot of turmoil in her family as a result of the lawsuit which went on a long time, even after I got out of it, and it was very destructive to the family setting. She's now divorced from her husband, who was then her husband, partly as a result possibly of the struggle of the lawsuit. So it was -- she would need to settle it.

BALDWIN: Was she paid?

JOSEPHS: I don't know. I have no personal knowledge of that. I have heard that she was paid and that it was six figures, but I can't prove that, and I don't know it.

[15:35:00]

But what happens with an NDA is that the people who are engaged in a lawsuit, that's difficult, and all lawsuits are very difficult for clients, it's better to be bought out. But that bought her silence. And it bought the silence for the public, and that's true of all the NDAs, it enables the perpetrator to continue doing what he's doing.

BALDWIN: To that point, my final question, and you saw what Elizabeth Warren did last night in reading this contract that she had drafted, essentially daring Bloomberg to sign it and allow these women such as Ms. Garrison to speak. Do you think, again, hypothetical, if he were to sign it, do you think she would want to speak?

JOSEPHS: I'm not sure. I haven't spoken to her myself far long time. I have spoken with her former husband, but I can't speak about what he is saying here. I don't know what she would do now. But I think it's patronizing for Mr. Bloomberg not to release these.

BALDWIN: Why?

JOSEPHS: Because it is the experience of both parties to this contract, of both parties to this event, it's their experience. And their life and they should be able to talk about their life and not have to give it up just because there was no alternative to ending the lawsuit and accepted money, which was significant, but not -- didn't solve the hurt.

And that's why I think it's wrong for Mr. Bloomberg to take that position.

BALDWIN: Bonnie Josephs, thank you for coming in.

JOSEPHS: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

Right now President Trump is speaking right there at a rally in Las Vegas, as we're learning there may be yet another purge inside his administration. The President's Personnel Chief apparently giving an order to look out for disloyal staffers. Stand by.

[15:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BALDWIN: A dark new turn in President Trump's efforts to remove career officials across the government and replace them with these die-hard loyalists. CNN has learned that at a meeting yesterday the President's head of personnel made it clear that his office will be on the lookout, on the lookout, for staffers across the government who are seen as disloyal to Trump.

Nelson Cunningham is a former U.S. Attorney who served as White House General Counsel under President Clinton. So Nelson, nice to have you on, sir.

NELSON CUNNINGHAM, FORMER WHITE HOUSE GENERAL COUNSEL UNDER CLINTON: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Your reaction to this?

CUNNINGHAM: Well, I want to be careful that we understand exactly what he said. This is this new young man, he's 29 years old. He was the President's body man. He was actually frog marched out of the White House under directions of Chief of Staff John Kelly because of security issues.

It's quite amazingly curious that he's been brought back and has now been put in charge of all of the President's political appointees. There is some reporting that suggests that he was talking about disloyal political appointees and not career people.

That's an important distinction I think we need to understand. Career people are career staffers, and I spent six years as a career staffer at the Department of Justice. They're protected by the Hatch Act from political firings.

Political appointees, of course, are not. It's still extraordinary for him to say on his first day on the job that he is going to be looking out for disloyal employees.

BALDWIN: So you mentioned the Hatch Act. Are you saying this is -- this is illegal? I just want to make sure I'm following you.

CUNNINGHAM: Yes, it could be. If his comments were extended to all employees in the federal government, telling people in the various cabinet agencies look out for disloyal employees, that would clearly violate the Hatch Act, which has been around for about 80 years and was passed to prevent political appointees from punishing career people who work for them.

And in effect, did away with the old days of patronage where you would hire your political cronies and feather the government with them, and then fire those who didn't agree with you. But if he limited himself to political appointees, well, there's more room for a President to act to move political employees out.

In any event, coming at the end of a week and the end of two or three weeks when the President has been summarily dismissing and moving out many career employees and transferring them because of loyalty, when he calls the FBI a den of crooks, boy, you have to wonder. BALDWIN: I mean, Nelson, we counted, you talk about the week, the

weeks, we counted 42 insulting tweets from this President about the DOJ. You know, just since Attorney General Bill Barr warned him that the tweets made it, to quote him, impossible to do his job. And then let's not forget Trump's remark that he is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. What's Bill Barr's move now?

CUNNINGHAM: Well, Bill Barr said Mr. President, please don't tweet. It's making my job impossible. I think what Barr was actually saying is, hey, sir, give me instructions in private, not in public, OK? Or, you know, sir, I actually know your mind pretty well. You don't have to tell me what to do. I'll do it.

The fact that he though took this public stand, told the President to stop tweeting, and the President has continued tweeting, particularly on issues centering on law enforcement and on the integrity of the Justice Department, frankly, he is pushing Barr to the brink. I think there are two things that conservatives will care about. One is judges.

[15:45:30]

They want Bill Barr to keep on approving and passing forward conservative judges for the President to nominate. But they care deeply about the integrity of the Justice Department and the career attorneys who is work there.

Lindsey Graham, who was himself a prosecutor in the military prosecutorial service was quite firm this week in saying the President has to back off. I think he's pushing the line and Bill Barr is going to find himself at a very difficult position because this could ruin his reputation, even among his conservative brethren.

BALDWIN: I so appreciate your insight, Nelson Cunningham, thank you.

CUNNINGHAM: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Thank you. Speaking of the intelligence community, they're warning that Vladimir Putin is at it again interfering in the U.S. election to help President Trump and instead of taking action, Republican lawmakers are blocking these bills that are designed to secure U.S. elections. Why? Let's talk about that next.

[15:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: This stunning announcement by the U.S. intelligence that Russia is already taking steps to interfere in the 2020 election with the goal of helping Trump get reelected. It comes as Republicans are continuing to thwart efforts by Democrats to pass these election security bills. Senate Republicans have already blocked three bills just this year.

Melanie Zanona is a Congressional reporter for "Politico." Frank Bruni is an Op-Ed columnist for "The New York Times" and a standing contributor. So welcome to both of you. Given the news today with regard to Russia, given the fact that these security bills feel like a lay-up, why are the Republicans blocking them?

MELANIE ZANONA, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, listen, the Republicans do have some genuine concerns and issues with these specific bills, namely they're concerned about federal overreach. But the real reason that they are reluctant the go forward with the bills is that they are worried about being seen as rebuking the President.

Trump has been long reluctant to even acknowledge that interference happened. He sort of equates Russia interference with the accusations that he, himself, meddled in the election, and so the Republicans don't want to go there. They're just really concerned. And look, they could pass their own Republican bills in the Senate or they could try to find bipartisan solutions, but that just has not happened yet.

BALDWIN: I'm like Beyonce "I'm a Survivor." I mean is this not about survival for them.

FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, no, they don't want to do anything as you said to incur the President's wrath. And when he hears election insecurity, he hears an accusation that he somehow didn't win legitimately.

And I think years from now when we tell the story of the Trump administration, I think we'll see that everything radiates outward from this fear of illegitimacy. From any suggestion that he didn't win on his own merits, that he's not sitting in that White House by the will of the people. I mean he's exaggerated his victory again and again to call it a movement the likes of which the world has never seen. 77,000 votes in the Electoral College which is what he won by --

BALDWIN: Yes.

BRUNI: -- is not a movement likes of which the world has never seen. But he's so invested in the potency that anything that smacks of diminishing it, he can't bear and so Republicans abet that.

BALDWIN: So one name that I think hasn't gotten as much discussion, I want to ask you about, Kash Patel who's DNI, the deputy to this new intern DNI, Richard Grenell, he -- Kash Patel has this connection with Devin Nunes. Explain that.

ZANONA: And now, he is being promoted to a senior role in intelligence. My colleagues at "Politico" of course, reported that yesterday. But look, this is just another example of the President surrounding himself with allies, loyalists and political figures which is one thing to do that within the White House and even in your own cabinet, right. It makes sense that the President wants to have people he can trust by his side.

But it is a completely different story when it is in the intelligence community. These positions are supposed to be nonpolitical, non- polarized and there are going to be assessments that the President isn't always going to want to hear sometimes. And now he has yes-men. So it signals to me that he doesn't want to be challenged. He doesn't want to be contradicted and he wants a top-down approach in the intelligence community.

BALDWIN: What were you saying about the hot stove? Serious.

BRUNI: Well, he does this, because if you keep touching a hot stove and you never get burned, and there are no consequences, then you touch the hot stove. But this isn't just loyalism is not the main thing here, but there's something else going on here. Which is from the very beginning Trump has had insufficient to no regard for expertise for professionalism, he does not value those things. He values loyalty above those things.

BALDWIN: Even if you didn't have the experience whatsoever.

BRUNI: Even from the very beginning when it was better than now. If you went through the cabinet, it was not a cabinet that dazzled you, vis-a-vis the prior administrations, and that's becoming truer and truer. Rick Grenell is a great example. He doesn't have experience that's truly relevant to this post that he's been put in. What he has is a lot of face time on "Fox News." And what he has is a history of tweeting and speaking in support of the President.

And so it is not just that he's just going to have yes-people around him, he's not going to have the kind of expertise and the kind of deep knowledge available to him that most Presidents had and you would hope a President would want.

BALDWIN: Thank you, Melanie. Thank you both very much.

ZANONA: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Tonight on "AC360" one of the men President just granted clemency to, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is speaking out.

So do not miss that interview, 8:00 tonight with Anderson. We will be right back.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: Well, Nevada caucuses tomorrow, special coverage on CNN starts tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. Eastern for this critical early contest. And once the results are in there, the campaign moves to South Carolina, and this is why CNN is hosting this series of Presidential Town Halls ahead of the primary live from Charleston. It all starts Monday night at 8:00 Eastern with Mike Bloomberg. This will be the first televised Town Hall with him since his debate debut this past week which as you saw, his rivals went after him over and over again.

I'm Brooke Baldwin, thank you so much for being with me for the last two hours. We will see you back here Monday. Let's go to Washington now, "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts right now.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Trump loyalty rewards getting you more than a free continental breakfast these days. "THE LEAD" starts now.