Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

CNN Reality Check: All The Ex-President's Lawyer's Lies; Florida Town Considers Whether Trump Can Legally Live At Mar-a-Lago; Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA): "What We Do Here In This Moment Will Be Remembered." Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired February 15, 2021 - 07:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:32:48]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: The former president filling up the history books as he is acquitted in his second impeachment trial. His lawyers filling up the dishonesty scorecard.

John Avlon with a reality check.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Donald Trump was acquitted but he was not vindicated. This was the most bipartisan impeachment trial vote in American history. Seven Republicans voting to convict the ex-president for inciting an insurrection.

But the velocity of lies from Trump's lawyers was stunning even by recent standards. But to be fair, they didn't have a lot to work with. They only used 2 1/2 hours of the 16 they'd been allotted, and they spent fully one-quarter of it on video, mostly a whataboutism mashup designed to deflect on Democrats.

The remainder of their statements, though, required a boatload of fact-checks, from flat-out falsehoods --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL VAN DER VEEN, DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The entire premise of his remarks was that the democratic process would and should play out according to the letter of the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: -- to surreal whoopers, like saying Trump was the most anti- mob rule president this country has ever seen.

And there were a litany of easily disproven lies, like saying there was no evidence the 2016 election was hacked -- repetitions of Trump's false claims of fraud in Georgia. Saying that the rioters didn't attend Trump's rally speech, or claiming that the attack came from extremists of various different striped and political persuasions.

But perhaps the most egregious lie given in response to this direct question from Sens. Romney and Collins, and here was Michael Van Der Veen's response.

TEXT: "When President Trump sent the disparaging tweet at 2:24 p.m. regarding Pence, was he aware that the vice president had been removed by the Secret Service for his safety?"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN DER VEEN: The answer is no. At no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: It sounded pretty definitive, right, but it was false.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville told Trump that his V.P. had been taken out of the chamber right before Trump's tweet essentially calling Pence a coward, in addition to CNN reporting that Pence's national security adviser was with Trump and said the V.P. was in harm's way, to the shouting match between House GOP leader McCarthy and Trump reported by Jamie Gangel, which showed Trump callously disregarding the safety of Congress while it was under attack.

So, as Van Der Veen said on another subject --

[07:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN DER VEEN: This is not only intellectually dishonest -- folks, it's downright scary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: But we know that politicians are accountable only to voters, but what's the recourse for lawyers?

Well, as it turns out in Pennsylvania, where two of Trump's lawyers are members of the bar, there is a requirement that lawyers practice quote "candor towards the tribunal." It says, specifically, that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact, and penalties range from private reprimand to public censure, to suspension and even disbarment. Now, this is rare but so are impeachment trials.

Look, maybe it's no surprise that defending the big lie requires lots of smaller lies, but it's a mistake to take it all in stride. That just defines deviancy down.

As the Senate chaplain said at the start of the trial --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARRY BLACK, CHAPLAIN OF THE U.S. SENATE: Could it really be that simple? Could it really be just truth striving against falsehood?

(END VIDEO CLIP) AVLON: Yes, it really should be that simple.

And that's your reality check.

BERMAN: It really should be candor toward the tribunal, huh?

AVLON: That's it -- yes.

BERMAN: Panic in the disco.

(LAUGHTER)

BERMAN: Great name for a band there.

AVLON: Sure.

BERMAN: All right, John, appreciate it. Thank you.

So, former President Trump, for now, lives at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, but that could change. The legal fight over his residency, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:40:38]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: As attorneys for former President Donald Trump were defending him in his second impeachment trial, a different legal team was busy in Florida at a town council meeting where they were fighting for the former president's right to live at his Mar-a- Lago estate full-time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN MARIAN, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There's no reason in the world that this body should ever determine that former President Trump shouldn't reside at the club he owns. He's got a right to live there under all of those documents. And the zoning code says he has a right to live there as well.

This guy, as he wanders the property, is like the mayor of the town of Mar-a-Lago if you will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining me now to discuss is Doug (sic) Aronberg. He's the state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida. Good to have you with us this morning.

So we've been talking a fair amount about this, even leading into the president moving to Florida full-time. And one thing that came up, of course, was this agreement from 1993 that nobody could live there full-time and that the president would remain a member of the club.

Well, apparently, as of January 25th, he signed a document saying he's now an employee -- he's now the president -- and therefore, should be allowed to live on the property as an employee. How is that sitting at this point?

DAVE ARONBERG, STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA (via Cisco Webex): Well, it's not sitting well, Erica, with the neighbors because they believe that the 1993 agreement prohibits anyone from living on-premises. And back in 1993, Trump's own lawyer -- a different lawyer than today -- said to the town council that he would not be living there and that he would be a member. Like every other member, he can use the guest suites.

So somehow, that's been changed to today, where he is now an employee. So I guess you could say that he went from hosting "THE APPRENTICE" to being an apprentice.

And so that's going to be the big legal question moving forward. And I think the most interesting thing is that the town lawyer actually seemed to buy that argument. And so this thing could be headed to the courts.

HILL: Well, buys that argument because -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- employees actually can live on-site at a club.

ARONBERG: Right.

HILL: And so now that the president is an employee -- actually, he is sort of a host if we're talking about hosting because as I understand it, his duties as president are quote "saying that he will evaluate the performance of employees, and attend events held at the club and welcome and thank those who are attending."

ARONBERG: That's right, that's it. It's the definition of employee.

Now, the contract between Trump and the town of Palm Beach is, to me, pretty clear, but the lawyer for Donald Trump says that there is an ambiguity of whether he can live there. And so, therefore, you must look outside the agreement to the town zoning code, and the zoning code says that employees who work on-premises can live on-premises. That includes corporate officers.

But, you know, there's this slippery slope argument, too, that says that well, then, does the agreement mean anything then because doesn't anyone who can be labeled an employee then can live at Mar-a-Lago? It can essentially be a hotel because he can just make anyone who wants to stay there a temporary employee and now Katy bar the door.

HILL: So a couple of questions on that for you just to follow up.

In terms of an employee, right -- that zoning code that allows an employee to live on-site -- does that also employ -- apply, rather, to the employee's family. So I'm thinking of if the superintendent lives in the building, then their family may live with them. Does this, then, include the former first lady, Barron Trump?

ARONBERG: No. They would have to be designated as an employee as well, so it doesn't automatically apply to the family.

HILL: So a minor would have to be designated as an employee? ARONBERG: Well, according to the zoning code, it just says that employees can live on-premises. So it would be up to the lawyers to have to say well, the employee has a family and then they could there too. But this keeps getting to be stretched.

Now, to me, I think the most problematic side of the argument is that you have a contract in place and the contract says only members can live on-premises, and that's temporarily.

HILL: Yes.

ARONBERG: You can't stay more than 21 nights. So to get to where the employees can do it you have to look outside the four corners of the contract.

HILL: Well --

ARONBERG: While at the same time, Trump's own lawyer back in --

HILL: Shoot, I think we lost that connection.

But it is fascinating to look at, right? There is the question between this existing contract -- whether you can look out of the contract.

[07:45:00]

I think -- are you back with us? No, froze again.

But these are all the questions that will come up. Also, how does the president prove that he's an employee?

Oh, you're back. So, a couple of questions for you. Just to follow up real quickly, too, because I don't want to lose you again.

Are there requirements in terms of how the president would prove he's an employee? Does he have to submit a pay stub?

ARONBERG: Well, it's (audio gap) if that would suffice. But it looks like the town lawyer --

HILL: Yes.

ARONBERG: -- is going to accept him as an employee by the fact that (audio gap) evidence in April to determine whether he's a bona fide employee by the fact that he (audio gap) care of Mar-a-Lago (audio gap) --

HILL: You know, I think technology wants a day off today, too. Technology has learned that this is apparently a federal holiday and is therefore not available for us, and this happens sometimes.

But listen, it's fascinating. And, John, there's so many things that are now being taken into account in terms of how this will play out. And some of the opposition there, right -- some of it is likely political and partisan. Some of it is I just want things to be quieter in my town. What is going to happen if people are here full-time? Not the last we've heard of this one.

BERMAN: I've been to Palm Beach and I applied to law school, so I was ready to jump in there at any point and answer the questions.

HILL: Wow.

BERMAN: I was eager. It was my chance.

HILL: You know, I helped my husband study for the -- for the LSAT --

BERMAN: You're married to a lawyer, yes.

HILL: -- and then I realized I would never pass it. So it's a good thing Dave was doing that.

BERMAN: I think the big issue is, you know, is there an appetite to take this fight to the next level or stay by the letter of the law. It will be very interesting to see.

HILL: Right.

BERMAN: All right.

HILL: I'm going to call you for my legal question next time, John Berman.

BERMAN: Good luck.

HILL: Calls are growing for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol insurrection. We're going to ask a House impeachment manager about that, next.

BERMAN: I was ready.

HILL: I know you were.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:50:54]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA), HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: Senators, we are in a dialogue with history. A conversation with our past with a hope for our future.

Two hundred thirty-four years from now it may be that no one person here among us is remembered. And yet, what we do here -- what is being asked of each of us here in this moment will be remembered. History has found us. I ask that you not look the other way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: That was House impeachment manager, Madeleine Dean. She is also the author of a new book out tomorrow called "Under Our Roof: A Son's Battle for Recovery, A Mother's Battle for Her Son."

And, Congresswoman Madeleine Dean joins us now. Thanks so much for being with us. I really appreciate you taking the time.

We just heard you in your closing arguments at the impeachment trial and you basically said history will remember us. So, 234 years from now -- you laid down a marker -- what will history say? Donald Trump got off, so what's history going to say about it?

DEAN (via Skype): I hope that history will record that a majority of the Senate, 57 senators, stood and issued their verdict of guilty of this president of high crimes and misdemeanors. It did not meet the constitutional threshold of two-thirds but it was the most bipartisan impeachment in history.

I think history will record the shame and the disgraceful nature of this presidency and certainly, that he was impeached twice.

BERMAN: One of the things you sat through was listening to Mitch McConnell afterwards, basically call the former president's actions a dereliction of duty. Yet, he voted to acquit. So how would you assess his level of political courageous there?

DEAN: Well, it's quite low. And I have to tell you John that is a searing moment for me. I stood in the chamber after the closing arguments as they voted and each senator literally stands and says his or her verdict.

So we watched as Mitch McConnell stood and said not guilty. And then within minutes, he stood in that same place and said there is no question that Trump is practically and morally responsible, and he called the president's actions a disgraceful -- disgraceful dereliction of duty. I think history will record that Mitch McConnell is guilty of a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.

BERMAN: How did that hit you personally? I was interested in you describing being there and seeing it. I know -- you know, it's hard to believe there are surprises anymore in this day and age, but how surprised were you?

DEAN: I was not surprised. I think I was pleasantly surprised that we got to 57. We certainly argued the case and put forward all the damning evidence that we possibly could that was factual that showed the egregious behavior of a president inciting insurrection and then his inaction afterwards, not even sending to find out how his vice president or a co-equal branch of government was.

So on the one hand, went for conviction. We wanted 67 votes. Unfortunately, we did not have 67 senators of conscience. We needed 10 more. We simply didn't get them.

BERMAN: Explain to us what you got -- what the managers got by winning a vote on the ability to call witnesses -- and it would have been Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler. What did you get about winning that vote to call witnesses but then actually not doing so? I mean, the statement was out there. Everyone knew the statement that

she said, so reading it into the record? Why would that be sufficient?

DEAN: Well, what happened there -- and it was a success -- first of all, I give credit to the representative for coming forward and wanting to make that statement because the statement showed the president's state of mind when he is on the phone with Rep. McCarthy.

McCarthy saying what are you doing -- how are you going to help us? And the president's more interested in what's going on and the work of the insurrectionists on behalf of his big lie.

[07:55:14]

We got the other side, the president's counsel, to stipulate that was the president's state of mind and that statement was accurate. So that was the calling of witnesses.

It could have devolved into an attempt to get more witnesses. But you know that we're still waiting for Don McGahn. You remember the subpoena that we issued out of Judiciary more than a year ago. That would have just evolved into a subpoena fight and the calling of bogus witnesses.

What we did was we showed witness. Every senator in that room was a witness. The world witnessed an insurrection incited by the President of the United States.

BERMAN: You have been supportive of the idea of having a September 11th-style commission. So what questions would you like answered by that commission, at this point, investigating the attack on January sixth?

DEAN: Oh, I hope there is a very full investigation of this historically dark moment in our country's history.

I think -- I hope that many, many more heroes will come forward with evidence of what they know, of what the president was doing, what those who aided and abetted him were doing, and exactly the harm that was caused.

You saw the custodians had to clean up bloodstained floors, sweep up shards of glass and splintered wood. There are many heroes in this story -- people who took pride in their work and did their duty.

I'd like a full investigation so that we lift up the heroes and we also point out shameful behavior. Because if we don't -- if we don't learn from this we are destined to have it repeat itself.

BERMAN: So you're in the midst of an incredibly busy few weeks for you personally. Not only were you a House impeachment manager during this historic trial but you have a book coming out that you co-wrote with your son, Harry, that details your family's struggle with his opioid addiction.

And I want to read a passage from the book here and this gets to do with the moment you confronted him.

You say, quote, "I don't remember saying much more. 'You're stealing from us -- from daddy and me. It's got to be for drugs.' Harry's face looked broken, his big eyes darkened and filling with tears. For the first time in years, it seemed he had nothing to say.

He admitted that it was drugs -- Suboxone, he said. I didn't know what to believe, but I knew instinctively what to ask. It was the only question that mattered to me and to P.J. 'Are you ready to get help?'"

So talk to us about why you wrote this book and what you learned.

DEAN: Thank you for raising the book because I do think as important as impeachment and, of course, the work of Congress is, the crisis -- the opioid overdose and addiction crisis is so real in this country.

We wrote the book -- and you can imagine, we had no idea it would be released on the very week that we completed impeachment. We wrote the book because we hope that our story offers other hope. That maybe they will see in my stumbles and my struggles, in Harry's stumbles and his falling into deep, dark addiction that there's hope and recovery and that you can raise a hand and say please help me.

I think too often -- and I've learned through the writing of this book and really literally in conversations with Harry -- that addicts think there is no hope. That sometimes addiction steals so much of them. It steals their personality. It steals their feelings of right and wrong. It steals their sense of any sort of pride, of self-confidence.

They get robbed of all of those things and they don't think there's help available or that it will never work. There is hope and recovery.

Harry is now years into recovery -- I think eight. I should know the exact date, but it was October 30th of 2012 when we confronted him and he said yes to help. And he has been sober ever since and he's helped others in recovery. So there is hope and we have to do anything we can to remove the stigma around addiction.

BERMAN: I think any time anyone discusses it openly like this it does help. Is it ever fully out of your mind? You say you're eight years into recovery. Does it ever escape your thoughts?

DEAN: No. We do know that it is every day something that those who struggle with substance abuse disorder have to deal with. But it's -- as you could read in the book, it does lift. From Harry's explanation, it does lift -- the cravings. The need to use does begin to lift after a certain period of time.

But certainly, it's always in the back of our minds, it's always in our hearts. And I just keep praying for Harry and all who struggle with any kind of substance use disorder. But really, there is hope and recovery.

I can't wait for you to meet my son. He is healthy.