Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Michael Avenatti Facing Legal Trouble; North Korea Issues New Threat; Julian Assange Charged. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 11, 2019 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:02]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: OK, as they are, as they are, clearly.

John Allen, thank you so much in Rome for me this evening. Appreciate it.

Hour two. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

We begin with the president praising his attorney general for comments that have outraged Democrats. President Trump saying Bill Barr told it like it is when he testified that -- quote -- "Spying did occur on the Trump campaign."

Barr later clarified, saying he meant that he had concerns that improper surveillance may have happened. But that did not stop the president from saying this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think what he said was absolutely true. There was absolutely spying into my campaign. I will go a step further. In my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again.

And I think his answer was actually a very accurate one. And a lot of people saw that -- a lot of people understand, many, many people understand the situation and want to be open to that situation. Hard to believe it could have happened. But it did. There was spying in my campaign. And his answer was a very accurate one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: However, Democratic leaders are now questioning if the attorney general can be a good-faith arbiter of the Mueller report, which is expected to be released within a week in redacted form.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Barr was off the rails. And fired FBI Director James Comey said a short while ago he didn't know what Barr was talking about and that using the term spying is, his word, concerning.

Vicki Divoll served as assistant general counsel for the CIA. She was also general counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee. So, a pleasure to have you on. Welcome.

VICKI DIVOLL, FORMER ASSISTANT CIA GENERAL COUNSEL: Thank you for having me.

BALDWIN: What kind of damage do you think Mr. Barr had when he used the word spying?

DIVOLL: Well, the word spying -- I mean, he's the attorney general of the United States. It -- this is not a term that intelligence or law enforcement professionals use.

This is a James Bond kind of word. And it has no place in appropriate discussion of government functions. I don't know why he used it. I think both the right and the left are reacting to it. The right is embracing it. The left is concerned and thinks it is an alarmist term, a dog whistle, a Trumpian term.

I think intelligence professionals are just genuinely alarmed. My phone blew up after he said that.

BALDWIN: Did it?

DIVOLL: Oh, blew up.

BALDWIN: What are people telling you?

DIVOLL: Well, people are saying...

BALDWIN: That he never should have used the word?

DIVOLL: Absolutely shouldn't have used the word.

But there were a lot of other words he used he shouldn't have used. He used the word political. He used use the word unauthorized surveillance. He used the word -- there were so many words he used. It was a confusing mess of I don't know what. I don't know what he meant.

BALDWIN: What's -- if -- obviously, if he knows something that the rest of the world doesn't know, why would surveillance, for example, be improper?

DIVOLL: Well, I mean, there's surveillance and there's electronic surveillance. I don't think he used the word electronic.

Now, electronic surveillance, both in the criminal context and the intelligence context, is governed by judges. And so he didn't use that word. He used the term surveillance. And I think that means following people down the street.

And you don't require much of a showing to be allowed to follow people down the street.

BALDWIN: What about on the notion of investigating the investigators? We know that the I.G. is already looking into this. And so there's been all these questions, well, why would he double up on investigating? It's my understanding that the I.G. isn't capable of criminal charges. So what...

DIVOLL: Well, the I.G. doesn't make criminal charges, but the I.G. could determine that there may have been criminal conduct and then refer it for criminal -- movement by the Criminal Division to take steps.

BALDWIN: So would he be -- what he's asking to do or what he wants to do is superfluous?

DIVOLL: Well, again, it was -- we were flummoxed.

I mean, first of all, he didn't say anything bad happened. He said he thinks maybe something bad happened and he's concerned. Well, I'm sorry he's worried, but the fact of the matter is, if he's worried, he should go back. He is the attorney general. He can satisfy his worries internally.

He should not be going on national TV in front of a congressional hearing and speculating and worrying aloud. It's just so inappropriate and dangerous, to be perfectly honest. I mean, this is a man who has said that he's so worried about 6(e) grand jury secrecy material getting out because it's investigative and it doesn't prove anything, and it can harm people.

Well, this isn't even investigative. He's just speculating about something that may or may not happen, hearkening back to the Vietnam era. I don't even know what that means. I don't know what it means.

One more point. The attorney general guidelines, which is where these predicates and other things exist, have changed a lot. He hasn't been in the Justice Department since a decade before 9/11. They changed. And I don't even think that's the standard anymore.

[15:05:04]

BALDWIN: Wow.

DIVOLL: Yes.

BALDWIN: Vicki Divoll, thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

DIVOLL: You're welcome.

BALDWIN: Thank you very much.

DIVOLL: You're welcome.

BALDWIN: Speaking of the Justice Department, we have got some breaking news out of the DOJ.

President Obama's former White House counsel has been indicted today.

Evan Perez is our senior justice correspondent with the details here.

And so, Evan, tell me more.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brooke, this is Greg Craig, who, as you mentioned, served as the White House counsel under -- under President Obama.

And this is a case that began under the Mueller investigation. This was part of the special counsel investigation, and it began looking into some of his activities that he was doing representing the former regime in Ukraine.

According to the indictment that was returned today, Greg Craig lied when he met with the Justice Department's FARA unit. This is the unit at the National Security Division that enforces the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And at the time he was doing this work for Ukraine in 2013, according to the prosecutors, he misled them.

He provided false information to those -- to those officials and the lawyers at the Justice Department. Again, this is a case that began under the Mueller investigation. It's taken an unusual route back here because it first was referred to the Southern District of New York, where prosecutors there examined it, spent some time, some months investigating this, Brooke, before deciding that they didn't want to bring the case.

It was returned back to the Washington U.S. attorney's office, and that's where the indictment was finally returned. So we expect that Greg Craig is probably going to be in court tomorrow, at the earliest. Again, he's fighting these charges. He has been -- his lawyers met with the Justice Department in recent weeks, trying to see if there was a way to resolve this without bringing these charges.

But, absolutely, he decided that he was not going to plead guilty to a criminal charge. And so that's where -- that's why these charges were finally brought today, Brooke.

BALDWIN: So let me just get this straight, that the so-called Mueller witch-hunt involving the -- quote -- "13 angry Democrats"...

PEREZ: Right.

BALDWIN: ... just took down Obama's White House counsel? I mean, doesn't this undermine the president's claim?

PEREZ: Yes, I mean, I think that it does.

And I think that's one of the things you're going to hear from Greg Craig, whenever he gets to speak, is that he's going to try to say that, essentially, the Justice Department was looking for a Democrat to prosecute as a way to sort of defend itself from the attacks from the president, that the president has been claiming that this entire investigation was predicated against Republicans, that they were a bunch of angry Democrats going after him as a Republican. And here you have, as you said, somebody who's a Democrat, lifelong

Democrat, who worked for the Obama presidency, and now he's facing these charges.

BALDWIN: Evan Perez, thank you, Evan.

PEREZ: Sure.

BALDWIN: President Trump also today weighing in on Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder whose seven-years day at that Ecuadorian Embassy in London just came to this abrupt end, after British police forcibly removed him this morning, partly at the request of the United States.

And then hours later, the Justice Department announced an indictment against him. So Assange now faces one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. This is all relating back to that 2010 pact that he made with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

Officials say Assange agreed to help Manning crack a password on Defense Department computers in order to get access to classified documents. The Justice Department calls it -- quote -- "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States."

But all along, Assange and his colleagues have maintained their work was all about the pursuit of truth and journalism, a claim his attorney doubled down on today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER ROBINSON, ATTORNEY FOR JULIAN ASSANGE: This sets of dangerous precedent for all media organizations and journalists in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

This precedent means that any journalist can be extradited for prosecution in the United States for having published truthful information about the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: And President Trump weighed in on this just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you still love WikiLeaks?

TRUMP: I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing. And I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange. I have been saying what has happened with Assange. And that will be a determination, I would imagine, mostly by the attorney general, who's doing an excellent job.

So he will be making a determination. I know nothing really about them. It's not my -- it's not my deal in life.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BALDWIN: President Trump knows nothing about WikiLeaks? It's not his thing? He doesn't have an opinion?

Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This just came out. WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.

This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable.

[15:10:00]

Another one came in today. This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.

Getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks. And I wanted to stay there. But I didn't want to keep you waiting. Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Bradley Moss is the deputy executive director of The James Madison Project. He's also a private national security lawyer who's represented many within the intelligence community, including whistle- blowers.

So, Bradley, thank you so much for joining me today.

And let's just start with your reaction to today's charges.

BRADLEY P. MOSS, THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT: Sure.

Well, this has been nine years in the making, ever since the original leaks came out, ever since we first heard the name Bradley, ultimately Chelsea, Manning and the name of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

And what was always the question, we always were wondering, was, was there any potential charge, any potential criminal liability for Julian Assange, beyond the Espionage Act, beyond the mere receipt and publication of the classified materials that Chelsea Manning had leaked to him?

And today we got that answer. The government finally believes it has enough evidence, enough to convict him at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, that he conspired with Chelsea Manning to hack into government systems and gain access for her beyond what she already had.

BALDWIN: You wrote last fall, Bradley -- quote -- "The First Amendment and its protections of a free press are more important than punishing Assange."

But given that the indictment states Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense computers, I'm curious if you still feel that way.

MOSS: Well, I will stand by the original piece. And if you -- if people look through it -- it was a great piece written in "The Atlantic" last November -- I added caveats that the First Amendment should be protected.

And I wasn't willing to throw it out if the indictment, if the charges were merely for the receipt and publication of the materials in and of itself, because if that was the basis for the charge, that could be used to go against CNN, to go against "The New York Times," Breitbart, whoever, regardless of political views.

But the charges here -- and I noted this in the op-ed -- if they were forced something such as conspiracy to hack, that was different. That takes it outside the range, outside the scope of what journalists are trained to do. Journalists are trained not to pay sources, not to help sources hack into systems.

That is not something that is protected as a journalistic endeavor.

BALDWIN: No, hacking the systems, try to cover it up.

What about the fact that WikiLeaks was really thought to be one of the centerpieces of this whole Mueller investigation? So why do you think the special counsel didn't go after Julian Assange?

MOSS: My speculation -- and, obviously, I know nothing more than what I have seen in the media reports -- is that he didn't have enough to demonstrate any type of conspiracy beyond what we have already seen in the Roger Stone indictment.

We know that Roger Stone was trying to coordinate with WikiLeaks, that there was a belief in the Trump campaign that Roger Stone had a -- had a link, had behind-the-scenes knowledge from WikiLeaks.

But a lot of it appeared to be just bloviating by Mr. Stone. He was kind of, you know, just spewing out B.S. to, you know, make himself look more important. And I have to assume that Mr. Mueller didn't have anything to demonstrate there was more to it than that.

BALDWIN: We know that Assange faces this May 2 extradition hearing. How does that go down?

MOSS: Sure.

So, the U.S. government's going to submit a packet to the British authorities, if they haven't already done so. It's going to outline the basis for extradition, the nature of the offense that's outlined already in the unsealed indictment, assurances that there won't be any issue of the death penalty, probably, anything along those lines, trying to preemptively address any mental health concerns that I'm sure Julian Assange is going to raise or medical concerns of why he shouldn't be extradited, any political persecution issues, all those things that they almost certainly know Julian Assange is going to raise in an attempt to prevent extradition, which I assume will fail.

BALDWIN: Bradley Moss, good to have you on. Thank you.

MOSS: Any time. BALDWIN: Coming up next: North Korea issuing a new threat, just as

President Trump sits down in the Oval Office with leader of South Korea. What President Trump just said about the prospect of a third summit with Kim Jong-un.

And Michael Avenatti, the attorney who made his name going after President Trump, now facing 36 charges of his own, from everything from wire fraud to embezzlement.

And, later, the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase stumped by a California lawmaker, this woman, who grilled him about the starting salary for his employees. That freshman Democrat, Katie Porter, joins me live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:34]

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

Today, President Trump holding a high-stakes Oval Office meeting with his counterpart in South Korea, Moon Jae-in, the two leaders meeting face to face for the first time since February's failed U.S. summit with North Korea.

And it comes as Kim Jong-un unleashes this fresh threat to use his nuclear weapons. Still, President Trump says he's open to a third summit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I enjoy the summits. I enjoy being with the chairman. I think it's been very productive. And it really is. It's a step by step. It's not going to go fast. I have been telling you that for a long time. If it goes fast, it's not going to be the proper deal.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) summit with the leaders of the...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Well, that could happen also. I think that would be largely dependent on Chairman Kim.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Jean Lee is the director of the Center for Korean History and Public Policy at the Woodrow Wilson Center. She was also the very first Associated Press bureau chief based in Pyongyang, North Korea.

So, Jean, nice to have you back.

Let me begin with the president's words. He says -- quote -- "It's up to Kim," up to Kim.

Is it odd that he's ceding that decision to North Korea?

JEAN LEE, WOODROW WILSON CENTER: What he's saying is that he wants Kim Jong-un to make that decision to give up more of his nuclear program if he wants this process to move forward.

And we don't know the exact details of what happened in Hanoi and why it is that the president walked away, but I do think that he will was incredibly disappointed, incredibly frustrated that Kim Jong-un was as tough as he was and as stubborn as he was on that nuclear -- on his nuclear program.

[15:20:15]

BALDWIN: Why would -- why do you think that Kim would have, after these massive summits in Singapore and then Hanoi, after this perceived bromance, choose to go back to this fiery rhetoric?

What's he playing at?

LEE: The North Koreans use this rhetoric to make us nervous.

What they want to do is to create a sense of tension and try to speed up the process. Now, even though it may seem like he's giving the United States and South Korea the cold shoulder, I think he's fairly anxious to get these talks back on track.

Now, there's something very interesting. North Korea was scheduled to hold a parliamentary session on April 11, so earlier today. They moved that up by a day. And I do think that part of that was so that they could send a little bit of a signal to the U.S. president and the South Korean president, knowing that they were going to sit down for this summit, and hope that actually, even though their words are tough, that, at the end of this summit, at this summit in D.C., that it would result in perhaps getting these talks back on track.

As contradictory as that may seem from their language, that's what they want.

BALDWIN: It does seem contradictory. It does. It's like, I'm going to be mean to you, but I really want to talk to you.

There are parallels I could think of that have nothing to do with foreign policy on this one.

(LAUGHTER)

BALDWIN: But,seriously, I mean, if you want the talks back on track, where would talks go from here?

LEE: So, we don't know what happened in the meeting today.

President Moon made this lightning-fast trip, less than 24 hours. We did see some footage of him leaving the White House. Not sure how productive it was.

But if it did go well, it's possible that he has proposed serving as a wingman or perhaps...

(LAUGHTER)

LEE: And to suggest that he meet with Kim Jong-un and relay what the options are here and try to get those talks back on track.

So I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. I don't have the inside scoop on that.

BALDWIN: Sure. Sure.

LEE: But that's quite possible that that will be the next step.

BALDWIN: Always appreciate your analysis. Jean Lee, thank you so much. Good to have you back.

LEE: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Still ahead here on CNN, the son of a sheriff's deputy has been arrested in Louisiana and charged with burning those three black churches in the same parish. So we will get reaction from one of the pastors.

But, first, the attorney who represented Stormy Daniels is now facing massive legal troubles of his own, an indictment coming down today against Michael Avenatti for allegedly stealing millions from his clients.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:12]

BALDWIN: More legal troubles today for high-profile lawyer Michael Avenatti.

Federal prosecutors announced this 36-count indictment, accusing Avenatti of tax and bank fraud and a long list of other crimes. They say he kept tens of millions of dollars for himself that were intended for his clients.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN KORNER, ACTING IRS SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: Michael Avenatti allegedly stole from his clients and he stole from the IRS.

The money was used to fuel a lavish lifestyle that had no limits, including making mortgage payments on a multimillion-dollar home in Laguna Beach and purchasing a private plane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Sara Sidner on this one for us today.

And, Sara, I mean, the details in these indictments are shocking.

SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They really are.

There's a 61-page indictment. And it goes through the details, some of it very intricate, because it involves what prosecutors say is bank fraud, wire fraud. But there is certainly a human face to some of the people involved in this case who prosecutors say are victims of attorney Michael Avenatti.

There is one in particular that got everybody's attention. It is a man who was a paraplegic, that he had sued the county of Los Angeles. He became a paraplegic. He went through all kinds of emotional distress. And he got a $4 million settlement.

But, according to prosecutors, Michael Avenatti took that money, put it in a trust account, as attorneys are supposed to do, but then drained that account for his own personal use. Here is what the prosecutors, the U.S. attorney of Central District of California, had to say about that particular case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICK HANNA, U.S. ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: As it turns out, within months after receiving the settlement proceeds in early 2015, Mr. Avenatti had drained the entire $4 million payment from his trust account, using significant portions of these funds to finance his coffee business, his auto racing enterprise, and his own personal lifestyle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: So you hear their what the prosecutor is saying about that one case. There are several others, in the millions of dollars.

Michael Avenatti has responded. As you might imagine, he responded on Twitter. Here's what he said about that particular case, zoning in and honing in on that case: "Any claim that any monies due clients were mishandled is bogus nonsense. By way of example only -- there are many more like this -- here's a document Mr. Johnson signed less than a month ago attesting to my ethics and how this case was handled."

And he includes a document there that has the signature of the client who was a paraplegic who won that $4 million settlement.

Well, I just got off the phone with that client's new attorney. Mr. Johnson's new attorney says, well, actually Michael should have read through the indictment, because that piece of paper is also part of this case.

[15:30:00]