Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

America's Poisonous Politicized Path; 2016 Race October Surprises; Ryan Votes Trump. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired November 01, 2016 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:33:52] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Some Hillary Clinton supporters say their candidate is the victim of a witch hunt. From the Clinton Foundation, to Benghazi, to her e-mails, they say that Clinton's opponents will try any reason to take her down. And they're using the legal system, they say, to try to do it. Our own Fareed Zakaria said that may not be so far off, but it is an issue on both sides of the aisle. And Fareed joins us now.

Good morning, Fareed.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST, "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS": A pleasure.

CAMEROTA: So, what do you mean that politics has begun criminalizing bad behavior?

ZAKARIA: Well, if you think about the way most people from outside America think when they come to America, the thing they notice is, Americans are constantly suing each other. In other words, anytime anything goes wrong in America, everybody sues everybody. So we have - we use the legal system as a way to adjudicate disputes.

This has now infected the political system. Ever since Watergate, which was a legitimate high crime and misdemeanor, what has happened is both parties, the minute anything goes wrong, the minute you have a big disagreement, you search for something that you can attribute criminality to rather than adjudicating it politically.

[08:35:02] CAMEROTA: But isn't this exactly what - I mean the root of this, isn't this why voters feel so frustrated because they think that politicians exercise all this bad behavior, sometimes even illegal behavior, but they don't have to pay the way regular people, you and I, would have to pay and so they want there to be some sort of level playing field for politicians?

ZAKARIA: No, I actually think it's exactly why most people think of politics as such a dirty, sordid business, because - because this feeling about politics has only existed, really, in the last 30 or 40 years. And what has happened in the last 30 or 40 years? Every time, you know, there is some kind of policy deadlock, each side tries in some way or the other to lock the other person out. Remember, during the Iran contra scandal over the Reagan administration, an independent council was appointed and he spent tens of millions of dollars trying to find criminality over what was really a policy dispute between the Democratic Congress and a Republican administration.

Flash forward to the Clinton years when this, of course, exploded and Ken Starr spent, God knows $100 million trying to find something and could never - you know, if you - what people forget, Clinton was impeached for something totally unrelated to the actual investigation, which was Whitewater, about which no charges were ever filed. Democrats wanted to try George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.

My point is, these are political debates. They should be - you know, you could - the FBI could investigate a thousand crimes every hour. It chooses to do some. Let politicians handle political debates politically. If you don't like something that Hillary Clinton has done, don't vote for her. But the idea that everything becomes criminal is a unique feature of American democracy. It doesn't happen in other advanced democracies. We don't spend our time trying to throw the other side into jail.

CAMEROTA: But, you know, let's use a real-life example, and that is that people says, if - if you had sensitive information on your e-mail that you weren't supposed to be - that you were supposed to be using the State Department's server and e-mail and not your own, you would go to jail, they say.

ZAKARIA: Well, first of all, they're wrong, in that you need to be able to show that there was some criminal negligence. The Supreme Court has ruled about this. You need to show that there was some actual leaking, intentional leaking of information, neither of which exists in Clinton's case.

But, yes, I'm making a - look, I'm making a larger point. When there are clear, serious cases of the violation of laws, let the law take its course. But the FBI chooses what to investigate and to (INAUDIBLE). That's a thousand crimes a minute that they are not investigating. And to be badgered into investigating political crimes and politicians, what ends up happening is you turn America into a banana republic. We are constantly searching for ways in which to prove that the other party isn't just wrong, but criminal.

And, you know, if you look today - if you put that kind of lens on - on it, for example, a lot of things, frankly, Roosevelt did in the course of getting America into World War II were probably violations of the law. Abraham Lincoln, certainly, the things that were violations of the law. But these are political matters that should not be adjudicated by courts because what you do is you turn politics into a game where each side is trying to put the other one in jail, rather than simply having the voters kick the bums out. That's a much better, it's a more healthy system.

CAMEROTA: I mean, and, of course, you've also heard from Donald Trump that he will try to put some of his opponents in jail. He said that he will sue people who have offended him, some of the women who have come forward with accusations, if he were to be elected president. So it sounds as if this is not going away anytime soon.

ZAKARIA: Well, if Donald Trump is around, I think that, you know, lots of people will go - go into jail because he seems to relish the idea of having that awesome police power of the state at his disposal.

CAMEROTA: Fareed Zakaria, great. Thank you for explaining it all to us. People can read it on cnn.com. Thanks so much for being here.

ZAKARIA: A pleasure.

CAMEROTA: Let's get over to Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right, just crossing the Internet, Paul Ryan says that he voted for Donald Trump in early voting last week. What will that mean to the election? We're going to discuss that coming up.

But let's get some historical perspective about what this election means, especially what we just heard out of the FBI. This newest October surprise. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: This is the biggest scandal since Watergate. Hillary Clinton wants to blame everyone else for her mounting legal troubles, but she has brought this situation onto herself. She's got nobody to blame but herself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That's interesting. That's exactly what Trump's critics say about all the litigation that he's facing. But let's get to the matter at hand. He says this is the worst scandal since Watergate. Let's get some perspective on what this means. We've got smart people who know history for you. CNN presidential historian and history professor at Rice University, Douglas Brinkley, and senior editor for "The Atlantic," David Frum, who's got a very interesting facial growth today.

[08:40:09] Mr. Frum, we start with you.

This notion of the October surprise is out the window. And they happen every week. But what happens with the e-mail, with Comey coming out, with no e-mail proof underneath it but this suggestion, ten days from an election, how big?

DAVID FRUM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Smallish. Look, the - at the core of these e-mail allegations is the charge that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information. That happens a lot in Washington. People sometimes lose their security clearances for it. Sometimes they have to resign their jobs. On rare occasions, when they act with malice and intention, they face criminal charges. But most of the time, resignation is the penalty.

It's important if there is classified information. It is not equal to the allegation that a foreign power is attempting to manipulate an American election. That has not happened since the 1790s, when revolutionary France tried to sway the United States into war on its side.

CUOMO: All right, good pivot. Point for you, Frum.

So, professor, what David's saying is, all right, if we want to talk about it holistically, what's going on with the e-mails, let's focus on the hacking. That's the part that may be of historic proportions, Russia's involvement in destabilizing an election to great effect. What do you say?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I agree with that. I think historians are going to look back at that being a key part of 2016. The very thought that Russia is trying to interfere with our elections, I mean, cybersecurity is the most - single most important foreign policy objective of the United States. Now, how do we stop this from happening? I mean if we can hack into people like John Podesta, they can hack into just about anybody.

I also wanted to say, I think we've got to stop the word "October surprise," because it seems to me right now what we're going through are just bombshell after bombshell in October. "Surprise" sounds something quant, you know, like from the 1980s. But we're now hitting these Octobers where every day, or every week at least, somebody is coming out with something unbelievably inflammatory, whether it's "Access Hollywood" tapes or the Comey affair. It's brutal out there right now.

CUOMO: Well, it's true. Sounds better when you said it, but I was making the same point when we started this segment. And Trump, unwittingly, in saying this is the worst scandal since Watergate, he's right, but not because of Hillary Clinton, it's because of what you're talking about. That was a felony, what happened with Nixon and his associates at that time. This is a felony that happened with the hacking.

Now, when you look at what the professor just said, David, let's forget October Surprise, they happen too often. October 1st, you had "The Times" with his 95 - Trump's '95 tax return that just leaked out a little bit of what he's been trying to hide from people and continues to do. Then the 7th, WikiLeaks has the treasure-trove on Clinton being paid for Wall Street speeches. The 8th, the release of recording of Trump and that "Access Hollywood" ugliness. The 28th, then, of course, is the Comey bomb coming out. When you look at these, which matters? Do any matter? Do any matter because can anybody's mind be changed?

FRUM: Well, they matter in this way. They matter in that Democratic - the Democratic constituencies often include a large number of people who are thinly motivated to vote. And Dems - it's no secret, Democrats draw more strength from the less-affluent, the less-educated, people less committed to the political process. If they get the idea, ah, everybody's equally bad, they're likely to stay home and that hurts Democrats disproportionately.

But notice that list of bombshells. Those are not equivalent bombshells. That the news of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, I would certainly feel bitter if I'd paid $350,000 and that's what I got. And, likewise, these Comey revelations, these are not big reveals. Meanwhile, the discovery that a nominee for president bragged about how he liked to grab women, or the revelation that he hopes to profit from a hostile foreign power's manipulation of a U.S. election, you know, one are little firecrackers that you set off at, you know, a tech (ph) ceremony. The other, these are real blockbusters that bring down city blocks.

CUOMO: How will the history books be written on this, professor, in terms of how people make sense of how Donald Trump said so many outrageous things, offended so many, had so much come out about him that would be disqualifying for anybody else, and yet survived, if not won the election?

BRINKLEY: Well, it was so of - he was cast as a P.T. Barnum figure and everybody kind of enjoys that, the great showman. And Hillary Clinton is kind of Joan of Arc of America. And it became, I think, a reality TV show on. It's one that went haywire. It's like Frankenstein's story. It became a monster and now we're all living with it. And there's a dark cloud hanging over the land and Donald Trump saying that the election is going to be rigged and Hillary Clinton is attacking the FBI and everybody wants the election to end. And it went on for over two years. So we've got to kind of reassess what we're doing with these presidential elections. They're supposed to be an enhancement of our democracy. Instead, I think 2016 has seemed to dehabilitate all that's best in the American spirit.

[08:45:21] FRUM: (INAUDIBLE) slice of that. How did we come to this point? We came because some of the most important issues in American life, immigration, the effect of trade on those who are not globally competitive, had been left for - to the margins of society because as much as Democrats and Republicans disagree, on those issues that were so important to so many people, we had an elite consensus that they were not to be discussed. Gang of Eight, everybody agreed on immigration. NAFTA and TPP, everybody agreed on that. They were - those important issues were left for irresponsible actors, when they should have been dealt with by responsible actors. And if we have another immigration consensus after this election, it will be even worse.

CUOMO: Gentleman, thank you very much. Appreciate the perspective.

Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, Chris.

House Speaker Paul Ryan announcing moments ago that he has cast his vote for president. We'll tell you who it was and we'll talk about it in "The Bottom Line," next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:50:08] CUOMO: All right, House Speaker Paul Ryan just announcing this morning he has already cast his vote. Take a listen.

CAMEROTA: Coy.

CUOMO: Wait for it!

CAMEROTA: Playing coy, is he?

CUOMO: Wait for it. Rapt attention we wait for it. There it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I supported all fall and all summer. In fact, I already voted here in Janesville for our nominee last week in early voting. We need to support our entire Republican ticket.

Here's the other thing I'd say. For those of us who lived through the 1990s, Steve, it's sort of a feeling of deja vu. And the point I keep trying to make to younger voters who did not live through the 1990s, this is what life with the Clintons look like. It's always a scandal, one after another, then there's an investigation. And what happens, Steve, is you never know what's coming next. They live beyond the rules. And they live to work the system, to help themselves, to help Clinton incorporated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Yes. And, oh, yes, I'm a Republican and speaker of the House. Who was he going to vote for?

Let's bring in CNN political editor David Chalian joining us now with "The Bottom Line."

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: Chris, did you notice that the name he said in that whole clip was Clinton. He said it twice. The name he did not say was Trump.

CUOMO: It was Trump.

CHALIAN: He called him our nominee. I think Paul Ryan is quite clear there that he is not embracing Donald Trump in any way, he's casting his vote for whoever had the "r" after their name on the ballot. And this has been his struggle throughout this entire time. In fact, I think we've seen this struggle in the establishment sort of wing of the party because look at John Kasich, the Ohio governor. We learned yesterday he wrote in John McCain's name on his ballot. There was a divide about how to handle the Trump candidacy because nobody seemed very eager to embrace it fully.

CAMEROTA: Well, Speaker Ryan has obviously had his public disputes with Trump. And if you take him at his word for why he didn't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, beyond that she's a Democrat and he's a Republican, lives beyond the rules, one surprise after another. Are those the things that he thinks he's going to be getting rid of with Donald Trump?

CHALIAN: That's a good question, Alisyn. But I think it makes the point that there is a real significant anti-Hillary Clinton vote out there for Donald Trump to win over when he is not in the center of controversy, right? This is why it's better for the Trump campaign when Hillary Clinton is the focus of the news and the chatter and the controversy. And so somebody like Paul Ryan, and I think a lot of people in the Republican Party who think like Paul Ryan or consider themselves a Paul Ryan type of Republican, are very open to that argument about not wanting a Clinton in the White House.

CUOMO: Right. And, look, he's got to do business as speaker of the House, whether or not Trump wins. Now, John Kasich had a different calculation, the governor of Ohio right now. We all remember him from the primaries. He wrote in John McCain. What's the calculus there?

CHALIAN: Listen, the calculus there is, first of all, John Kasich's looking at his future and still assessing what he wants to do beyond this election cycle. But he has made it quite clear for quite some time now, Chris, that he wasn't going to vote for Trump. He didn't show up at his convention in his home state. This popular Republican governor in Ohio is now saying that he didn't vote for the Republican nominee. I don't think that that will change votes at this late date. Anybody in Ohio knows where John Kasich stood. But in case Trump loses and in case John Kasich wants to be part of redefining what the Republican Party is, in more of his image, he wants to be able to say, I didn't support Donald Trump.

CAMEROTA: Is it bad form to vote for yourself? Kasich could have done that. He ran for president. Does that -

CUOMO: Well, you could write in anybody. Ana Navarro is writing in his mom.

CAMEROTA: I know. I know that. So, I guess he likes John McCain better than what he was offering.

But meanwhile, David, give us the bottom line on where we are with Director Comey having come forward to say, we're going to be looking into this. We don't know if there's anything relevant on Huma Abedin's husband's laptop. Because Robby Mook was on our show, and he said that it's obviously a big breach of protocol. So where are we today with all of this?

CHALIAN: Here's where we are, and I think you heard this from Robby on your show as well. But I think there's a concern in the Clinton campaign about dampening enthusiasm among some of their softer supporters. Moderates that were coming their way, maybe some even Republicans, Democrats who weren't totally enthused with Hillary Clinton. They're concerned about dampening enthusiasm there with this story, which is why I think you're going to see the Clinton campaign aggressively try to change the subject, such as our Jeff Zeleny is reporting now, that Alicia Machado is back in the news today because Hillary Clinton's going to have her introduce her in Florida, the former Miss Universe.

CAMEROTA: Hmm, that will be interesting.

CUOMO: Appreciate it, brother Chalian.

CAMEROTA: Thank you.

CHALIAN: Take care, guys.

CAMEROTA: You too.

Well, Monique Luiz was a little girl when she starred in this shocking ad for Lyndon Johnson's re-election campaign on the dangers of nuclear war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MONIQUE LUIZ: Eight, nine.

[08:55:02] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God's children can live.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Who would have imagined that 52 years later, she would be in another ad, this time for Hillary Clinton. Watch this one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MONIQUE LUIZ: This was me in 1964. The fear of nuclear war that we had as children, I ever thought our children would ever have to deal with that again. And to see that coming forward in this election is really scary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trump asked three times -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three times, why can't we use nuclear weapons?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right, joining us now, the man behind the original 1964 ad for Lyndon Johnson, and partner for Senior Creative People, Sid Myers.

Hi, Sid.

SID MYERS, ART DIRECTOR FOR LBJ 1964 CAMPAIGN ADS: Hi. Good to see you guys again.

CAMEROTA: Good to see you again.

What do you think of your ad being reprised 52 years later?

MYERS: Well, I'm kind of proud that they think that it was worthwhile. It's so pertinent now today, as it was 50 years ago. You know, it's the same problem. There's -

CUOMO: Well, how so? How do you think it manifests today? "The Daisy Ad" is how it was referred to in '64, was particularly resonant because it was the invocation to the nuclear age and that this is a possibility. How do you think it resonates today?

MYERS: It resonates today because the same problem exists. The threat of nuclear annihilation is with us. With Bush - not Bush - Trump trying to say that he wants to give the rights to the nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, to Japan. It's just - it's just - it's just a nightmare. And it will - it will, you know, and he says he wants to bring jobs back to the United States. You can't bring jobs back to the United States if the United States is in ashes.

CAMEROTA: You know what - but you know what's interesting, Sid, is that this is not - I mean nuclear war is not on the top of what voters say are their biggest concerns. They think about the economy, they think about jobs, and they think about terrorism. I mean terrorism might be today's version of sort of the apocalyptic, scorched earth, nuclear war scenario. But do you think that hearing that same actress talk about how her fear is nuclear war will sort of be a wake-up call for people?

MYERS: Yes, it is a wake-up call because the - if ISIS gets a dirty bomb or a nuclear bomb, we're in a lot of trouble. We have to - we have to put laws into place and structures into place to keep this - keep this down because it would be a nightmare if it gets loose.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

CUOMO: Let me ask you something. As a veteran of the messaging game in elections, what do you think about the messaging so far from both campaigns? Who do you think's done a better job?

MYERS: Well, you know, the original ads that we did in 1964 were the first time that those kinds of ads were made. Before that, the ads for presidents were jingles, like "I like Ike" and "vote for Kennedy, he's the best guy for you" and they never went into the depth of the issues of the time. And we did - and we did that for the first time in 1964. We took the issues of nuclear proliferation, the poverty, selling the TVA -

CAMEROTA: Yes.

MYERS: We did 20 - we did 23 different commercials just on all domestic issues.

CAMEROTA: Well, Sid, thanks so much for sharing your sort of process with us. One little known fact, that Daisy ad, so famous, only ran once. And that was it. But everybody knows it, because it was then talked about so much on the evening news and everywhere else.

Sid, thank you. Great to see you again.

CUOMO: The more important your words, the fewer you have to say.

Sid, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Time for "NEWSROOM" with Carol Costello.

See, very succinct.

CAMEROTA: What - are you, you think - you think?

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much. NEWSROOM STARTS NOW.

CUOMO: See that, I was so short, she didn't even know what to say.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

CUOMO: Out.

COSTELLO: Good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me.