Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Feds Put The Squeeze On Lori Loughlin In College Admissions Scam; U.K. Police: Julian Assange Arrested On Behalf Of U.S.; Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) Discusses Assange Arrest, Trump Campaign Spying, And Medicare For All. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 11, 2019 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:30] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Major new developments in the college admissions scandal. Investigators have levied an additional charge on actress Lori Loughlin, one of money laundering. This comes after more than a dozen parents, including actress Felicity Huffman, pleaded guilty in the scam.

Joining us now are CNN legal analysts Paul Callan and Joey Jackson.

It is fascinating. Felicity Huffman pleads guilty, right? At the same time, Lori Loughlin, we're told not even engaged in plea negotiations, so the Feds hit her with an additional charge, money laundering.

Why is she fighting, Joey?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: All right -- well, that might change. It's still early on.

And quite frankly, I thought Felicity Huffman made the right call, right?

Obviously, we're not exposed to all the evidence and information but what we do know, it seems to me that it's a pretty airtight case.

Remember this -- that these cases are about transactional documents, right? Money laundering charge -- the addition of that obviously raises the stakes and might lead to additional jail time.

And so the fact is in defending these issues either there's a transaction that was made or there's not. Either there were deposits that were made or there's not. Either there were fake applications that were submitted to schools or they're not.

And so, to the extent that -- and only she knows and only her lawyer knows in terms of the discovery and information that she may be guilty -- I think in the federal system acceptance of responsibility reduces your federal guidelines or substantial assistance, meaning when you help team America, it reduces it.

And I think if the evidence is true, it's wise for her to get out and get out now.

CAMEROTA: So, we're talking about Lori Loughlin because she's the face of this, much like Felicity Huffman, though there are other parents who are not famous, just wealthy.

So, Lori Loughlin and her husband are accused of paying half a million dollars to get their daughters into USC and depicting them as crew recruits, though they didn't do that for real.

So what is the money laundering contingent now -- charge of this?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER NEW YORK CITY HOMICIDE PROSECUTOR: Well, they're charging that money laundering is really disguising the use of money. In other words, usually, it's an organized crime figure illegally gets money or a drug dealer illegally gets money and he's got to wash the money so he could re-spend it on something else.

This is different money laundering though because this is presumably legitimately obtained money. They didn't get their money from drug dealing.

But they want to disguise the use of the money. They're pretending it's being used legitimately as a charitable contribution. In fact, it's being used to bribe their way or drive their child's way into college. So it's an interesting use of the money laundering statute.

BERMAN: Counselor Callan, I want to get you on this issue of Lori Loughlin and other of these defendants being pressed here to make a plea deal. People are saying why isn't she making the deal? She would get less jail time.

Do you think there's something a little bit fishy about this system here that if you decide to go to trial and exercise your constitutional rights you may end up with more jail time?

CALLAN: Well, John, having been a defense attorney and a prosecutor for many, many years, I've always been irritated by this idea that you can punish an American citizen for wanting to go to trial in a case -- for exercising the constitutional right to a jury trial.

Now, we prosecute people who violate the civil rights of other citizens in other contexts. If you get discriminated on the basis of race or religion or your ability to vote, you get prosecuted for that.

But prosecutors, on the other hand, deprive her of the right to go and have a jury trial in her case. That's why they're being tough on her because she has the audacity not to plead guilty.

CAMEROTA: But that said, if you were here attorney would you tell her to plead guilty from what you know now?

CALLAN: Well, I would tell her to plead guilty.

(LAUGHTER) CALLAN: But I would only tell her that because that's the way the system works. It's -- in a sense -- I hate to use the word "rigged system" but it is in the sense that everybody knows -- every attorney knows that if you don't get in the door early and get the deal for your client, the client's going to jail for a longer period of time.

JACKSON: But that's how the system works, and let me give you an alternative view. I mean, I get the point that you're penalizing people potentially for exercising their rights, but what incentive would there be for someone to plead guilty? You need to give someone the incentive.

Look, if you're going to hold the government to the paces when you know you're guilty, if you're going to tell the government -- you're going to stick your thumb in their eye and say I'm moving forward despite the fact that there's transactional documents, despite the fact that there's fake applications, then there has to be some consequence.

We're not a system that just allows everyone and anyone to have a trial, even if you know that the government has the goods. That's not how it works.

CALLAN: So who gets a trial? Can't we make these federal prosecutors work?

BERMAN: I want to -- I want to cut off this pedagogical debate here and we can take this back to law school. But, I -- you guys are both accomplished lawyers.

[07:35:00] I want to know how you would defend Lori Loughlin here. Given what we know about this case, given that all these others have pleaded guilty, what's your defense?

JACKSON: Well listen, Callan has come to many of my trials for which I appreciate, but here's the reality. The reality is that part of defending someone is saving them from themselves. And as lawyers, we are, as I've talked to Alisyn about, agents of reality.

And you have to sit your lawyer down and see what the evidence shows. And if the evidence is substantial, the way you defend someone is to say look, get in now while the getting's good and I'll get you a great deal.

In the event, however, that the government does have -- doesn't have the goods, that perhaps these were payments were legitimate or some other purpose, that's another story.

But I think you cut a deal in the event that the person is guilty.

CAMEROTA: Paul?

CALLAN: Let's say we go to trial. Here's the defense.

The defense is going to be that in this college system people buy buildings for colleges and the father's name gets put on the building and the kid gets into college.

All they did, they will say, is they made a $500,000 contribution. They didn't know precisely how that contribution was going to be used. They thought it was a legitimate contribution, not a criminal contribution.

JACKSON: So --

CALLAN: That -- if they go to trial that is the only defense they have.

JACKSON: Listen --

CALLAN: I happen to agree with Joey, by the way, in the end they'll plead guilty. But that would be the defense, that they didn't realize the use of the money.

JACKSON: One important distinction. When you buy a building, when you buy a library, other students benefit from that, right? The system benefits from that.

In this case, when you're bribing your daughter or son in, other people don't -- you do. And that's a -- you know, that's an argument that I think would fall on deaf ears.

CALLAN: They should have used the $500,000 to hire Joey Jackson and maybe --

CAMEROTA: Clearly, and --

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: It's the best act. Take it on the road.

All right, Paul, Joey, thank you --

JACKSON: Thanks, guys.

CAMEROTA: -- both very much.

We do have some breaking news that we're just getting into our newsroom, which is that the British police have just announced that they arrested Julian Assange in relation to an extradition warrant from the United States.

BERMAN: Wow, a clear U.S. connection. Much more on that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:41:10] CAMEROTA: OK, it's time for "CNN Business Now."

Troubling news for the middle-class. It is shrinking in developed countries, including the United States. And as income and inequality grows, expect strains on family budgets.

Chief business correspondent Christine Romans joins us now with more. What are you seeing, Christine?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT, ANCHOR, "EARLY START": Yes, this is brand new from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- the OECD -- and it shows middle-income households disappearing in rich countries.

Just about 61 percent of households in the developed world are considered middle-class. That's down significantly from the 1980s. And the middle-class is shrinking even more rapidly in the U.S., in Israel, Germany, Canada, Finland, and Sweden.

The OECD warned that stress on the middle-class will have serious consequences for economic growth and the social fabric. Economists have long suspected these trends work in populist movements around the world, like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.

The OECD prescribed cutting taxes on the middle-class and raising them on the rich, more access to affordable housing, containing child care and health costs, and improving workers' skills and training.

Many of those suggestions, as you know, will be talking points of progressive U.S. presidential candidates -- John.

BERMAN: You know, the lower life expectancy in the United States, the shrinking of the middle-class -- there are no bigger issues every day --

ROMANS: You're right.

BERMAN: -- than those.

ROMANS: Absolutely.

BERMAN: Christine Romans, thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: Thank you.

BERMAN: So, social media -- I don't know if you know this -- can be a distorting force in our political discourse.

CAMEROTA: News flash.

BERMAN: Yes, not a surprise. But, perhaps this will be a surprise. It is overwhelmingly affecting Democrats and what they think they know about what's going on here.

John Avlon dug into the numbers and has our reality check.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right, guys.

So if you believe what you read on Twitter, you might think the Democratic electorate is entirely made up of protosocialists trying to outwoke each other in a daily outrage Olympics. But while social media mobs are loud, they're not the real deal.

Study after study shows that if you're getting your opinion of the political state of play primarily from social media platforms you're barking up the wrong feed.

Or as our own Harry Enten put it, "Want to understand the 2020 Democratic primary? Stay off Twitter."

He points out that the polling of the Democratic electorate consistently puts Biden ahead of Bernie Sanders in the 2020 race. But if you were looking only at social media, quote, "Fans of other candidates, especially Sanders, make their presence known quite loudly and might give you the opposite impression." In other words, there's a sample set by us.

Pew Research dug into this and found that liberal Democrats are especially likely to use social media not only to share their views but to find others who already agree with those views, which can lead to a kind of hivemind. But, Democrats who described themselves as moderate or even conservative are far less likely to proselytize on social media.

It's not to say there's not a growing progressive movement in the Democratic Party, but it's not disproportionately dominant.

And remember, the number one issue for Democrats in 2020 isn't ideological purity, but who can beat Donald Trump.

Now, this disparity was displayed on the front page of "The New York Times" Tuesday in an article titled, "The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not The Actual Democratic Electorate." Pretty simple there.

The "Times" piece put into graphics what research consistently shows that the outspoken group of Democratic-leaning voters on social media on the left is vastly outnumbered by the more centrist, more diverse, and more importantly, less outspoken group on the right. And here, all along, we thought the silent majority was just a Republican phenomenon.

All this goes hand-in-hand with the fact that social media tends to skew younger and more liberal.

And consider this, Harry's analysis shows that Democrats under 50 on Twitter outnumbered Democrats over 50 on Twitter by almost 20 points. But that doesn't represent the reality of the Democratic electorate or the sad fact that older Americans are far more likely to actually go out and vote.

So, while social media can give the impression of being a direct connection with the Democratic street, it actually oversamples a new kind of activist elite. It amplifies ideological divides, often trying to drown out dissent from liberal orthodoxy and leads to what President Obama called --

[07:45:00] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA (D), FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Circular firing squad where you start shooting at your allies because one of them is straying from purity on the issues. (END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: Look, social media is an amazing tool. It's changed the way we communicate. But as we've all seen, it's also highly susceptible to being hijacked by hyperpartisans, as well as trolls and bots and a disinformation mission to divide. So don't mistake that virtual world for what's actually happening in Main Street America.

And that's your reality check.

CAMEROTA: That is a really important reality check because we are all living in a surreality -- a virtual reality.

AVLON: A surreality -- I like it.

BERMAN: All right, thanks, John.

The NBA wraps up its regular season and a pair of superstars wrap up their Hall of Fame careers.

Coy Wire has more in the "Bleacher Report." Hey, Coy.

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.

Two NBA legends showing two ends of the emotional spectrum in the final games of their careers.

Miami's Dwyane Wade was smiling and laughing as he got a hero's send- off on the road in Brooklyn. LeBron James, Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony all there showing love to their friend before the game. And look at the away crowd in Brooklyn giving the 13-time all-star a massive ovation.

And he saved some of his best play for last -- 25 points, 11 rebounds, 10 assists. And watch his buddies' reactions when knocked the triple- double here with this pass. The Heat lose but it's still a fun, happy send-off for D. Wade.

LeBron James even bringing back the video bomb from their days as teammates in Miami.

The Mavs' Dirk Nowitzki finished his career on the road as well. And the Spurs, one of their rivals, surprised him with a powerful tribute video that brought him to tears.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: And now, a 14-time NBA all-star selected to 12 all-NBA teams, a league MVP and an NBA champion, a 7-foot forward from Germany, number 41, Dirk Nowitzki.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WIRE: A classy move the Spurs. An overwhelming moment of reflection on Nowitzki's career that spans an incredible 20 seasons.

The NBA Playoffs start Saturday.

The Masters, though, tees off in about 45 minutes. Our Andy Scholes will start our live coverage from Augusta tomorrow morning.

BERMAN: Pimento sandwich from Augusta. I almost got kicked off the grounds at Augusta once. That's a story --

CAMEROTA: Oh, tell us more.

BERMAN: That's a story for another time. I think they're still mad at me. There could still be a suit pending.

CAMEROTA: I look forward to hearing that.

BERMAN: Thank you so much, Coy.

CAMEROTA: All right, we have much more on our breaking news. U.K. police confirming that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested -- you can see it on your screen here -- and he was arrested on an extradition warrant on behalf of the United States.

We will ask a senator on the Judiciary Committee what she knows about this, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:51:46] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

CAMEROTA: We do have breaking news this morning. London police confirming that earlier, they arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on an extradition warrant on behalf of the United States.

Here is the video of his arrest this morning. He was taken out of the Ecuadorian embassy there by British police. He was yelling a statement, though we don't know exactly what he was saying.

Joining us now to talk about all of this and more, we have Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono. She is a member of the Judiciary Committee. Senator, good morning.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): Good morning.

CAMEROTA: Tell us your thoughts on now that -- we understand that the British police did this on behalf of the United States. The United States is extraditing -- wants to extradite Julian Assange to bring him back here for prosecution.

HIRONO: Well, I think that Julian Assange has been, shall we say, on the run for many, many years and maybe some justice can be meted out to him.

But, I'm hopeful that we're going to talk a lot about the Mueller report because it's -- a lot of this is part of what was going on during the election in 2016. CAMEROTA: Well, do you think -- that's an important question. Do you think that his arrest on behalf of the U.S. is related to what happened during 2016 and the hacking -- the Russian hacking of the DNC or do you think that this is related to the military secrets and classified information that he spilled on Iraq and Afghanistan?

HIRONO: I think it has a lot to do with him leaking classified information, so we'll leave it at that. But there were a lot of things going on in this timeframe and I'm not saying that those are the dots that are to be connected.

You know, this is why it is so important for us to see the Mueller report to see if there is anything there regarding Assange. But at the same time, it is very important for all of us to see the full report as opposed to this 4-page letter that Barr sent to the Congress.

CAMEROTA: OK, let's talk about what happened yesterday with Attorney General Bill Barr in front of the Senate. He used the word "spying." Let me play that for you and everyone. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Spying on a political campaign is a big deal. I think spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: He means spying on the Trump campaign by the FBI, by other law enforcement agencies.

What did you think when you heard that?

HIRONO: What I thought about that is when Barr opens his mouth, Trump's words come popping out. So I'm sure that made Trump very happy because it totally played into the Trump narrative that this is all some kind of a plot to get him.

And I also think it's just so odd that Trump uses words that would be used in a dictatorship. A coup -- this is a coup attempt. No, we don't have coups in our country, we have things called elections. We have things called rule of law.

I found it astounding that the attorney general would use a highly- charged word like "spying" -- astounding. But, he sounded like the president to me.

CAMEROTA: Do you trust the attorney general? Did yesterday change your opinion of him?

[07:55:02] HIRONO: I did not vote for him because, of course, we all know in the Judiciary Committee when he came before our committee during his confirmation hearing that he had basically applied for this job by producing this unasked-for 19-page document about how the president cannot be indicted for obstruction of justice. And, lo and behold, even though Mueller did not render an opinion on the obstruction of justice -- although he did say that Trump is not exonerated on that point -- Barr decides that he should step in -- totally, again unasked -- and decides that question for, I suppose, the entire country.

And yet, he will not release the documents that I hope will provide some basis for us to decide for ourselves whether the president did obstruction.

But all I can say Alisyn is we were all here when the president fired Comey. We were all here when he kept calling this a witch hunt and tried to get Mueller fired and threatened different people. It's just an astounding set of facts about what the president did because we all know that he would like nothing better than for this whole investigation to go away.

CAMEROTA: Yes. But, Senator, I guess what I'm asking is if you don't think that the attorney general can be -- can perform his duties fairly -- if you think that he's somehow in the pocket of the President of the United States, what can you do about that?

HIRONO: This is why I voted against him. And I think it's really dangerous for our country to have an attorney general who apparently does not think that he is an attorney for the American people as opposed to an attorney for Donald Trump.

And this is why so many commentators are making the analogy that he is -- that Barr is Donald Trump's Roy Cohn. It makes Donald Trump very happy but very dangerous for the country.

CAMEROTA: It sounds like Attorney General Barr doesn't necessarily trust the inspector general from the Department of Justice who has been doing a 13-month-long investigation. And yesterday, Attorney General Barr said that he wants to assemble his own team.

So what happens when Michael Horowitz, the I.G., releases his report of what happened with the investigation into the Russia investigation?

HIRONO: Well, that's a -- that's a good question Alisyn because we have another instance it's clear that Trump thinks there's some kind of a rogue operation going on in the FBI.

And for the attorney general to pretty much acknowledge that well, he'll do his own investigation -- even if there is an I.G. investigation going on -- it does not give people confidence as to what is going on in the attorney general's office or that department.

And that is not good for our country because our attorney general is the highest law enforcement officer in our country and we need an attorney general who is independent. But not this attorney general, sadly.

CAMEROTA: I want to move on to something that also affects every American and that is health care.

HIRONO: Yes.

CAMEROTA: You are co-sponsoring Medicare For All with Sen. Bernie Sanders.

HIRONO: Yes.

CAMEROTA: And, of course, the question is how do pay for that? What's your answer?

HIRONO: Before we get to how do we pay for that we already have a health care system, particularly before the Affordable Care Act was passed, that cost our country and the people in our country billions and billions of dollars. We have very little to show for it in terms of quality of health care. And so, the Affordable Care Act was a tremendous effort to provide more health care for people.

The big difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats wants to expand the accessibility and affordability of health care. Republicans do not. So, Medicare For All is, to me, a -- you know, it's a reflection of the proposition and the position that health care is a right, not a privilege.

And so the paying of it -- how are we paying for health insurance in our country, even as right now, over 30 million people still are not insured?

Our health care system was broken before we began to work on the Affordable Care Act. And I served on one of three committees in the House that put together the Affordable Care Act. Not a perfect law but certainly, to vote -- to eliminate 20 million people off of health care, as the Republicans tried to do time and time again in the House and almost succeeded in the Senate, that's not the way to go either.

So they can talk all they want about how costly it will be -- Medicare For All will be -- but I think what they are missing is that this is one way that we can get to health care as a right, not a privilege. And they have nothing to offer, by the way -- nothing.

CAMEROTA: Senator Mazie Hirono, we appreciate you coming in --

HIRONO: Sure.

CAMEROTA: -- to talk about all of these topics with us. Thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

HIRONO: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: All right. We have more of our breaking news coverage of Julian Assange's arrest right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

END