Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump's DOJ Secretly Subpoenaed Records of Democratic Lawmakers. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired June 11, 2021 - 06:00   ET

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

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[05:59:22]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. It is Friday, June 11, and we do begin with breaking news.

Abuse of power. That's what we're talking about. New stunning allegations of abuse of power. New questions about just how far Donald Trump, William Barr, Jeff Sessions pushed the Justice Department to go to look into perceived enemies, digging into the personal communications of members of Congress and even their families.

Here are the specifics. Prosecutors in the Trump Justice Department subpoenaed Apple for the communications data of at least two House Intelligence Committee Democrats, Chairman Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, along with their staff and family members, including a child.

To put that in plain English: They went after certain iPhone records of key Democrats involved in the Russia investigations. "The New York Times" first published the story that prosecutors were trying to find the sources behind media reports about contacts between Trump associates and Russia.

"The Times" goes on to say that, even after investigators thought they hit a dead end and discussed closing the inquiry, Bill Barr directed them to keep digging.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Chairman Adam Schiff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they're calling for an investigation into what Pelosi says is the, quote, "weaponization" of the DOJ by the Trump White House.

News of these subpoenas are just the latest evidence of Trump's heavy- handed tactics when it comes to leak investigations, but it's also the most alarming, revealing the unprecedented lengths that the Trump administration went to as it targeted its political enemies.

And this comes after we learned that they also secretly obtained records from journalists. This also includes, of course, our very own CNN's Barbara Starr, as well as reporters from "The Washington Post" and other news organizations. Let's get the latest now from CNN's Laura Jarrett. You know, Laura, I

know that sometimes these things can blend together. There are a lot of red flags that have come out of the Trump administration. It's important to note this is different. This is a new level.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT/ANCHOR: That's right. Brianna. It turns out reporters weren't the only ones targeted by Trump's Justice Department and didn't know it.

The lengths that the Justice Department went to help the former president in his quest to get to the bottom of stories he didn't like now far more serious than previously known.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT (voice-over): Democratic lawmakers, their staff, and their families are the latest known targets of a Trump Justice Department hunt for leakers. New reporting overnight reveals that as Trump fumed over contacts between Trump associates and Russia, behind the scenes the DOJ subpoenaed Apple for the data to hunt down the sources for those stories.

The records sought in 2018 from more than 100 accounts include those of now House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff Schiff, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CNN.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I can't go into who received these subpoenas or whose records were sought. I can say that it was extraordinarily broad. That people having nothing to do with, you know, the intelligence matters that are at least being reported on. It just shows what a broad fishing expedition it was, and -- and so many norms were broken in connection with this.

JARRETT: As first reported by "The New York Times," the probe started under then-embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Apple provided metadata and account information, a person familiar with the inquiry said. But the evidence showed no proof of leaks from the committee at the time.

SCHIFF: I do think the department needs to do a lot of self- examination to get to the bottom of how it was misused and abused, and take corrective action.

JARRETT: A trail that had gone cold under Sessions then changed. Bill Barr became attorney general and revived the investigation with a prosecutor from New Jersey. Barr ordered him to work on the investigation related to Schiff and others, three people familiar with the case told "The "Times."

DOJ managed to get a court to issue a gag order on Apple that was renewed three times before it expired last month, allowing the company to notify some committee members their records had been shared, a source told CNN.

Congressman Eric Swalwell says he received that notice and confirmed reporting that a minor child was also a target. REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): I believe they were targeted punitively,

not for any reason in law but because Donald Trump identified Chairman Schiff and members of the committee as an enemy of his.

JARRETT: Schiff says the Justice Department informed him the investigation was closed in May but added in a statement, quote, "I believe more answers are needed, which is why I believe the inspector general should investigate this and other cases that suggest the weaponization of law enforcement by a corrupt president."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed that call, saying, "These actions appear to be yet another egregious assault on our democracy waged by the former president. Transparency is essential."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JARRETT: The Justice Department and Bill Barr declined to comment on all this new reporting. So did a representative for Apple.

But the real question this morning, with a new administration in place, is how does Attorney General Merrick Garland give the public confidence that the department will no longer be used for political ends -- Brianna.

KEILAR: All right. Laura Jarrett, thank you so much for that report.

BERMAN: All right. Joining us now, CNN political analyst and "New York Times" Washington correspondent Maggie Haberman and former FBI deputy assistant director Peter Strzok. Thank you both so much for joining us.

Look, Peter, I want to start with you. There have been corruption investigations into members of Congress where you look into certain things to figure out if they did something wrong. I can't think of anything quite like this, what Adam Schiff describes as a fishing expedition expedition. This broad-based search for the personal communications records of members of Congress and their families.

[06:05:08]

Any precedent here? What do you make of it?

PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Well, I'd say, look, there certainly is a reason to have these investigations open. There were a real problems with leaks in 2016 and '17, and the government has an obligation to maintain classified information and look at those people who are illegally disclosing it.

Having said that, I worked media leak investigations for 15 years. I supervised all of the FBI's media leak investigations. And I can't remember an instance like this of such a broad scope. We have now eight or more reporters whose records were obtained, multiple members of Congress.

And in my experience, Congress was always treated extraordinarily deferentially due to free speech and debate protections. And to see multiple members and not only that, family members and minors, it's unprecedented in my experience.

KEILAR: Maggie, what do you think about this? I do think, as we look at some of the red flags, as I said before, that come out of the Trump administration, sometimes these things blend together. You have, I think, a public who becomes numb. They're used to hearing this over and over, but this seems different. This is certainly more elevated.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: This was an incredibly aggressive move by the Justice Department, Brianna. And look, we have seen, more commonly, investigations into leaks that related to seizing journalists' records that happened under Obama, that clearly happened very aggressively under former President Trump.

The scope of this is really very different. And again, the bar is supposed to be higher for going after a co-equal branch of government's records, and so this speaks to, No. 1, just how much the Justice Department was doing things that Donald Trump wanted, and the former president was not shy, right? We heard him saying publicly over and over again about his desire to have leaks ended.

He was constantly talking publicly about what he wanted the Justice Department to do in ways that would have helped him politically, at least certainly in this case.

The Justice Department did things that were -- were, you know, in tandem with what the former president wanted.

And the other piece of this that we have not discussed were these gag orders put in place on Apple as the DOJ was trying to take this metadata. Apple was not allowed to talk about this case, these cases for many years. It's only recently that that was lifted.

So who knows what else we learned? But these are obviously very aggressive and unusual measures.

BERMAN: And Peter, the "Times" story, Maggie's colleagues, in their digging, said that the agents investigating at several different points thought they'd hit a dead end, and they had discussed closing these investigations.

But at least in one instance, Bill Barr said, No, no, keep digging. So does that lend credence to the idea that there's a political motivation here?

STRZOK: Absolutely, it does. Look, the people investigating these cases, I know many of them. They're professionals. They have done this in the past. They know what they're doing.

And a good investigator knows, having worked these sorts of cases, whether or not they're going to be able to make the case. And so when I hear non-political, objective career employees, saying, We've got nothing here, only according to "The New York Times," have Attorney General Barr swoop in and say, No, keep digging, that gives me real concern about the true motivations between some of these activities that continued, in my opinion, it looks like, well past when they should have. KEILAR: I want to play a sound bite, actually, from last year. This is from former President Trump when he was accusing Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intel Committee, of leaking information.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And, frankly, I think it's disgraceful, and I think it was leaks from the Intelligence Committee, House -- House version, and I think that they leaked it. I think probably Schiff leaked it. But people within that -- Schiff leaked it, in my opinion. And he shouldn't be leaking things like that. And they ought to stop the leaking from the Intelligence Committee. And if they don't stop it, I can't imagine that people are not going to go after them and find out what's happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: They already had, Maggie.

HABERMAN: Right. I mean, as we know, the former president had a habit of saying things publicly as if he -- he was unaware of what was taking place, and things were often taking place that matched his words and what he was saying.

One -- one thing I have been struck by in the last, you know, 12 hours or so since this came to light is the number of people who I have spoken to who worked inside the Trump administration who have essentially justified it and said, well, look, you know, they, too, believed that there were reasons to be angry with the House Intelligence Committee.

And they're losing sight, because they get very stuck on sort of former President Trump's belief that he was a victim of some kind. They're missing the fact that the DOJ was used in a pretty unprecedented way in this case on a sitting member of Congress, on several sitting members of Congress; on family members, in one case a minor. It's just incredibly unusual.

[06:10:04]

And for people who were in the Trump administration, they have tended to lose sight of the fact that a lot of what the former president was doing was just beyond norms-busting. It really walked up to or crossed the lines sometimes.

BERMAN: And as long as we're playing sound, as long as we're digging into the history file here, the wayback machine, I want to play part of the exchange. What year was this? 2019. This is between then- Senator Kamala Harris and then attorney -- oh, we don't have it.

Hang on. We're looking -- we're looking for the sound bite. It's worth it. It's worth it.

But, Peter, to Maggie's point about what makes this unusual, explain to us. Because as you said, you oversaw these investigations. What makes this different? STRZOK: Well, there's always attention between the government

investigating leaks of information to the media, and maintaining the protections of the First Amendment and the free press.

And that's something historically that the FBI and DOJ have been very, very cautious and careful about how they investigate them and whether or not they're using intrusive means to get to those investigations.

And again, there are legitimate reasons to look investigate leaks. The government needs to protect classified information and prosecute those people who disclose it.

At the same time, to go after the sort of activity that we saw occurring, you know, this being reported on recently, the extraordinary breadth of it and how obtrusive it was, really, in my opinion, tramples a lot of those established norms that the FBI has adhered to for decades and decades, and decades. And it's going to take some real introspection within the department and the FBI to determine whether or not, and I think certainly, did go too far. And what needs to be done to a -- a realistic, reasonable level of investigative activity that still maintains the First Amendment protections of the media and the free press.

KEILAR: I think we should also talk about -- and we'll play that sound from former Senator Kamala Harris. But we should also talk about what they were looking into.

The leaks in this case had to do -- the leaks, the information, the reports that came out that led to this investigation was that the Russian ambassador, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., had contact with top Trump aides.

And what came out of those reports was hugely questionable, what they were discussing with the Russian ambassador. And yet, Peter, the reaction was to investigate where this came from. How did this very alarming information come out? That was not -- you know, that was the reaction, not, oh, obviously, these aides should not be having these conversations.

STRZOK: Well, there's clearly attention there. I mean, on the one hand it was newsworthy. It was absolutely incredible what was going on by then-incoming national security adviser Mike Flynn and conversations with the Russian ambassador, trying to undermine the response to the Russian attacks in 2016 that the Obama administration was trying to implement.

At the same time, we've got to separate these issues. The fact that that was absolutely improper, the fact that that was newsworthy doesn't mean that people who are entrusted with classified information had the authority on their own to go out and disclose that information.

So there's a tension built into the system. And so I think, you know, both of these things can be bad at the same time, but what we're talking about today, the reaction of the government to look into those leaks, the steps that the government took and how far they went. That's the real issue here.

And that's where we need to do a real hard look within the government and from outside and determine whether or not this is the appropriate or acceptable level of investigative activity that occurred.

BERMAN: This is what then-Attorney General William Barr said about investigations to Senator Kamala Harris. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

BILL BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: I wouldn't -- I wouldn't --

HARRIS: Yes or no?

BARR: Could you repeat that question?

HARRIS: I will repeat it. Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone. Yes or no, please, sir?

BARR: The president or anybody else.

HARRIS: Seems you'd remember something like that and be able to tell us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Wow, Maggie. Once again, I mean, his response to that was already dodgy. But now based on what we see here, even more so.

HABERMAN: Right, John. I think there are going to be a lot of things that were said, certainly, during the last four years and, obviously, when the new attorney general, Bill Barr, came in that are going to get fresh looks in light of this information.

Again, I think the question is going to be not just public statements, not just whether or not, you know, the former president asked for that to be done. Did Bill Barr revive this on his own?

You know, Jeff Sessions, who was under enormous pressure from the president -- former president at the time in 2017 and 2018, and to basically to hang onto his job, you know, how much was said overtly or not.

[06:15:05]

But again, I do think a lot of it comes back to, are we going to learn about other records that were looked at or seized or are we going to learn there are other groups of people that DOJ were trying to grab information related to all of this is going to continue to raise questions about, you know, the separation between DOJ and the White House.

It's something that President Biden has tried to make a big priority of. But even there, Merrick Garland, that A.G., that Justice Department had, you know, enforced and continued a gag on "The New York Times" in a records case. So I think all of this is going to add to questions about restoring a sense of faith and independence at the Department of Justice.

KEILAR: Peter, you were shaking your head, watching that moment from the committee hearing with Bill Barr.

STRZOK: Yes, well, of course. As an investigator, you learn to understand when people are dissembling and they're not telling the truth, when they're avoiding an answer.

And when I see long pauses, when I see vague answers, when I see somebody asking to restate the question, it clear to me there are things that are there. Obviously, then-Senator Harris knew exactly what was going on, as well.

And Attorney General Bill Barr knew what he was -- well, only he knew what he was hiding there. But it was clear that he wasn't being forthcoming in his answer to those questions.

BERMAN: Very interesting now to go back and look at things. As you said, Maggie, it may be worth looking at a lot of things that were said out loud, based on what we know now.

Maggie, thank you so much for being with us. Peter Strzok, thanks to you, as well. So what role did Apple play in handing over data to the FBI, and what are they required to do by law? A closer look, next.

KEILAR: President Biden is set to kick off a meeting with world leaders just hours from now. We are live from England.

BERMAN: And two confirmed coronavirus cases aboard the first post- pandemic cruise. What does that mean for ships trying to set sail here in the U.S.?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:21:04]

KEILAR: And back now to our breaking news. The Trump Justice Department secretly subpoenaing and obtaining the records of some Democrats in Congress. So what role does Apple play in all of this?

Chief business correspondent Christine Romans joins us now from New York. This is where they got these records, this data.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT/ANCHOR: That's right. Apple at the center of this probe, Brianna, and could not disclose it to the targets at the DOJ.

Apple was subpoenaed by the Trump Justice Department and complied. It could have challenged it in court, could have tried to fight it, but in this case, Apple complied and turned over the data.

Apple also was told to keep this a secret. They couldn't tell the targets of the probe, because the prosecutors in the DOJ had a gag order that was renewed three times. "The New York Times" reports that gag order only expired last month.

Now, April [SIC] -- Apple gave metadata on more than 100 accounts as part of this investigation into the disclosure of classified information. So how often does this happen?

Well, according to an Apple insider, the company discloses twice a year for transparency. How many government requests for information, account information it receives. The latest report showed it received 28,000 device requests covering 171,000 different devices in the first half of 2020.

Now, Apple could fight it. Remember the shooting in San Bernardino back in 2015? Tim Cook, the CEO at Apple, opposed a judge's order hack the phone of one of those shooters. They called it an overreach of the government. Apple would have had to build a back door to the iPhones, something that was too dangerous, Tim Cook said. But this case is different.

In this case, "The Times" reports, Apple was forced to turn over that metadata and other account information. Not photos, not emails. It wasn't, you know, building a backdoor to get at this information. It's information that Apple already has, Brianna.

KEILAR: Will that raise questions about whether they should have fought this?

ROMANS: I wonder if it will. It may be that -- who knows what the political implications would have been for the company, but you can see they get an awful lot of requests from -- from prosecutors and from law enforcement for -- for information, and at least in the case of San Bernardino, they didn't comply. This time they did.

KEILAR: All right. Christine Romans, thank you so much for that.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is calling this an assault on democracy. Is this just another example of the former attorney general Bill Barr weaponizing the Department of Justice?

BERMAN: And a potential breakthrough in the infrastructure negotiations in the Senate. Details on the bipartisan deal on the table.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:27:35]

BERMAN: The breaking news this morning, the Justice Department under Donald Trump going after iPhone records from key members of Congress, Democrats.

This raises serious questions about whether Donald Trump, William Barr, Jeff Sessions were weaponizing the Justice Department in unprecedent ways.

Joining us now with more, CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honig and CNN law enforcement correspondent Whitney Wild.

Elie, you are literally writing a book that comes out on William Barr. Based on what we see now, this is just a huge revelation overnight with an unprecedented, by all accounts, from everyone we talked to, investigation into the records of sitting members of Congress. Your reaction?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, John, you just used the phrase "weaponization," which we hear some time. This is what it means to weaponize the power of the prosecutor, the awesome power of the prosecutor.

This is really dystopian, Nixonian enemies list kind of stuff put into action. And Brianna said it earlier. This is different. And I completely agree with that, and let me tell you why.

We already knew that Bill Barr under Donald Trump used the Justice Department to protect politically-connected people, to protect Donald Trump from the Mueller investigation, to protect Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. That's really bad.

But it's even worse to use DOJ to use the prosecutorial power to go after your perceived enemies. That crosses a line that is beyond the pale. That's what makes this different.

KEILAR: Because put this into context for us, Whitney. We've heard from Adam Schiff that this was subpoenaing -- the FBI subpoenaing from more than 100 -- the data from more than 100 accounts. It ended up being less than that, according to "The Times," but this was broad and, in the end, it really didn't net that much.

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, so -- exactly. So Congressman Adam Schiff called it a fishing expedition.

And this follow this pattern that we're seeing start to emerge, which is the Department of Justice issuing these very broad subpoenas, trying to collect as much information as they can to lock down on possible leaks.

We saw it with "The Times." We saw it with "The Washington Post." We saw it with CNN.

And the details here show you that, within the Department of Justice at the time, there was no, you know, really consideration of a personal boundary. For example, CNN's Barbara Starr's personal email account was subpoenaed.

In this most recent case, this included members of Congress on the House Intelligence Committee, their staff, but also the personal staffs, which would presumably have very little or nothing to do with the work of the House Intelligence Committee.