Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump's DOJ Secretly Subpoenaed Records of Two Democratic Lawmakers. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired June 11, 2021 - 07:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN NEW DAY: That Bezos is beating him?

[07:00:01]

KEITH COWING, FORMER NASA SPACE BIOLOGIST: He's in about a lot of this stuff. I think he knows -- the more of these things that go up, the better, the rising tide lifts all boats. And besides, his star ship, if you're going to ask me how regular folks are going to get into space, I really don't know that Branzon and Bezos have gotten the price point. I mean, they're all rich because they've figured out how to sell things to people.

But Elon and his star ship, I think he's going for the cattle car- approach, where Bezos could pick a price point, where he can fly as many people as he possibly can. And I think he'll end being the driver. But anybody who wants to give the overall visibility that, no, you're not going to die, I think, helps him in the end.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN NEW DAY: Yes. well, look, this is fascinating. I wouldn't say it's financially accessible, right? It's still very, very expensive if you're going to get space tours.

COWING: Get an assignment from your editor to go cover it.

BERMAN: Or make a billion dollars then you can get your own start ship.

COWING: Either/or.

KEILAR: Perfect.

BERMAN: Thank you so much.

KEILAR: Keith, it's great to see you. Thank you so much.

New Day continues right now.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. It is Friday, June 11th.

We are beginning with breaking news. Extraordinary new evidence of how the Trump administration weaponized the Justice Department, pushing prosecutors to go after Trump's perceived enemies. They actually subpoenaed Apple for personal communications of at least two House Intelligence Committee Democrats, Chairman Adam Schiff and Congressman Eric Swalwell. And it wasn't only the lawmakers that were targeted, so were their staff, so were their family members, including a child, a minor. That is right.

The subpoenas date back to 2018 hunting for data on more than 100 accounts, trying to track down who was leaking information to the media about contacts between Trump associates and Russia.

BERMAN: So, prosecutors also obtained a gag order, renewing it three times before it expired this year. So Apple was prevented from saying anything about it until now. Adam Schiff this morning is demanding an investigation, calling out the Trump White House for what they call a terrible abuse of power. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is saying Trump's actions, quote, appear to be yet another egregious assault on our democracy waged by the former president.

Let's go right to CNN's Laura Jarrett to lay out exactly what we're talking about here, Laura.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, John. So I was covering the Justice Department when all of this happened and it's important to remember how it all starts. The then-attorney general, Jeff Sessions, he's under enormous pressure back in 2017, having recused from the Russia investigation, Trump is furious.

Now, at the same time, the House Intel Committee is investigating the connections between Trump associates and Russia and it has access to all kinds of highly sensitive documents. So, Trump sees all of this incredible reporting out there that's trying to flush out the Russia investigation and he's tweeting non-stop. He's saying his administration is going to find the sources for these leaks.

So what does the Justice Department do? Well, prosecutors start something truly unprecedented, managed to get a grand jury subpoena on Apple for information on more than 100 accounts, we're told. And let's be clear, this is a co-equal branch of government going after another branch of government. But here's the thing, it apparently didn't turn up anything useful.

Take a listen to the now chairman of the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, one of those targeted, discussing all this last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

(END VIDEO CLIP) JARRETT: We now know even though the case had apparently gone cold under Sessions, Bill Barr breathes new life into it once he became attorney general.

So, now, the question is what does Merrick Garland do? That's the new attorney general, of course. Does he call for an investigation by the DOJ inspector general? Several of the people involved in this probe at the Justice Department, according to The New York Times, are still there. Should they testify about all this in front of Congress? Lots of big questions here, John.

BERMAN: We have so many questions about this, Laura. Thank you so much for laying it out. I appreciate it.

KEILAR: Joining us now, Pamela Brown, CNN Anchor and Senior Washington Correspondent, and Andrew McCabe, CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst and former Deputy Director of the FBI.

Andrew, we heard from Adam Schiff that this was a large net that was cast, even though in the end, I think, was more than a dozen folks who were really looked into, where they were able to actually go and get this information from Apple. Put this into context for us of just how unprecedented this is.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Sure. So, for context, across the course of my 20-plus year career in the FBI at every level that an agent can serve including deputy general, I have overseen numerous leaked cases.

[07:05:00]

I worked for half a dozen attorneys general of every different administration, Republican and Democratic, I have never, ever seen this scope of process served on members of Congress or people associated with Congress and congressional committees. It's absolutely unprecedented, never experienced it at any time in my career.

BERMAN: What exactly makes it unprecedented?

MCCABE: Well, I mean, first and foremost, it's the targets right? So for the FBI and the Department of Justice, to target sitting members of Congress is an incredibly, incredibly aggressive act. It happens exceedingly rarely. It's typically not in leaked cases, but it's in criminal investigations of individuals who are considered -- you know, who are subjects of corruption probes and things of that nature.

I'll give you one example of an actual leak case that was focused on a member of a Senate committee. This is a case that's now -- of course, this individual has pled guilty. It's in the public record. But just the sensitivity of having to investigate a member of the committee, I personally had several meetings with the chairman and the ranking member of that committee to explain to them exactly what we were doing, exactly what national security information was at risk and why it was important.

And we went very slowly. We gave them every opportunity to consult with their attorneys to possibly raise legal objections if they felt they needed to preserve Congress' speech and debate a privilege. So it's a very careful and sensitive process when done appropriately.

KEILAR: Pamela, can you -- sorry, go on.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I was just going to say, it's remarkable to me as someone who covered the Trump White House and talked to sources then said the president we reported at the time he wanted the DOJ to investigate Comey, to investigate Hillary Clinton, to investigate his political adversaries.

And at the time, just the fact that the president was pushing for that was a big deal just because of the fact that the president was supposed to be independent of DOJ and it was clear he was going after his adversaries. What this shows is just how far they went, that basically DOJ cast a wide net over Donald Trump's political adversaries. And Bill Barr revived it even though there was not enough evidence to move forward with the investigation. The fact that Bill Barr revived it --

BERMAN: I'm so glad you brought that up, I mean, and I think Pamela really puts it well, Andy, which is that, look, the president's enemies were being investigated by the Justice Department, and we have to figure out what exactly what the chain of order and the chain of command was. Was it Trump telling Barr or telling Sessions to investigate so on and so forth?

But The New York Times, it says, that the people who were doing the investigations, the agents came back more than once and said, we're not really finding anything here. We think we should wrap this up, and Barr, according to The Times, says, no, keep investigating.

MCCABE: Right. And they said that knowing that this was an incredibly important to the president and to the attorney general, highly political. So, already, those career officers in the department and in the FBI are feeling the pressure to deliver results. And despite that, they come forward and say, there's no facts here, there's no basis to continue this information. And what are they told? Okay, we'll bring in a new prosecutor and we'll continue anyway. That alone shows you the pure political motivation of these investigations.

BROWN: And why don't we just -- sorry, I was going to say, why are we just now finding out because it's expired from the courts? So now that's why we're finding out because now members of Congress are being alerted, reporters are being alerted because of these gag orders. I think it raises questions about why DOJ, under Merrick Garland, hasn't been more forthcoming as well, why we're finding out this way through the media versus DOJ being proactive and alerting.

MCCABE: That's a great point. And I think it's emphasized by the fact that at least some of this process we're learning of because the non- disclosure orders or gag orders are expiring. This is not a proactive, transparent effort by the current Justice Department to go back and unwind this political travesty, which is what they should be doing. This is the -- you know, timing out of these non-disclosure orders we're finding out by happenstance. KEILAR: You mentioned this outside prosecutor that was brought in. This was, according to The Times, an outside prosecutor from New Jersey who lacked the expertise that you would consider someone would have for this role.

BROWN: Right. I think his background was in health care investigations and something else. But, yes, when I read that, I was really shocked that this would be the person. And so, of course, it makes you want to learn more about why was this person out of everyone with the experience of the DOJ tapped to do this? What was the relationship with Barr? There's so much more to learn about that as well.

BERMAN: I want to play some sound in a second though. But before I do, Pamela, I get the sense, and you've covered the White House, you've covered Justice, you're are reporter here, you, like so many of us were shocked. I mean, I was shocked. I was on air last night when this report came out.

[07:10:00]

And I'm reading it like, what? I've just never have seen anything like this.

So just before we interrupt you again, I wanted to get your reaction overall.

BROWN: Overall, it is beyond stunning, and it's appalling, I think, for anyone who cares about democracy and how our institutions are supposed to work. The way that the DOJ was weaponized to launch these leaked investigations into political adversaries without what appears to be the proper predication, I think, is deeply concerning.

Now, leak investigations are common, as you well know, Andy McCabe, but it's the targets of these leaked investigations that is really concerning. It's the gag orders, all of that combined. And, I guess now, I'm at the point where I'm just bracing myself for what are we going to learn today, who else was targeted, who are the others?

MCCABE: And it's the relentless pursuit of these cases despite no factual results, right, despite unproductive investigations.

And, look, that's been my own experience. I've been under investigation since January of 2017, right? It's one investigation after another. I guess if counts John Durham, then maybe I still am. It is the relentless pursuit of retaliation against perceived enemies, and I don't think we've ever seen anything like that from the Justice Department or any part of this government prior to the Trump administration.

BERMAN: So let's put this in context with some of the key players here. First, let's play the president, because you brought this up. The president has very publicly called for investigations into various people and very publicly said things about some of the people involved here. So, this was the president, former president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: And, frankly, I think it's disgraceful, and I think it was leaks from the Intelligence Committee, 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.

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)

BERMAN: And, in fact, people were going after him and he almost definitely knew that people were going after him as did then-Attorney General William Barr when he was facing questions from then-Senator Kamala Harris. Watch this again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

WILLIAM BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: I wouldn't -- I wouldn't --

HARRIS: Yes or no.

BARR: Could you -- could you repeat that question?

HARRIS: I will repeat it.

BARR: Yes.

HARRIS: 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: I mean, wow. I mean, wow. Overlay what we know now with that and it's just wow.

MCCABE: It's pathetic, and it's incredibly sad that this is the place -- American's Department of Justice devolved to under that administration. It's just absolutely -- and for someone who -- I spent my entire professional life in the FBI and working for the department and it's crushing to watch.

KEILAR: What's to prevent that, Pamela, from happening again, or being worse? I mean, here, we are seeing this extraordinary thing that has happened that has revealed the vulnerabilities of the system, how much it is governed by norms and how little accountability there actually is. What's to stop this from happening again?

BROWN: I mean, that's a great question, and the answer is I don't know. That is what makes this so scary.

BERMAN: Look, you came and you also have a bit of news about Christopher Wray. Yesterday, he was asked if there was any current investigation into Donald Trump, he said not that he knows of.

BROWN: Right, yes. So, as you noticed, when he was first asked by -- I believe it was Sheila Jackson Lee, whether there was an investigation around Trump and his rhetoric around the insurrection, Christopher Wray said, not that I'm aware of. He later said in response to another lawmaker, he could neither confirm or deny an investigation into Donald Trump.

What I can tell you is the back-story here. First of all, as you know, Andy, FBI protocol is to neither confirm nor deny. So the fact that he said initially he was unaware definitely tells you something. If there was an investigation into Donald Trump, Christopher would know about it.

But what I'm told from sources familiar was that there was a discussion within DOJ, FBI headquarters, the D.C. Bureau, about whether to open an investigation into Donald Trump after the insurrection happened. They went back, they looked at his words during the rally before the insurrection. They scrutinized it to see is there enough here to actually open an investigation. And the legal response was it didn't meet the legal threshold. In other words, his speech was inflammatory but it wasn't specific enough where it could be as a directive, an order to go carry out an attack at the Capitol.

[07:15:05]

So while an investigation wasn't open about that, I want to make it clear, that doesn't mean it's a done deal. This is a wide-sprawling investigation, other evidence is coming in, there's a lot of unanswered questions. But when it comes to Donald Trump and his speech before the insurrection, members within the FBI and DOJ decided there wasn't enough to open an investigation into Trump specifically.

KEILAR: Really interesting. Thank you so much for sharing that with us. This was such a great conversation to put in into context, Andy and Pamela. I really appreciate it.

So, what will the response be from the attorney general to this extraordinary use of the Department of Justice targeting top Democrats?

BERMAN: It's a good question. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trying to calm the tensions within the Democratic Party over comments from Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BERMAN: All right, more now on our breaking news. The Trump Justice Department going through an extraordinary, extreme and in some cases seems unprecedented measures to target the former president's political enemies.

[07:20:04]

The FBI subpoenaed communications records of top Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, including the ranking member and, ultimately, Chairman Adam Schiff and Congressman Eric Swalwell.

Joining us now, CNN Senior Political Analyst John Avlon and CNN National Security Commentator Mike Rogers, former House Intelligence Chair, Mike, so you know a little something about where some of these people are sitting, and just your reaction when you read overnight that the DOJ was going after communications from members of Congress.

MIKE ROGERS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY COMMENTATOR: Yes, that was very, very, very concerning to me. If they did not have a predicate on a particular member, and it's pretty hard to argue they would have a predicate on a family member, this is really dangerous, this wide net prosecution or investigation, excuse me, is a little bit concerning.

And I will say, this is what's kind of seeping into all of these agencies. I mean, a political investigation begets a political investigation begets a political investigation, and now it seemed this whole notion has kind of seeped into all of our agencies in Washington, D.C.

I'm more worried about the future. I mean, again, the DOJ just had to withdraw a subpoena on USA Today on people who were reading articles. Something is amiss. We're going to have to, I think, shake this thing out a little bit and go back to the standard that if you're going to do this, if you're going to open an investigation, you have to have a predicate. It needs to be reviewed. Thoughtful agents and prosecutors need to look at it to say, are we going to do this. None of that has seemed to have happened. And, again, I'm very, very concerned about the direction of this.

KEILAR: And, John, it's not just that the Trump DOJ was able to do this, it was that they were able do it and conceal this. We're talking about seeking data from 2017, 2018, and lacking evidence in doing, so and yet this proceeded anyway, and it is now 2021 and we're only finding out about this.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right. And it's really going to be the tip of the iceberg, there's every reason to suggest. This is not just a process problem, right? You're seeing the fact that the Department of Justice was politicized effectively so quickly by an administration that took its turn for a president who had authoritarian impulses and all the guardrails broke down. And that's what the real wake-up call.

This is not something that happens occasionally. This is far worse than anything Richard Nixon and his team did. The fact that the federal bureaucracy was politicized to go after at another branch so quickly is a huge wake-up call. And as we pull back the curtain, we're going the find out so much more, and it demands a whole series of reforms and investigations to get to the bottom of what was ordered, what happened and how it happened so it doesn't happen again.

BERMAN: Let's talk about those guardrails, Chairman, because you've been on both sides of it, you were in the FBI too. So, apparently, according to The New York Times, some of the investigators felt like they had run down the leads and the investigation had come to an end. They didn't have enough to go forward and they were discussing that, but Bill Barr said, no, keep digging. So you had William Barr, for some reason, not listening to the investigators here. That's clearly one area where the guardrails went down.

ROGERS: Yes, no, clearly. I mean, if the agents did come back and say, hey, look, we looked into what you asked and we just can't find anything, that's certainly a problem. I'd like to put a little bit of context though. I think it's wrong to only focus on this.

During the Russia investigation, we had an FBI agent manufacturing evidence. He changed evidence presenting to the court to make sure that that investigation went forward. He's going to go to jail for that. This is my point of investigation begets an investigation. We're going to have to unwind this thing.

So what I saw happened by just throwing out this big net of an investigation over members and their families and staff and trying to go back at reporters for what they're covering is dangerous stuff, and it starts with your team is dangerous, my team is dangerous, your team is dangerous, my team is dangerous. We have to do away with all of that. We need to use this as our wake-up call.

And I will say that part of the reason these gag orders happen, just so the audience can understand, is that these are ongoing investigations. And you never want to tell somebody that they're under investigation in a political environmental because that's the kiss of death, right?

The court of public opinion, everybody jumps on, everyone says, if you don't like that person, they're guilty, if you like that person, it's a travesty of justice. All of that happens. So it is appropriate that these gag orders are on so that this information doesn't become public until the completion of the investigation.

Again, you know, the weight of the government investigating a person is tremendous.

[07:25:01]

I saw that as an FBI agent. And that's what made me so respectful of why you have to do this right. You can't willy-nilly throw out subpoenas or think you have a hunch, none of that counts. And I don't care what your political persuasion is, you cannot use the Department of Justice for political purposes at all, ever. And when it happens once, it will happen again. And when it happens for one team, it will happen for the other. This is actually why we need to call for a thorough investigation of this. And, by the way, it may even find that members did leak classified information. If it did, my argument is, so what? In the course of that investigation, you'll have to be held accountable for that. But we should know what in the heck DOJ was thinking, how it started, how they decided to throw out the net and say, well, let's subpoena everybody, every reporter that had it. Let's subpoena people we think are guilty. None of that is appropriate.

AVLON: Congressman, I think it's important not to both-siderism this one, right, because we seem to have a unique cultural problem that stems from one administration from one president. And we need to get to the bottom of this entirely, but let's be clear here, this does not appear to be something that occurs in both administrations, and different parties do this, this is the result of a long escalation.

At least part of the pattern we saw with Barbara Starr is, a leak investigation under the auspices of the Espionage Act is perpetuated with zero propensity because of these gag orders that were put forward. It appears to be almost the best practice.

Instituted by this president and this administration by people who were trying to do what appears to be his bidding from public comments that are made, going up to according to comments that are made, going up to the attorney general but trickle down through the bureaucracy. And that is a deeper, more endemic problem that seems to be related partisan politicization.

And at least as far as we saw that Rob Mueller getting rolled to some extent by the attorney general, because he was trying to do things by the book, you have got an asymmetric polarization in this issue as well. And that corruption needs to be dealt with deep investigations but not creating the impression that is somehow an inevitable escalation that both sides have contributed to in the past.

ROGERS: So, let me just agree with you a little bit, John, and I supported the FBI during the Russia investigation. The things that came out about manufacturing evidence to go to FISA, this fundamentally even changed the support of the FISA court to the FBI. That was a -- in all of those moves --

AVLON: Do you think that's equivalent to this, sir?

ROGERS: It was shocking to me.

AVLON: Yes, but do you think it's equivalent to this?

ROGERS: (INAUDIBLE) should do it to a Republican or you do it to a Democrat, it's wrong. And so there's some kind of culture in leadership that allowed these kinds of decisions to happen. You can't allow politics -- that was the greatest thing about certainly in my time with the FBI, we had really strong guardrails. If you ever wanted to go to members of Congress or fill in the blank because of touchiness of having any of that become public and ruining somebody's life or career just because you had a hunch, right, none of that can happen. We saw that happen in the Russia investigation afterward and I was flabbergasted by that. And now I see the attorney general just doing the same thing --

AVLON: But, Mike, given that you're a member of Congress and the FBI, what were those guardrails that constrained people like yourself that seemed to have been totally eroded? That would be helpful for folks to know at home.

ROGERS: When or where?

AVLON: What?

ROGERS: To me, it was a leadership problem at the FBI, if you want it candidly. And so that leadership interjected a culture of, listen, we're going to go down this path and we're going to find things, right? And it's not -- remember, the FBI doesn't have political appointees. So, only the Department of Justice has political appointees.

And so now you've got this weird mix happening, and I really -- I would take this as not a partisan breakdown. I would take this as we have a Department of Justice, and just the kind of unseemly political agitation happening in Washington, D.C. has now seeped into these really important institutions in America.

We need to get it all out, we need to have a thorough accounting of this and then we need to make sure that we have people there who understand these guardrails and why we have them and why they're important for the wheels of justice in this country. Because if people stop believing that an investigation is on its merits, we are in real trouble in the United States of America, taking away the trust of these institutions.

And I'll tell you --

BERMAN: Hang on, guys.

ROGERS: Go ahead.

BERMAN: We're running late. You wanted to talk.

KEILAR: Just a quick question for you, Mike, which is if there is a failure of leadership and something like this proceeds, an A.G. who moves forward in the absence of evidence with careers telling him there isn't any and they shouldn't proceed, then doesn't the gag order then have the effect of just covering up what should not have happened?

I mean, I understand that there's a point.

[07:30:00]

You said there's a point to a gag order. But in this case, it serves to conceal wrongdoing.

ROGERS: Well, there is the end.