Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Report Says Trump has $421 Million in Loans Due the Next Few Years; "The New York Times" Said Trump Paid Just $750 in Federal Taxes in 2016 and 2107; Senator Durbin Says, We Can Slow Supreme Court Nominee Hearing But Can't Stop It; Barrett Once Criticized Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare; Democrats Prepare for Trump to Disrupt the Election. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired September 28, 2020 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: As you noted we do not know who that money is owed to.

We do know that the President and the Trump Organization have done business with Russia, with Turkey, with the Philippines. Those countries are all run

by autocrats who the President has been relatively sympathetic towards.

And so "The New York Times" does emphasize in their piece that they did not uncover new connections between the President and Russia. But I do want to show you one tweet that really does highlight this fear. This is from Andrew Weissman who as you know well worked for Robert Mueller on the Mueller probe looking into the ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

And he quotes the son of the President, Eric Trump, saying we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia. And Weissman responds, now ask to whom does Trump owe the hundreds of millions of dollars coming due soon?

Eric Trump has denied making that quote to a golf reporter back in 2014. But the theory stands that if the President were indebted to someone like Putin who is very -- or to Russia, people in Russia, and that country is very actively involved in meddling in the 2020 election, that creates a very dangerous scenario -- Pam.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: As you pointed out, we still don't know who, so it's hard to know how serious this is. But, I mean, let's take a step back. If Trump -- if he wasn't president and needed the security clearance, how easy would that be for him to get one?

MARQUARDT: It would be very difficult if he were not the president. He's not the president so he doesn't need a security clearance. But if you were applying as a normal individual, one of the first things that they look for, look at, are your financial records. They look specifically at debt because that's seen as a vulnerability. It's something that could be exploited, it to be used as leverage. It could be used as blackmail.

We spoke earlier with Mark Zaid who's a lawyer who has dealt with security clearances. He called this amount of money that's $421 million beyond comprehension for anybody who would be applying for a security clearance. Again, the President doesn't need a security clearance, but this is someone who would have a very hard time getting one, and he has access to the biggest secrets in the country -- Pam.

BROWN: That's very important context. All right. Thanks so much, Alex.

And I want to turn now to our MONEY LEAD.

If you're wondering how the President managed to avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes over the years, it's in part because he was losing hundreds of millions on his properties and business ventures. $350 million lost on his golf courses, $55 million lost on the Trump International Hotel right here in Washington, D.C. where am, and $134 million lost on Trump Corporation, a real estate services company. That's according to "The New York Times."

CNN's Cristina Alesci joins me now. Help us understand this, Cristina, because some of it's really complicated, at least for me reading through and trying to understand what it means. How have these massive losses helped the president avoid paying taxes?

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN MONEY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pam, the U.S. tax code does allow businesses to use losses in order to offset taxable income. What is staggering here is the extent to which Donald Trump used this maneuver.

For example, in 2018 -- sorry, in 2008 and 2009 alone, he claimed losses of $1.4 billion. Now, this really undermines Trump's political message that he is a savvy deal maker. In fact, what these documents reveal is that his financial success actually rests in his ability as an entertainer and to collect money on properties that other people manage.

Now, to the point about being an entertainer. He amassed about $427 million from his work on "The Apprentice." Now, he used that money to make more money-losing deals and to prop up bad deals.

And that really just underscores the point there. "The New York Times" also revealed and confirmed the fact that the President is under a IRS audit and he may have to return, because the center of this audit investigation has to do with a refund that he got back in 2010 for about $73 million.

Now, Donald Trump might have to return that money. In addition to that, he might have to pay penalties and interest. "The New York Times" reports that that sum could be up to $100 million.

Now, Pam, that's on top of the debt that Alex was just talking about that he has to repay in the next couple of years. If you add that all altogether, the big question going forward is how is Donald Trump going to repay his debts?

[15:35:00]

Possibly repay the IRS while his business empire is not doing so well and his revenue from television operations and his entertainment empire is dwindling -- Pam.

BROWN: All right thanks so much, Cristina Alesci.

Well, as President Trump's Supreme Court nominee prepares to take the next step in the nomination process, some Democrats are stealing a page from Republicans 2016 playbook. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:40:00]

BROWN: Well, Senate Democrats are putting up a fight as Republicans try to rush President Trump's Supreme Court nominee through the confirmation process. Some refusing to even meet with Amy Coney Barrett as she begins her rounds on Capitol Hill this week.

CNN's Manu Raju is on the Hill for us. And Manu, Republicans want confirmation hearings to start in just two weeks. Could anything or anyone force a delay of that?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Unlikely, unless some Republicans decided to break ranks. Four would be needed to block this nomination. That is not happening at the moment.

Democrats' best hope is for her to trip up at her confirmation hearings. But this is moving lightning fast. The confirmation hearing is going to begin roughly 16 days from the time that the nomination was announced.

Compare that to Neil Gorsuch who was 48 days from the time his announcement was announced to the time his confirmation hearing began, 57 days for Brett Kavanaugh.

So, this is moving quickly. On October 12th according to the calendar is when the hearing will begin that week. Several days of hearings will take place. And then followed by an October 22nd vote by the full Judiciary Committee and that's going to set up that floor vote. So, all that could happen within a month's time, Pam. And top Democrats themselves are acknowledging that they could perhaps slow down the process for a couple days, but they can't stop the inevitable outcome.

Here's what Dick Durbin said yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): We can slow it down, perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most. But we can't stop the outcome. What we should do is to address this now respectfully. (END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, beginning tomorrow Amy Coney Barrett will be on Capitol Hill to start those courtesy meetings which are common before hearings take place and before the votes take place.

She'll meet with Republican Senators, including Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Judiciary Chairman, Lindsey Graham, but it's unclear how many Democrats will ultimately meet with her. Durbin says he'd be willing to meet with her but the top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, says he wont because, Pam, he just says he does not want to lend legitimacy to this process -- Pam.

BROWN: All right, Manu Raju, thanks so much for that. And meantime, Democrats say the President wants to rush the Supreme Court nomination to dismantle Obamacare.

CNN's Jessica Schneider joins me now. So, Jessica, Coney Barrett's past statements may actually hint where she stands on this issue.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Pam. You know, Democrats are really warning that Amy Coney Barrett could be the decisive vote to eliminate Obamacare, and they're pointing to her past writings.

Now to put this into context, it was in 2012 that Chief Justice John Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act by siding with the liberals and saying it that the individual mandate was a tax and therefore constitutional.

Well, just five years later, in 2017, Amy Coney Barrett wrote this, saying, Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.

And it's exactly that line that Democrats are warning could hint of the detrimental effects of an Amy Coney Barrett confirmation. In particular, a swift confirmation.

And that's because on November 10th, one week after the election, the Supreme Court will once again hear arguments on the individual mandate. In particular, now that Congress has zeroed out the penalty to zero dollars for people who don't buy insurance. Is it still constitutional? And if it's not, can the entire law be struck down?

And Democrats believe that Amy Coney Barrett, if she is confirmed by that time, which is likely, given this speedy timeline, that she would be the decisive vote. And Pamela, make no mistake about it, the Trump administration has been pushing for months now in court papers to eliminate the ACA. In fact, the President tweeted about it yesterday saying the elimination of it would be a big victory. But, of course, any victory wouldn't come, Pam, until the late spring or early summer of 2021 when decisions are handed down -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, Jessica Schneider, thank you so much for that. We'll have to wait to see what happens on that front. And just a few hours ago, President Trump falsely claimed ballots

being returned can't be counted. What Democrats are doing right now to prevent the President from undermining the election.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:45:00]

BROWN: Turning to our 2020 LEAD now, Democrats are bracing for doomsday election scenarios like the possibility of President Trump declaring victory before mailing-in votes are counted.

Sources tell me that both the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign are bulking up their staffs preparing for the President to disrupt the election after weeks of attacking mail-in voting claiming and the vote will be rigged and refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Joining me now to discuss is Joshua Geltzer. He was the Executive Director of Georgetown Law's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. And he also worked for the National Security Council under Presidents Obama and Trump at the Justice Department.

No question about your credentials to be talking about this, Joshua, that's for sure. And so as we look at the landscape here and what we're hearing, do you think that Democrats are being alarmists or are they being prudent in anticipation the President will wield the power of his office to influence the election?

JOSHUA GELTZER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GEORGETOWN LAW'S INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION: I think you have to worry, and therefore these concerns are prudent. Because you just have to look at Donald Trump's words themselves.

You go back to 2016 when as a private citizen running for office he refused to commit to the results of the election. Now you look at him from the Oval Office doubling down on that uncertainty, holding people in doubt.

Tomorrow night we'll have the first Presidential debate. It's one of the topics, Presidential election integrity. And we know what he's going to say. He wants people to doubt the results of this election and the legitimacy if he loses. But that's where all of us, I think, can play a role in pushing back.

BROWN: But what could he practically speaking do?

[15:50:00]

What tools does he have at his disposal as President to influence the election that Joe Biden doesn't have? Is it just the bully pulpit or is it more?

GELTZER: So, thankfully the President does not play a direct role in the counting of the vote, the certifying of the vote, the path that people's votes take from the states to the electoral college, ultimately to Congress which certifies them. However, Donald Trump can do a couple of things. His campaign can litigate in particular states where they think votes are being counted wrongfully or should be recounted or should no longer be counted.

And of course, he can talk. And that's what Donald Trump likes to do most. He likes to tweet, he likes to get in front of the cameras, and he likes to make people doubt facts or even that there are such things as facts.

And that's I think where the greatest danger is, that Donald Trump has cast such doubt on mail-in voting, on election results that are almost certain to come after election day, even election night itself, that we have a public with wide, wide swaths prepared to doubt what others in the system tell us are the rightful results of this election.

BROWN: But we do have a system in place, and states, you know, are supposed to certify the results, and then it goes to Congress. But I want to talk about what would happen if you have all this litigation that both campaigns are preparing for. From sources I've spoken to, both sides are bulking up their legal teams. They've recruited thousands of volunteers.

So, if there are these ongoing legal challenges over the vote, how could the legal battles post-election impact the vote certification process? They're supposed to be certified by, I think, it's December 8th. So, what if the cases are going on past then? What would happen?

GELTZER: It's a tough question and it's one of the questions the Supreme Court grappled with in Florida in the Bush versus Gore litigation back in 2000. So, you have it exactly right, Pam, December 8 this year is the safe harbor deadline.

That means that Congress has committed to respect how any particular state resolves a dispute about to whom that state's electors go, so long as they resolve it by that date.

But that's just safe harbor. It's not required harbor. And so, if there is a state or multiple states still working out who the rightful winner is in that state, the really big date to circle on your calendar is January 6th.

That's when the new Congress, which will have been sworn in three days earlier gets together consistent with the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and resolves any disputes about which slates of electors to certify. And that can include competing slates or slates that arrive even after safe harbor.

BROWN: OK, so I just want to break down for you what the practical impact would be if the President, as you pointed out, if he did continue to sow distrust in the process post-election, and sow doubts about the mail-in ballots and people believed him. What would be the practical impact on that from your view?

GELTZER: So, my hope is that the actors in this system who need to play certain roles in our pretty convoluted system of vote counting and ultimate winner certification won't listen to Donald Trump. In in other words, no matter what he tweets, no matter how he mouths

off, the people in states who become the electors to the electoral college, the members of Congress who get together on January 6th, my hope is they won't be deterred, dissuaded, intimidated, pressured to do anything other than what the law requires.

But there's a lot of the public that listens to Donald Trump. And so, I think in some ways the biggest threat and the biggest practical import is that you'll have parts of the American population who think the election is rigged, to use the word that Donald Trump has been using since 2016, that somehow something has been stolen from Donald Trump if he loses.

To use another favorite word of his. And it's going to take a lot of work to repair that cognitive infrastructure of our country, that sense of trust in institutions like Congress, like the press. But that's the damage that Donald Trump is choosing to inflict on this country.

BROWN: Joshua, thank you so much. Really interesting conversation.

GELTZER: Thanks, Pam.

BROWN: Well, what President Trump has to say about "The New York Times" report on his taxes, that is next.

Plus, two doctors, one has President Trump's ear, the other has been publicly accused of being mistaken more than once by President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:55:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BROWN: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Pamela Brown in today for Jake Tapper. And we begin this hour with the POLITICS LEAD.

President Trump dismissing the stunning report from "The New York Times" that found that Mr. Trump paid no federal income tax for much of the last two decades. In 2016, in 2017, he paid just $750 each year compared to the average American tax burden of about $12,000.

And though the President touts his business since, "The Times" also found that Trump businesses have been losing huge amounts of money helping lower Trump's taxes.

And one $72.9 million tax refund is the source of an IRS audit. As CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports, President Trump today claimed the story is false, though he says he's entitled to tax cuts just like everyone else.