Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Continue; Interview With Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-VA); Justice Department Investigation Into Obama Administration Comes Up Empty. Aired 4:30-5p ET

Aired October 14, 2020 - 16:30   ET

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

[16:30:00]

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Now, the investigation of a potential campaign finance law violation began with the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office in Washington.

Before special counsel Robert Mueller took it on, it was largely conducted by his team of investigators, who went to great lengths to keep its very existence hidden. The only public indication was secretive court proceedings over a subpoena that Mueller's team issued to an unnamed foreign company for records.

Now, neither the company, nor the details of what exactly prosecutors were looking for was ever publicly discussed.

But CNN is told that it was a fight with a state-owned Egyptian bank. Now, when Mueller was done, the investigation continued. It was handed back to the U.S. attorney here in Washington, who soon afterwards told the court that it was still a robust probe.

Now, it was just a summer that the case was closed with no charges filed. The case stalled after the Egyptian bank turned over what federal investigators thought were insufficient records to respond -- in response to their subpoena.

Among the chief questions that prosecutors were trying to answer, but never did, was whether Donald Trump was supported by or indebted to a foreign power.

As for the Justice Department, here's what a senior justice official told CNN in response to this report -- quote -- "The case was first looked at by the special counsel investigators, who failed to bring a case. And then it was looked at by the U.S. attorney's office and career prosecutors in the national security section, who also were unable to bring a case. Based upon the recommendations of both the FBI and those career prosecutors. Michael Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney, formally closed the case in July."

Now, special counsel Robert Mueller had no comment. And a senior adviser to the Trump 2020 campaign, Jason Miller, told CNN -- quote -- "The president has never received a penny from Egypt" -- Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All right, interesting. Was there ever discussion of trying to get to the bottom of this by subpoenaing the president's financial records?

PEREZ: Well, multiple sources tell us that, last year, federal prosecutors in Washington proposed pushing for the president's financial records.

The decision went to then U.S. attorney Jessie Liu, who, after weeks poring over the investigative records, decided to reject the subpoena request. Sources say that Liu decided there was not enough to meet the standard for the subpoena. She also told people in her office, according to these sources, that if there were enough evidence, then Mueller himself would have gone after them.

Now, interestingly, she didn't close the case. That was done by the new acting attorney, U.S. attorney, Michael Sherwin, this summer.

TAPPER: Evan, having the special counsel's office was known for keeping their various investigative threads under wraps. But there were never any leaks about this, as I can recall, even after the case closed.

How did they go about keeping this secret?

PEREZ: Right.

The Egyptian investigation was never mentioned overtly in the Mueller report. It was listed among 11 cases that Mueller transferred to other prosecutors when his investigation ended.

But that entry was redacted. As I mentioned, that court fight was done in a highly secretive manner, filings never publicly mentioned, the names or significant details. At one point, Mueller's team had the court lock down an entire floor of a federal courthouse, allowing attorneys to enter and exit without being seen.

A spokesman for the Egyptian government, by the way, Jake, said that they didn't have any comment.

TAPPER: And this investigation continued under Bill Barr's Justice Department. Did prosecutors explain why?

PEREZ: Well, we know that they told the court that the investigation was continuing robustly and -- quote -- "very much a live issue."

We know about the consideration of a subpoena under Jessie Liu. That's about it, until it was closed this past month. The Justice Department unredacted a list of cases that Mueller transferred for further investigation, including the Roger Stone matter, for instance.

One case listed simply described as -- quote -- "a foreign campaign contribution." Now, sources tell us that was the Egyptian probe. Now, the fact of the matter is that the case was closed without investigators really getting an answer to their ultimate question, and that is, was Donald Trump supported by or indebted to a foreign power?

TAPPER: All right, Evan Perez, thank you so much. Appreciate it. In our politics lead: President Trump and Republicans hyped an

investigation into the Obama administration for months, alleging, without any evidence, that there was wrongdoing surrounding the 2016 election involving a process called unmasking.

But, today, "The Washington Post" reports Attorney General Bill Barr will not bring any charges.

And, as CNN's Alex Marquardt reports, President Trump is now responding and refusing to commit to letting the attorney general keep his job if the president is reelected.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): An investigation that President Trump touted as a scandal has now quietly ended in a whimper.

The months-long Justice Department investigation which was ordered by Attorney General Bill Barr into the unfounded allegations against the Obama administration in its final days has come up empty.

[16:35:01]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's a big thing going on right now, which is spying. And it's -- you can call it anything you want, the unmasking and the spying. And, to me, that's the big story right now.

MARQUARDT: The president's repeated accusations that his campaign was spied on by the Obama White House led to the investigation which was launched this spring and led by a senior U.S. attorney.

The goal, to look into the Obama administration's requests for the revealing of American names, or unmasking in intelligence reports. One name that was revealed was Trump adviser General Michael Flynn, who before the election had been speaking with a Russian ambassador who was under surveillance.

Earlier this year, Republican senators released a long unclassified list of Obama officials, including former Vice President Joe Biden, who had requested the unmasking, alleging that it showed the Obama White House was spying on Trump.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): This is a scandal of -- really, if we weren't involved in the COVID-19 crisis, this would be a scandal, the biggest thing since Watergate.

MARQUARDT: But the DOJ investigation found, according to "The Washington Post," that everything had been done legally and there was no wrongdoing, resulting in no criminal charges and no public report.

Unmasking is a standard part of intelligence gathering. If foreign intelligence reports contain the name of American citizens, those are always redacted. However, certain U.S. government officials have the ability to unredact or unmask those names to better understand the report.

And unmasking has actually gone up under Trump.

DONALD AYER, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: People who understand unmasking and what it is understood from the start that this was a complete nothing burger. And so it was trotted out as something that sounded sinister or could be made to sound peculiar and strange.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARQUARDT: Now, President Trump is clearly not happy with his attorney general, Bill Barr.

He was asked today by right-wing outlet Newsmax whether Barr would have a role in a possible second term. Trump replied that it's too early to know. He called the lack of indictments after this investigation a disgrace. Not exactly the tone of someone who's going to let go of this idea that he was illegally spied on -- Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Alex Marquardt, thanks so much.

President Trump giving oxygen to a wildly unhinged conspiracy theory, that the raid to kill bin Laden was not actually a success.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:41:51]

TAPPER: In our politics lead: President Trump promoting yet another baseless conspiracy theory, a new one.

This one alleges that the Obama administration killed Osama bin Laden's body double, not the terrorist leader, during SEAL Team Six's 2011 raid, the president retweeting the heinous, false allegation, too deranged to really go into here. That QAnon account promoting this nonsense has now been suspended by Twitter.

There is, of course, absolutely no dispute that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden was killed that night by Navy SEALs. One of his wives identified his body. There was facial recognition. A DNA test was done.

Robert O'Neill, the Trump supporter and SEAL Team Six veteran who wrote a book about how he pulled the trigger to kill bin Laden, responded to the president's retweets, saying -- quote -- "Very brave men said goodbye to their kids to go kill Osama bin Laden. We were given the order by President Obama. It was not a body double. Thank you, Mr. President" -- unquote.

Joining me now is a man who has repeatedly warned of conspiracy theories such as those of QAnon working their way into the fabric of the United States and the Republican Party, Republican Congressman Denver Riggleman of Virginia. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

We should note you wrote and passed a House resolution condemning QAnon. Why do you think the group poses such a threat?

REP. DENVER RIGGLEMAN (R-VA): Really, Jake, I think it's about the disintegration of really the trust that we have in being able to talk to each other sort of in government circles and have this dialogue that's not based on the insanity of things like QAnon that shouldn't be actually in our public discourse.

And when you see what's going on with QAnon right now, as you have seen, Jake, it's exploding. And the reason that I'm so worried about is because I have worked this for so long. I worked radicalization. I worked counterterrorism for two decades.

And here's the deal. And I can't imagine -- can you imagine, Jake, somebody getting that job offer to be Osama bin Laden's body double? I don't know if I would take that job offer. But it's so ridiculous. I'm just wondering, how do we stop this type of insanity on the Internet right now?

TAPPER: As a Republican, also as a veteran, what's your response to President Trump promoting this QAnon baseless theory that SEAL Team Six didn't actually kill Osama bin Laden?

You say, how do we get it off the Internet? It would help with President Trump didn't amplify it.

RIGGLEMAN: It's a dangerous tweet. And that's the kind of things that we cannot do, because if you go just one level, one degree of separation at the YouTube video that was attached to this tweet, you have an individual on there who said that these people -- and I'm talking about -- when I say these people, Jake, they're talking President Obama, Vice President Biden, Leon Panetta, John Brennan, Hillary Clinton -- she said they should be hanged.

I mean, the claim to fame for this individual -- 1.7 eight million subscribers were watching this news channel. She essentially said that they should be hanged, that she did -- I will tell you that she qualified it by saying, I'm a Christian, but they should be hanged right now.

And that -- and with 1.7 eight million people subscribing to this new channel, people watching this, that is the language of radicalization.

And people go down these rabbit holes. And I think that people that believe this -- and I think she's one of them -- are the same people that believe that "Lord of the Rings" was a documentary.

TAPPER: Right.

RIGGLEMAN: I mean, that's how crazy they are.

And I think -- and there's technical terms for that, right? There's -- in the military -- as you know, I'm very good with military language. But let's be honest. Let's use the technical term for what's going on

here. And it's bat-shit crazy.

[16:45:06]

TAPPER: Yes.

Speaking of people who go down these rabbit holes, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia, she's previously embraced the QAnon conspiracy theory. She attacks you on Twitter for condemning QAnon.

She has a record of bigotry. She is likely going to win a congressional seat representing Georgia to be in the next Congress. She's been embraced by the Republican Party leadership. She attended the Republican National Convention at the White House.

Obviously, having someone like her as a congressperson is concerning.

RIGGLEMAN: It's very concerning to me. And the reason it's concerning is because we're not dealing in truth or facts.

And I think that's the one thing you have to do if you're a public official or public servant, is you have to make sure the facts are there before you tweet.

Now, you make certain decisions, right? Or you put out social media type of things. You make certain decisions. Is it factual? Is it timely? Is it contextual, right? Is it part of your messaging platform?

I think the basic tenet of actually anything you should do before you put anything on Twitter, here's the bottom line, Jake, it should be, is it insane, right? So, if it's insane, you probably shouldn't tweet it, or you probably shouldn't talk about it.

And there's other issues that I have with candidates on QAnon. It's also 9/11 truthers. It's almost this federated conspiracy theory. And we have to stop the spread of it. And the only way to do that, Jake, is to fight speech with speech, is to use blunt-force trauma, and to show people how ridiculous this is.

And I grew up during the Reagan years. I grew up when it was morning in America, right? That was sort of the Republican creed. And I know people can agree or disagree with the president, but there was a feeling that he was positive. You wanted morning in America.

Right, now with the members of Congress that we have coming in, I think it's almost QAnon after dark. It's just a ridiculous thing. And it has to be stomped out using facts and logic, and not this ridiculous tripe that we see on the Internet.

TAPPER: Yes, but you have the leadership of the House Republicans embracing Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The president, asked about QAnon in August, he was given a prime opportunity to condemn them. Take a listen to what he said instead. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: During the pandemic, that QAnon movement has been -- appears to be gaining a lot of followers. Can you talk about what you think about that and what you have to say to people who are following this movement right now?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I mean, that's a signal to QAnon that you have got a friend in the White House.

I have to ask you. You're a conservative Republican. Are you at home in the Republican Party anymore? I mean, they are embracing this insanity that you condemn.

RIGGLEMAN: You know, my loyalty isn't to a party. My loyalty is to the people who elected me and my family.

And a lot of people say, well you have bosses. I have no boss. My only boss -- well, my wife. But I have no boss. The president's not my boss. Article 1 of the Constitution, I'm an elected official who has to say facts and truth. And that's what I do.

And you know what I have gone through, Jake. You know it's been pretty awful for me these two years. I'm a pretty independent-minded guy. But for people like me, it's harder and harder to find a home in the GOP, because I don't know if it's about conservatism. I think it's about a cult of personality.

And if it gets to that point, you have to be very responsible about what you put out there, if you're the person that's the centerpiece of that cult of personality. And it's really getting difficult for me, because of my independent sort of thinking, the way that I am, really to stay on this course.

And I think, at some point, we're going to have to have some kind of reconfiguration of the GOP and say, we have to go back to policies, principles and ideas, and not just cults of personality. And if people don't like it, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, they can pound sand.

TAPPER: Congressman Denver Riggleman of Virginia, we appreciate your candor, and thank you for your service as well. Thank you, sir.

RIGGLEMAN: Thank you, sir. Thank you for having me.

TAPPER: Senator Kamala Harris questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Capitol Hill right now.

Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: But, as you know, the Voting Rights Act was not an inevitable triumph.

So, I think it's important for us to acknowledge some of its history.

This year, our nation has mourned the loss of a great American hero, Congressman John Lewis. He was one of our country's greatest leaders, because he inspired us to fight for a perfect union.

Every year, John Lewis would invite a bunch of us members of Congress, faith leaders, others, to join him in Selma, Alabama, for a walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

And it was there that he would remind everyone of America's history and the history of the fact that, for generations, black Americans were denied their constitutional right to vote.

He also reminded us of the brutality that so many Americans faced when fighting for the voting rights of black people and all people.

And history reminds us some states, as a condition of voting, required black Americans to answer impossible questions, like, take a look at that jar of jelly beans. And, if you're going to vote, you need to tell us how many jelly beans are in the jar.

[16:50:18]

There were questions asked of folks, in order for them to vote, they would have to tell the official how many bubbles are in a bar of soap.

Impossible questions, obviously.

Some states required black people who had been systemically and systematically denied access to equal educational opportunities to answer questions like, how often is the federal census taken, or when is Inauguration Day?

And when one of these malicious questions was asked, they were challenged, as you can imagine, and many were struck down. But when that happened, those states and municipalities would just put up new restrictions and new obstacles for folks to vote.

In other cases, black Americans were beaten when they tried to vote or register to vote, including Congressman Lewis and others who memorably shed blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

That's why, after so much pressure, and the marching, and the peaceful protests from civil rights activists, that, in 1965, Congress finally passed the Voting Rights Act to end discriminatory voting practices. The Voting Rights Act, as you know, required states and counties who had history -- this is very important -- who had a history of denying black Americans and other minorities the right to vote to get approval from the federal government before they changed their voting laws.

And for almost 50 years, the Voting Rights Act did what Congress intended. It allowed the federal government to monitor and guard against racial discrimination in states with a long history of voter suppression. But, as we all know, in 2013, in Shelby v. Holder, a county in Alabama

sued to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that required Alabama to seek approval from the federal government before a state could change its voting laws.

And, of course, Section 5 required that of a number of states that had a documented history of voter suppression.

Now, Judge Barrett, I know many of my colleagues have asked you about this case, but I think it's important we revisit it. By a 5-4 vote, the court gutted the Voting Rights Act and ended the requirement that states and localities with a history of discrimination get federal approval before changing their voting laws.

What the majority of the Supreme Court justices failed to understand is that the success in combating voter suppression directly was a function of our ability to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. So, the success was due to the brilliance of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which gave us enforcement capabilities and monitoring capabilities.

As has been mentioned, just two months after the court gutted the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina passed laws that made it so much more difficult for black Americans to vote, that a federal court of appeals mentioned that it -- quote -- "targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision."

Texas also has a long history of racial discrimination in voting, and was therefore once also covered by the Voting Rights Act. But after Section 5 was gutted in Shelby, Texas quickly returned to some of its discriminatory voting practices.

Of the more than 1,600 polling places closed after the court's decision, at least 750 were in Texas. Texas also restricted interpretation assistance for English-limited voters.

And, this year, the governor of Texas issued an order that limited the number of drop boxes for completed mail-in ballots to just one per county.

Before the order, Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, and had 11 ballot drop-off locations in a county of four million residents, and a county that covers about 2,000 square miles, many people would say that it is just common sense but going from 11 drop boxes to what it did, which is to reduce it to one single drop box, has made it more difficult for people to vote.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that our right to vote is fundamental, because it preserves and protects all other rights. No right is more precious in our democracy. Any nominee to the Supreme Court must understand the effect and the fact of ongoing efforts to discriminate against black Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans, students, and other communities of color.

[16:55:13] Since the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby, at least 23 states have passed restrictive voting laws and have attempted to also close polling places, stop early voting, and take people's names off the voter rolls that should not have been removed.

So, Judge Barrett, in Shelby County, Chief Justice Roberts wrote voting -- and -- quote -- "Voting discrimination still exists. No one doubts that."

And my question to you is, do you agree with Justice Roberts' statement?

AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE: Senator Harris, I want to just make sure that I understand -- that my understanding of what remains of the Voting Rights Act, what happened in Shelby County, is consistent with what you're describing.

The pre-clearance requirement, as I understand Shelby County, remains in place. And what the Supreme Court held unconstitutional was the coverage formula. So, some states, which, in 1965, had a history of discrimination, had to get pre-clearance whenever they changed anything having to do with their voting procedures, and other states didn't.

And I think Shelby County said that Congress can still pass a new coverage formula now, articulating the criteria for jurisdictions that are discriminating and requiring pre-clearance.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: Judge Barrett, my question, however, is, do you agree with Chief Justice Roberts, who said voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that?

Do you agree with that statement?

BARRETT: Senator Harris, I will not comment on what any justice said in opinion, whether an opinion is right or wrong, or endorse that proposition.

HARRIS: I'm asking...

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: Do you -- so, do you call it a proposition or a fact?

Are you saying you do not agree with a fact?

BARRETT: Senator, I'm not going to make a comment. I'm not going to say that I endorse either the majority or the dissent in the case of Shelby County.

HARRIS: Well, I just want to understand, are you saying that you will -- you refuse to dispute a known fact -- or that you refuse to agree with a known fact? BARRETT: Senator, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with

asking me to endorse the fact or whether any particular practice constitutes voter discrimination.

I'm very happy to say that I think racial discrimination still exists in the United States, and I think we have seen evidence of that this summer. But as to engaging...

HARRIS: Do you think that voting discrimination exists, based on race, in America in any form?

BARRETT: Senator -- Senator Harris, there have been cases -- we have talked in this hearing about the Wisconsin case that went up to the court involving voting.

I think anything, any opinion that I would express -- and I don't mean to signal that I disagree with the statement either. What I mean to say is, I'm not going to express an opinion, because these are very charged issues. They have been litigated in the courts. And so I will not engage on that question.

HARRIS: During his confirmation hearing in 2005, Chief Justice Roberts was asked about the constitutionality of Section 2, which I think you were referring to earlier, of the Voting Rights Act.

He testified -- quote -- "I have no basis for viewing Section 2 as constitutionally suspect. And I don't."

Judge Barrett, do you agree that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is constitutional?

BARRETT: I think that Chief Justice Roberts' statement, "I have no basis for viewing it as constitutionally suspect," would be the same as mine.

I'm not aware of any constitutional law existing that would create a question about it.

HARRIS: Thank you.

As Senator Hirono mentioned yesterday, in a 2018 case before the Supreme Court, a group of workers were denied overtime pay and joined together to file a lawsuit against their employer.

The corporation argued that workers didn't have a right to go to court as a group, and could only raise disputes in arbitration individually.

Unlike a court proceeding, arbitration is private. The process is hidden from the public and generally cannot be reviewed for fairness by a court. And, in many cases, people are forced to agree to arbitration if they want to get a job.

In 2018, because of a forced arbitration clause, the workers could not go to a court to fight for overtime, and, instead, were forced to fight for overtime pay behind closed doors in a private arbitration. Justice Ginsburg, in dissent, noted that the workers faced -- quote --

"a Hobson's choice, accept arbitration, or -- on their employers' terms, or give up their jobs."

She went on to explain that -- quote -- "Employees must have the capacity to act collectively in order to match their employers' clout in setting terms and conditions of employment."