Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Redacted Affidavit Could Be Released; An Activist Told Trump that the Records Belonged to Him; David Laufman is Interviewed about the Trump Affidavit; Biden Sharpens Attacks on Trump; Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) is Interviewed about Biden. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired August 26, 2022 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:34]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good busy Friday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow. We're very glad you're with us.

So, as Jim said, a very busy morning because at any moment now the Justice Department could release a redacted version of the affidavit used to justify the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago. DOJ has until noon today to unseal that document. It is a significant step. Pretty unprecedented. It could tell us why investigators believe that a crime or crimes may have been committed.

SCIUTTO: We are also getting new insight into former President Trump's strategy in this ongoing back and forth over the documents kept at Mar-a-Lago, and the legal advice and from whom he's getting from conservative activist Tom Fitton. One person close to the former president said, once Trump took Fitton's advice, quote, it was all downhill from there. This as sources tell CNN that Trump and his allies have become increasingly concerned about the potential legal implications from all this.

Plus, President Biden fresh off what Democrats believe are a winning streak, kicking off the midterm campaign season with a fiery speech in Maryland. The president rebuked some Trump-supporting Republicans, calling the extreme MAGA philosophy, as it's known, semi-fascism, his terms.

HARLOW: So, a lot to get to this morning. Our reporters, our correspondents are here covering all of the top stories this morning.

Let's begin on what we will get from DOJ sometime in the next three hours with our senior justice correspondent Evan Perez.

Evan, talk about this affidavit that could come at any moment. What is expected to be allowed for the public to see, and how unprecedented is it for an affidavit to be released at this time?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Poppy, it is pretty unprecedented for us to get an affidavit at this stage of an investigation. Certainly we don't even know whether the prosecutors for the investigation is going to result in charges. And for it to be released at this point shows you just really how unprecedented all of this has been.

We'll -- I'll read you just a part of what the judge said in his order yesterday. He says that he believes that the government has met its burden of showing that its proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate interests in the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

And, really, I think those are the words that I -- at least I focused on when I saw the judge's order, which came, you know, surprisingly quickly yesterday after the Justice Department submitted a redacted version of this affidavit. I think those words really stood out to me because, you know, one of the thing we heard from this judge is that he wants as much as possible to be released to the public. He knows, obviously he's very familiar with this document, after all he is the one that approved this search warrant, the extraordinary search and seizure of the former president's Mar-a-Lago home. And so he knows intimately what is and isn't really necessary for the government to protect under seal.

And so what we expect is that, you know, this is going to, obviously, still shield things like the names of witnesses, or anything that identifies who the witnesses are, who provided the impetus for the FBI to believe that there was additional classified documents to be retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. We know, Poppy and Jim, that this is something that has been going on now since last year with the National Archives begging, frankly, to retrieve what were presidential records. And it was something that, obviously, became a lot more alarming once they retrieved 15 boxes earlier this year from the former president's home.

Jim and Poppy.

SCIUTTO: We should note that the DOJ proposed its own redactions here to this, which the judge determined acceptable. We'll see what those redactions involve.

Evan Perez, thanks so much. Please stay with us.

We are also learning this morning that at the advice of a prominent conservative activist, that is Tom Fitton, Trump became convinced that he should have full control over records, including the classified ones that he took to Mar-a-Lago.

HARLOW: Sources also tell our CNN colleagues that the former president and his allies have become increasingly concerned about any potential legal fallout from all of this.

So, for that, let's go to our chief White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins.

Kaitlan, what more are you hearing about that inner circle around Trump that seems to be increasingly concerned?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, two things. One, what this new reporting from our colleagues shows is maybe an explanation potentially and partially for what was happening in that period of when Trump returned some of the boxes to the National Archives, but then didn't return others, obviously is what led to that FBI search of Mar-a-Lago that happened in recent weeks.

[09:05:08]

And Tom Fitton is the head of this legal activist group known as Judicial Watch. He is often on television. He is often in the format that people use to appeal to Trump and to make arguments.

And his argument and his view is this is that Trump should have never turned over any of the documents, any of the materials in the first place. And that basically they were letting the National Archives strong arm them into returning them. And that is an argument that our colleagues are told was appealing to Trump, one that he was listening to that was brought into his inner circle and, obviously, may have played a role in why we saw that massive gap of why he would not return those records, despite very clear and repeated efforts to try to obtain them by the National Archives, and, then, of course, by the Justice Department, with the subpoena.

And we've seen, as we've been waiting on this affidavit, the partially redacted version to come out, the correspondence that was happening between the National Archives, between Trump's legal team, and it even got to the point where our colleagues were reporting, you know, they were trying to get them to FedEx back the letters from the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. And the attorney who was representing Trump at the time was trying to get them to bring them back.

One other thing I will note is that, in recent days, Trump has been huddling with his legal team to talk about what the deadline is going to look like for them today, not just this Justice Department deadline, but also for them to refine their request to have a third- party attorney help sift through some of these materials.

SCIUTTO: Kaitlan Collins, thanks so much. A lot of important details there.

So, joining us to discuss legal implications, David Laufman. He's former Justice Department chief of counterintelligence under both Presidents Obama and Trump.

David, it's good to have you here. I wonder, there seems to be joint concern about releasing any information about witnesses here. So, setting that aside for a moment, what additional information do you think the unsealed document is likely to reveal?

DAVID LAUFMAN, FORMER DOJ CHIEF OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE UNDER Obama AND TRUMP: I think that the Justice Department and the FBI probably came up with portions of the affidavit, some of which are kind of boiler plate, that they could live with being in the public domain. There are certain preamble type language. The background and experience of the agent that could be masked perhaps to mask the actual identity of the agent. Some general discussion about the nature of the investigation is. A statutes whose violations are at issue. Some explanation of that. Some explanation of what these different levels of classification are. And possibly some of the historical back and forth between the National Archives and Mr. Trump and his representatives.

HARLOW: Which could really, David, shed light on, you know, how cooperative team Trump was or was not.

But to be clear for our viewers, I mean, you sat in the chair that Jay Brat (ph) sits in now. Jay Brat, who in court said to the judge, don't release any of this, even redacted. Don't release any of this affidavit because, according to him, it would, quote, likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought in this investigation, not to mention outside investigations. He didn't win that argument.

LAUFMAN: Right. So, look, it was completely customary for the Justice Department to take an absolutist maximalist position in the litigation in the first place to argue against the disclosure of anything because it is essentially unprecedented preindictment for the department to maybe public a search warrant affidavit. But I think it - they could read the tea leaves. They saw this judge was bending in the direction of requiring some disclosure and then it became their task to sit down together in a room with a paper and say to themselves, all right, what can we live with? What can we allow to go into the public domain that will not truly undermine our ongoing investigation? Whatever they've come up with has met the low bar set by this judge to satisfy him.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this, because one of their specific concerns, to your point there, right, has been to release this or unseal portions of it would show a road map, as it were, of their ongoing investigation, including perhaps specific laws which the DOJ argues were broken here.

I wonder, do you think, based on the standard that the judge has set, or at least his public comments on that, that we will see some information on laws that the DOJ believes may have been broken?

LAUFMAN: Well, that's already in the public domain. Remember, the warrant that was released lists three statutes, including the Espionage Act. So, that's why I said it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't see in the released document what is unredacted, you know, some reference to these statutes, a description of what their components are, the elements of the defenses, definitions, for example, with classified levels of, you know, top secret, secret, et cetera, what SCI means, what Special Access Program means. With all that stuff, I think it would be fairly harmless to unredact.

SCIUTTO: I mean I suppose what I mean is, not just which laws, but how they were broken, right? In other words, is it likely we see how they're making that argument here?

[09:10:02]

LAUFMAN: I don't think that we're likely to see text that is released that explains their analysis of - to the extent to which they believe laws were broken. SCIUTTO: Yes.

LAUFMAN: Maybe it will be something that they release that gives rise -it's a masked form to the probable cause that they told the magistrate existed. But I think we're unlikely to get much visibility into that.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: I mean, we should note that former President Trump, on his social media platform, Truth Social, said, you know, calling for transparency that he wanted the immediate release of the completely unredacted affidavit. That was never going to happen. But he took that position and then, interestingly, in court, his lawyers did not oppose efforts to unseal it, nor really take any position on it in court. And I understand that they were sort of tangentially party to this, but I wonder what you make of that?

LAUFMAN: You know, it's hard to say. There's probably a certain degree of ambivalence. I mean here maybe something on Mr. Trump's part that he could use the affidavit completely unsealed to foment further anger against the FBI and the Department of Justice, and raise more money for his, you know, pending bid for office again. They also know that it will be a horror show in a different sense for all this derogatory information set forth in this affidavit. And there's a ton of derogatory information in there, to be out there in the public domain because it will further tarnish him.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: Well, David Laufman, thank you so much again. You had this job not long ago under both former presidents, so your insight is very important. Thanks for the time this morning.

LAUFMAN: Thank you.

HARLOW: In Georgia, the Fulton County District Attorney is now calling on Trump's former White House chief of staff to testify before that special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election in that state. There's a new court filing that CNN obtained. And what it shows is that Mark Meadows has been ordered to testify before this grand jury on September 27th. The D.A., Fani Willis, says Meadows is a material witness because of a variety of his actions following the 2020 election.

SCIUTTO: We'll see if he fights it as other called witnesses have. One of those actions being Meadows participation in a call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump asked officials to, in his words, find the nearly 12,000 votes he needed, just enough to win that state. Willis is also seeking testimony on September 22nd from two others who spread misinformation about the election. Trump connected attorney Sidney Powell and retired Army Colonel James Phil Waldron.

HARLOW: Well, up next, President Biden goes on the offense in his first major political speech ahead of the midterms, calling out part of the extreme wing of the Republican Party, using the term, quote, semi-fascist.

Plus, one year after the deadly terror attack in Kabul at the airport, we will be joined by Congressman Jake Auchincloss, who also is a Marine veteran, served in Afghanistan. What he makes of this one year later.

SCIUTTO: Also ahead, a volatile, dangerous situation at Europe's largest nuclear power plant as it has just been reconnected to Ukraine's power grid. That's important to keep those reactors cooled. One worker on the inside warns CNN, the threat of a radiation accident there remains high.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:42]

HARLOW: Welcome back.

President Biden with quite a return to the campaign trail yesterday. He did, at moments in this speech, blast former President Trump and some of his most extreme supporters. He spoke in Maryland yesterday. Also touted recent Democratic legislative accomplishments, but focused on also what Biden calls, quote, semi-fascism, underpinning, quote, extreme MAGA philosophy.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice, to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate and division.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: CNN White House correspondent Jeremy Diamond at the White House this morning.

Jeremy, I wonder, is this anti-MAGA message a deliberate decision by the president and his team and is it one meant to last into the midterms?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it absolutely is, Jim. White House officials have been telling us in these last several weeks that the president does expect -- was planning to set up this exact contrast. And certainly this was President Biden's opening salvo in this midterm campaign season that he is just beginning to enter in earnest.

And we did get a good taste of what that message is going to look like. First of all, talking about the - typing Republicans to this MAGA philosophy. And the president, beyond the comments that he made during the rally last night, in a fundraiser off camera beforehand, he also said this. He said, it's not just Trump. He said, it's the entire philosophy, talking about this MAGA philosophy that underpins it. And he said, I'm going to say something, it's like semi-fascism. Those were comments by the president during a fundraiser before this rally.

And then during the rally, you heard him really lay into Republicans, talking about this anger and division and arguing that these MAGA Republicans are, quote, anti-Democratic, saying that that is what is at stake, including abortion rights, gun control, and so many other issues in these November midterms.

But the president also sought to run on his own legislative accomplishments. And there too you saw a contrast with Republicans as he was touting the Inflation Reduction Act, which he signed into law a few weeks ago, the president also pointing out that every Republican voted against that piece of legislation.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Every single Republican voted against lowering prescription drug prices, against lower healthcare costs, against tackling the climate crisis, against lower energy costs, against creating good paying jobs, against the fair taxes.

[09:20:03]

Every single one. That's not hyperbole. Every - every single American needs to return the favor when we vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And, listen, the president's advises tell me that the president is going to be getting out on the campaign trail much more in the coming weeks. He will be traveling not just to say blue states like Maryland, but to battleground states as well. And his advisers are also hoping that as he touts these accomplishments, his poll numbers as well will go up.

Poppy. Jim.

HARLOW: They've been going up a little bit. Four points higher than just about a month ago.

Jeremy, thanks very much.

Let's talk about all of this and more with Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, Jake Auchincloss. He's a Marine Corps veteran, served as an infantry commander in Afghanistan, now serves as a major in the reserves.

Thank you for your service and - both, as I mentioned, and now in Congress.

And let's just begin with what the president said last night, the choice of the words semi-fascism. And I should be clear, referring to a part, right, an extreme part of the Republican Party. But, you know, you've talked a lot about bipartisanship. The president

used the term unity a lot in his State of the Union Address. And I just wonder what you make of the message from him yesterday.

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Good morning. Thanks for having me on.

The most important word that the president used was the word choice. That's what November 2022 was about. It's a choice between the Democratic Party that has passed legislation to lower healthcare costs, taken the biggest climate action in history and passed once in a generation infrastructure investment, or a Republican Party that is in lockstep to wind back the clock 50 years and to deprive women of access to reproductive rights and to arm teachers in response to our epidemic of gun violence.

HARLOW: So, as I mentioned, the president's poll numbers are going up a little bit. Still at 40 percent, though. His team would like to see him a lot higher. But there are some of your fellow Democrats in Congress who say it's time for a new candidate in 2024, that he's not the best candidate for the party in the next presidential election.

You have said, you told Yahoo! News recently, not specifically about this, but in general, quote, I'm ready for generational change. How should we understand that, and do you believe that but also believe that President Biden is the best candidate for your party in 2024?

AUCHINCLOSS: Yes is the short answer.

HARLOW: Yes to both?

AUCHINCLOSS: I'm one of the youngest members of Congress. I am hungry for generational change. I think that is shared across my generation, not just in politics, by the way, but in business, in media, in non- profit work. We are hangry to take the reins and show what we can do, just like the baby boomers were able to do in their era.

But we have to recognize that President Biden is a strong leader for this moment. He is standing in the abyss right now against Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans who are not committed to the institutions of democracy, and who are not committed to action on climate change and who are not committed to common sense gun safety regulations and who are not committed to protecting women's reproductive rights. This is not a referendum on Joe Biden in 2022. This is a choice. And the choice for the American people is clear.

HARLOW: The biggest unilateral move dollars-wise that the president has made in his presidency in terms of executive action came this week with canceling $300 billion in student loan debt. And, as you know, it was not applauded by every Democratic representative in Congress. In fact, there was a lot of criticism on the left. Tim Ryan said it sends a wrong message to millions of Ohioans without a degree working just as hard to make ends meet. You heard Arizona Senator Catherine Cortez Mastro say it doesn't address the root problems that make college unaffordable. Maine Representative Jared Golden called it out of touch with the majority of the American people. Do you think they're right?

AUCHINCLOSS: I'm a strong defender of the president. I'm also going to disagree with him where we diverge on policy issues.

HARLOW: OK. OK.

AUCHINCLOSS: And on this issue I would have taken a different approach. So, for example, with that sum of money we could have relieved all medical debt in this country. That would be more fair and it would be more progressive in that it would disproportionately help those with lowest income and lowest wealth.

HARLOW: So, let's turn to Afghanistan, especially given what today marks. You served in Afghanistan, as I mentioned. And today marks one year since the terror attack at the Kabul airport. It killed 13 American service members, as many as 170 civilians.

The report out from the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction a year ago found, you know, after $837 billion spent on the war, $145 billion on rebuilding, 2,443 American troops killed, it found, quote, the U.S. government continuously struggled to develop and implement a coherent strategy for what it hoped to achieve and it found many institutions and infrastructure projects the United States built were not sustainable.

[09:25:05]

The reality on the ground, as we saw from our correspondent Clarissa Ward, is that you've got 90 percent of the country, according to the U.N. now, not even having enough food, not to mention what has happened to women and girls in Afghanistan with the Taliban in control.

Having served there and fought for this, on a day like today, what do you make of what we see now?

AUCHINCLOSS: The United States is in a stronger position now than it was a year ago when we left. We freed up resources and bandwidth to focus on the threats from China and Russia. And as you indicated, what President Biden inherited in 2021 was nothing short of a catastrophe. He did not have a good choice to make. He had a bad choice, and a worse choice. And after 20 years in which American politicians and the national security establishment had dissembled to the American people, President Biden made the hard, high integrity choice to tell the American people the truth, we could not win that war in Afghanistan and he exited.

HARLOW: So -

AUCHINCLOSS: We, though, must acknowledge that Afghanistan, of course, is struggling. We must remain the largest humanitarian donor to Afghanistan and we need to put them on a path towards economic self- sufficiency.

HARLOW: Are you surprised at what you're seeing there, the rapid deterioration on the ground for so many?

AUCHINCLOSS: The Taliban's brutality will never surprise me having been there in 2012. But we cannot let despair be a strategy. We must invest in Afghan mining in particular. It has significant loads of copper, lithium, rare earth elements, lapis lazuli and western mining could do what western militaries never could, which is put the Afghan people on a path of sustainable, self-development and also help America secure our clean energy supply chains in the face of Chinese expansionism.

HARLOW: Congressman Jake Auchincloss, thanks for your time today.

AUCHINCLOSS: Appreciate it.

HARLOW: Jim.

SCIUTTO: Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe, has now been reconnected to the power grid. That's important. But the threat of possible - a possible nuclear disaster there remains, officials tell us. CNN is live on the ground in Ukraine.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)