Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump's Rhetoric on President Obama and ISIS Criticized; Source: FBI Offices Pushed for Clinton Foundation Investigation; Do Trump & Clinton's Economic Plans Add Up? Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired August 12, 2016 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And 33,000 e- mails, deleted, discarded. No good, folks.

HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Mr. Trump may talk a big game on trade, but his approach is based on fear, not strength.

TRUMP: She is going to try and negotiate trade deals. Can't do it.

CLINTON: I am running for president to build an economy that works for everyone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael Phelps making Olympic history again.

Simone Biles defining perfection, clinching another gold medal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The diver on the podium, Aly Raisman, taking home silver.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another great day for the Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: We are just killing it at the Olympics. There's no other way to say it.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: So much winning.

CUOMO: Great moment for America. Good morning. Welcome to your NEW DAY. Alisyn is off. Brianna Keilar is with me this morning, has been all week, and that's been a pleasure. Up first, Donald Trump tweeting this morning while he was watching NEW DAY, of course, that he was being sarcastic when he was falsely claiming that President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the founders of ISIS. There's only one problem with that, and it's a big one. Trump has repeatedly said he was not being sarcastic while making the claim at rally after rally and interview after interview since Wednesday night.

KEILAR: This as Hillary Clinton's e-mail controversy continues to haunt her campaign. There are questions about what newly released e- mails reveal about ties between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. Let's begin now with CNN's Athena Jones. She is live for us in Washington. Good morning, Athena.

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Brianna. This new tweet from Trump this morning saying he was being sarcastic is interesting. It's also in line with him saying just a few days ago, I guess a week or two ago, that he was just joking about asking the Russians to hack Secretary Clinton's e-mails. It seems like either his version of an apology. But the fact is you can't un-ring a bell. It is hard to walk something back after you've been repeating it over and over and over again, and insisting that you meant exactly what you said.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TRUMP: I call president Obama and Hillary Clinton the founders of ISIS. They're the founders.

JONES: Donald Trump refusing to back down from his latest controversy.

TRUMP: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, these are the founders of ISIS.

JONES: Despite growing concern within the Republican Party about the effect his rhetoric could have on vulnerable Congressional races.

TRUMP: All I'll have to do is to stop funding the Republican Party. I'm the one raising the money for them. In fact, right now I'm in Orlando, I'm going to a fundraiser for the Republican Party. So if they want to do that, they could save me a lot of time.

JONES: Sources tell CNN that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus denied he was considering shifting funds from Trump's presidential bid to down ballot races, but did speak to Trump about his tone. This after Trump spent an entire day repeating a false claim that President Obama literally is the founder of ISIS.

TRUMP: He is the founder of ISIS. Barack Obama is the founder.

I think he's the founder of ISIS, I do. He's the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award.

JONES: Back in February during a CNN town hall, Trump placed the blame for the rise of ISIS squarely on the Iraq War.

TRUMP: The war in Iraq started the whole destabilization of the Middle East. It started is. It started Libya. It started Syria. In all fairness, Bush made the decision.

JONES: The Republican candidate also making waves this morning for saying he would allow American terror suspects to be tried at the military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.

TRUMP: Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court system, and I don't like that at all. I would say that they could be tried there. That'll be fine. JONES: As for his rival, Trump continuing to raise questions about the nature of the State Department's relationship with the Clinton Foundation.

TRUMP: Aren't e-mails a wonderful thing?

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Right, what a great invention. Go home -- I'm not going to it, because if I mention it, they'll play it down. So I'm not going to mention it.

JONES: Meanwhile, Clinton hitting Trump's economic plan, accusing the billionaire of using his campaign to benefit the rich.

CLINTON: He called for a new tax loophole. Let's call it the Trump loophole.

JONES: With less than three months until Election Day, Trump already entertaining the possibility of losing in November.

TRUMP: At the end, it is either go to work or I'm going to, you know, I'm going to have a very, very nice, long vacation.

JONES: Now, Trump campaigns in Pennsylvania today. We'll see if he talks about ISIS there. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is stepping up the pressure on him to release his tax returns. She plans to release her 2015 tax returns soon, and her running mate, Tim Kaine and his wife will be releasing the last 10 years of their returns.

[08:05:04] She has also put out a new web video this morning featuring top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former GOP nominee Mitt Romney calling on Trump to release his returns. Chris?

CUOMO: All right, thank you very much, my friend.

Let's discuss with senior advisor for the Donald Trump campaign, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Sarah, Good to have you on the show.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, SENIOR ADVISER FOR DONALD J. TRUMP: Good morning, Chris.

CUOMO: So help make the case for this proposition that we're dealing with this morning. Trump insists that he wants to call Obama the founder. He wants to say tom Barack Hussein Obama is the founder. People will see good and bad reason for him wanting to say it that way. He then says this morning, watching our show, "I'm being sarcastic." How are we supposed to know when to take him at his word?

SANDERS: I think the title that he gave, "founder," was the point of sarcasm. The part that isn't sarcastic is that ISIS is the direct result of a failed foreign policy under the Obama/Clinton administration, and that can't be disputed. ISIS didn't exist before the Obama presidency. It had -- it started during that, has continued to grow without any plan to stop it. And the actions that this presidency and this administration has taken are what have allowed ISIS to form into being the threat that it is today.

CUOMO: ISIS, the starting point, would be a matter of dispute based on what you just said, when it actually started. But there is no question that there is a straight line of criticism for the Obama administration on how ISIS has been handled. You are not going to get any argument from me on that.

However, I don't understand why Trump muddied the water with this "founder" thing, insisting on it, when his friends, Bill O'Reilly and then Hugh Hewitt said, well, what you mean, and then they offered what you just said, and he said no, no, no, founder, Barack Hussein Obama, founder. Some people said it's a dog whistle. He wants to make people feel that Obama is traitor. Other people say no, this is how he doubles down. Now he says he is sarcastic. Do you see how it kind of defeats the message?

SANDERS: I think the point that he is trying to make is the contrast that exists and he's trying to bring out a really important issue and make everybody talk about it, and that's exactly what we're doing right now.

I bet you guys will spend all day talking about whether or not Obama played a role in the formation of ISIS. And so we're actually talking about this issue. So what he has done here is make us talk about the fact that the Obama/Clinton administration's complete and utter failure in foreign policy has allowed ISIS to form, and since its formation, they have done nothing to stop it, nothing to defeat it, and so therefore it continues to grow.

CUOMO: The ISIS plan, Monday, we hear that Donald Trump is going to say how he will stop radical Islam, how he will stop ISIS. Will he lay out a plan or will he say that it is a secret plan again?

SANDERS: He is going make a big speech in Ohio on Monday and talk about some specific ways to defeat ISIS. I'm a firm believer that you don't tell your enemy every single thing you're going to do to defeat them. So I don't know we'll go line by line, but I certainly think he's going to give some specifics that people are looking for and asking for on Monday in that speech.

CUOMO: But you know why specifics matter. Obviously there is something about operational security and integrity. But it is also something to let people digest whether you're the right choice.

Now, another thing he said recently that I want your take on. He said that U.S. citizens who are being tried for terrorism should be tried in military tribunals. He doesn't want to try them in the civilian system here in the United States. That has never happened before because it is seen by most people who understand the law as obvious constitutional violation of due process and a couple of other clauses. Why would he say that?

SANDERS: You know, I haven't had the chance to talk to him about that or find out if he has gotten advice from military officials that are recommending that. I think that's something that will probably be talked about in the next couple of days, in particular in his speech on Monday in Ohio.

I think that the big thing here is we have to take -- put everything on the table to do whatever it takes to keep America safe, and I know that that's Donald Trump's first priority. And every decision he makes in foreign policy, and frankly, in domestic policy will be about protecting America, and putting America's interests first. And we have to put everything on the table and make sure whatever we do is helping to accomplish those goals.

CUOMO: Right, but when you say everything on the table, you don't mean violating the U.S. constitution, right? That's not on the table.

SANDERS: Of course not. No, no, no, no. That's not at all what I meant was that we would violate the U.S. constitution. I think it means that we put every option that we have --

CUOMO: Right.

SANDERS: -- under the constitution on the table.

[08:10:01] CUOMO: But is this an example of where, I'm making a guess here that I'm going to hear Donald Trump change his position on this? That someone is going to get in his ear and say, no, no, no, you can't try U.S. citizens in a military court. We don't do that. They have rights under the constitution. We have to protect those. And he'll say, well, here's what I meant. Is this going to be one of those situations?

SANDERS: I think that's a question you'll have to save, Chris, for Donald Trump.

CUOMO: I can't get him on the show, Sarah. Help us out. We want to make the show a forum for the candidates.

SANDERS: I'll see what I can do.

CUOMO: We're always trying. People say, why do you want Trump on so much? Because the election matters, that's why. And the voters should get as much attention from the candidates as possible.

Sarah, thank you very much for being on the show, as always, making the case for Donald Trump.

SANDERS: You bet. Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: Brianna?

KEILAR: Chris, what exactly was the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton's tenure? The FBI wanted to launch a public corruption investigation earlier this year, so what stopped them? We're going to talk about it with David Axelrod.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Hillary Clinton is getting hit with accusations of cronyism and corruption after newly released e-mails. CNN has learned that several FBI field offices actually wanted to investigate whether there was a conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, but the Justice Department said there was insufficient evidence to open a case.

[08:15:02] Let's discuss this with CNN senior political commentator and former advisor to President Obama, David Axelrod.

You hear that report, David, whether or not this is -- would be ongoing. It is obviously not at this point. This is not a good headline for Hillary Clinton right now.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, it's not. Were this a normal campaign, it would probably be getting a lot more attention. She has the good fortune of an opponent who on a daily basis lights himself on fire, and gets all the attention.

And so, some of these stories that may have been larger stories in a different kind of campaign aren't getting that kind of attention.

CUOMO: What do you think about their answers on this? This latest wrinkle, why they didn't do it, I don't think they were helped by Comey, where he got asked by this and he said I'm not going to talk about whether there was or wasn't an investigation. Non-answers fuel speculation.

Do you feel the campaign knows how to answer these questions effectively?

AXELROD: Well, look, I don't know what the effective answer is. The fact is that apparently there were some contacts. You know, I don't think that they were earth shaking, but you know, I don't know what else there is there.

But, you know, the -- their answer is, nothing particularly happened. You know, especially on the request for putting one of their donors together with a diplomat. So what else are they going to say? I think the less said, the better in certain ways.

KEILAR: What do you think about what we're hearing now about the Clinton Foundation and the State Department under Hillary Clinton? We have seen some new e-mails that really make you wonder where does the Clinton Foundation end and the State Department sort of begin back when Hillary Clinton was at the helm of it, and you have Clinton supporters who say, look, the Clinton foundation does good work.

But at the same time, the pledge that Hillary Clinton herself made in 2009, she said, "I will certainly do everything in my power to make sure that the good work of the foundation continues, without there being any untoward effects on me and my service."

What do you think about how they've carried on?

AXELROD: Well, you know, I'm not going to make a judgment about how they carried out. I think it is a bit overstated to say you can't tell where the foundation ends in the State Department begins, based on what I've seen. I don't know if you've seen other stuff.

But it's clearly an issue, and it will be an issue, and I'm sure Donald Trump will raise it and others will raise it. The frustration of Republicans l, they can't raise these issues and get any sustained attention on them, because their candidate keeps side tracking the discussion to his own antics.

And I think this is going to continue to be a dynamic in this campaign.

CUOMO: You know, Axe, you're brilliant writer. I hope people have read your book, about your 40 years in the business, which is odd when you look younger than I do.

But, you know, it seems like even you couldn't come up with a better match-up than this in a political setting, where this man, Trump, seems to say something on a day, every other day basis, that you could just use as a hammer on him all day long as an opponent.

But Hillary Clinton can't, because she has this underlying trust and credibility barrier with voters, right? Twenty-seven percent believe her about the e-mails. Over 50 percent say she can't be trusted.

So we keep getting into this cycle where one can't take advantage of the other.

AXELROD: Yes, well, on this issue, I think that's true. I think on the trust issue, they've kind of negated each other. They both have very low numbers.

She actually in "The Washington Post" poll that came out on Monday had a 9-point lead on Trump on trust, which was kind of stunning, actually, given everything that's happened.

So, this issue is not the issue on which people ultimately are going to make their judgment, because they both have great liabilities. The race is really centered on Trump's temperament and his preparedness for the office, and that's what's driving vote right now. That's why she has moved into the lead, because people judge her to be competent. They judge her to have a better temperament than Trump. And he keeps fueling this fire with the things that he says and does.

And the question is, c he change that dynamic? Can he persuade people that he does have the temperament, that he does have the sort of base of knowledge necessary to be president? That's why these debates are going be so important to him.

KEILAR: David, you've worked closely with President Obama as he kind of got his legs beneath him getting into the White House, went through the learning curve of that.

[08:20:00] And the difference between campaigning and governing, which is a very serious difference.

When you hear the things Donald Trump says and then the way he sort of back pedals on them or tries to just say they're untrue, like the sarcasm, when put that in the context of being in the oval office, are you able to do that? Do you think about what that would look like?

AXELROD: Yes, I mean, I think that is what voters are doing right now. I think people intuitively understand that when the president of the United States speaks, he's I've said probably before here, can send armies marching and markets tumbling with just one sentence.

And so, you can't, when you're president of the United States, just shoot first and think about it later in terms of what you say, because people can actually start shooting based on what you say. And so, Donald Trump, you know, if he -- he has to show some capacity for restraint, discretion, the ability to think before he speaks. If he can't show that, I think it's going to be hard to persuade the majority of Americans or the number that he needs to win.

KEILAR: David Axelrod, we always appreciate you being with us, giving us your insight. Thank you.

AXELROD: Good to be with you, guys. See you.

KEILAR: And you have Clinton and Trump now, they're both selling their economic visions for the country. But do their plans really add up, and which one is going to resonate with voters in November? We will be comparing them side by side, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:26] CUOMO: All right, you want policy, we've got policy. What about the economy? What are the competing plans?

All right. We heard from Donald Trump. Now, we heard from Hillary Clinton. Shot at him yesterday by saying -- well, his plan is only for the wealthy. Is that the case? Whose plan adds up better for you?

Let's discuss with Stephen Calk, he's chairman and CEO of the Federal Savings Bank and senior advisor for the Trump campaign. And Mr. Ali Velshi, you know him, global affairs and economic analyst.

Good to have you both.

So, Ali, with what we heard yesterday with Trump, it was, OK, now, we're going to get some meat on the bones, some of the things we have not heard before.

ALI VELSHI, GLOBAL AFFAIRS AND ECONOMIC ANALYST: Right.

CUOMO: Not the case with Clinton.

VELSHI: That is correct.

CUOMO: What did you take away

VELSHI: Two things I took away. One is that Bernie Sanders really has influenced her to the left with some of these programs, particularly with college tuition. The infrastructure proposal she had really interested me. It is

smaller than the one Donald Trump proposed, but she is talking real facts, about $25 billion being put in by the federal government, creating a multiplier effect so that $250 billion and ultimately, you know, that will be used -- that will be raised by the private sector.

Now, if you see Trump, he is talking about double the amount of money. He's not as clear on how you fund that. He's talking about infrastructure bonds. Hillary Clinton is talking about an infrastructure bank. Both work. But at least two candidates are talking about that.

Same thing with child care. I think Hillary Clinton's plan actually works better for working families, because she puts a cap on how much child care can be, as opposed to a deduction for how much you pay. But again, kind of neat that two candidates are talking about child care, because that's the world in which we live, where America is behind its rich country counterparts. So, it was an interesting proposal.

CUOMO: Stephen, what did you hear that you believe shows that Trump has a better plan?

STEPHEN CALK, CHAIRMAN & CEO OF THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK: Well, I think there is a number of different things. I think first and foremost, just reflecting back on Mrs. Clinton's speech, I'm pretty good with math, I'm kind of quant guy, I think most people know that I'm a main street guy more than Wall Street guy.

But that being said, I heard about $1.15 trillion in new spending. Her speech was 47 minutes long, so the math is there about $25 billion in new expenses per minute is the way the math worked out for me.

VELSHI: But she --

(CROSSTALK)

CALK: Let me tell you, I don't possibly understand how lowering the tax rate on middle class families, lowering the corporate tax rate for job creators, and folks that invest in those companies, your 401(k), your investment plan, et cetera, et cetera, trying to repatriate trillions of dollars back to the U.S. economy by creating a penalty of only 10 percent to bring that money back to the U.S. could do anything to help working families and middle class in America.

We've got to spur the entrepreneurial spirit. We have to rebuild America. The best way is to increase the number of taxpayers, and the best way to do is that is to create more jobs.

CUOMO: So, the big knock is -- Steve, you said a lot, because you're very smart. But, you know, the big knock is she is asking for a lot of new money, not telling how she will justify the new money and how to offset it, how to pay for it. Fair criticism?

VELSHI: So, the college plan, that's the biggest one. That needs congressional money, it needs state money, that's a complicated one to figure out.

And, by the way, there's an unintended consequence when you say that there is all this money available for education. It's the way we said there was all this money available for mortgage, and home prices went up. So, it's not entirely economically sound.

However, fundamentally, she is talking about raising taxes on the highest earners and eliminating the carried interest deduction, which means wealthy people, investment people, will pay tax the way working people pay taxes.

So, she is talking about where she would raise it, versus Donald Trump, who is talking about lowering taxes, corporate and personal income taxes, raising spending, and hoping that the resulting economic growth will make up for the shortfall, which he says might be about $3 trillion, most economists say it's going to be $9 trillion to $14 trillion, over a decade.

So, the problem with Trump's plan is it might sound better, the math doesn't add up. Hillary Clinton's plan doesn't sound as good, but her math works better for me.

CUOMO: Do you accept or reject, and why?

CALK: Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject. I'm happy to meet after and run numbers side by side with each other. But the basic principle of putting Americans back to work, getting more people on the job, that's what excites America. That's a bold new plan. That's not the same recycled rhetoric we've seen over the last --

VELSHI: What do you mean, Stephen? Every presidential candidate in history has said they want to create job. Everybody wants to be the president who created more jobs and better growth than anyone else. So, how is a bold new plan?