Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump and Taxes; Rallies after Police Shootings; Late Night Hosts Take on Debate. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired September 28, 2016 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:31:47] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right, taxes and Donald Trump. Those two words seem to go together, sometimes in positive ways, sometimes in negative ways. Here's what he said most recently about paying taxes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn the over to state authorities, when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: That makes me smart.

CLINTON: So if he's paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, Trump said afterwards, when asked about this, that he did not say that he has never paid any taxes. Why do we care? Well, part of that is just about a credibility issue, but there's a larger issue at play here about whether or not his charitable foundation has been used to skirt paying personal taxes.

Let's discuss with someone who is ferreting this out. "Washington Post" reporter David Fahrenthold.

Now, this is a little bit in the weeds, but let me - tell me if I do this simply enough. You can give money to a charity, obviously. However, if you redirect income that you don't pay taxes on as income to a charity, you still owe the taxes on that money. And that is the beginning of the trail that you're following with the Trump charity, yes?

DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, POLITICAL REPORTER, "WASHINGTON POST": That's right. So we had, before, talked about how it was a mystery why other people were donating to Donald Trump's foundation, when Trump himself hadn't given a gift since 2008. So that's part of the answer we've learned, that $2.3 million that came into the foundation appears to be money that was owed to Trump for business deals or something like that and he said, no, don't pay me, pay my foundation, which, again, you're allowed to do, but in that situation Trump would have to pay income tax on that money and his campaign - and for the bulk of that money, $1.9 million, hasn't say whether he paid that tax or not.

CUOMO: Why do I care? If I'm a voter, what's the "so what" in this situation? Let's say he did that. What does it mean?

FAHRENTHOLD: Well, there's a difference between - sort of a moral difference between doing that with the American Red Cross or something. If Trump said, hey, don't pay me, pay the American Red Cross, pay the American Cancer Society, a charity that he had no control over. But what he's doing is, pay the Donald Trump Foundation, which is a charity he controls, and which we know he has used the money in that charity to do things that benefit himself, like buying pictures of himself, and also do things that benefit his businesses, like settling legal disputes that involve his businesses. So if he's able to take tax - untaxed money into his - into his charity and then spend it like it was his own money, that's the beginning of a larger set of legal troubles.

CUOMO: Did you go to the campaign for answers and what did they say?

FAHRENTHOLD: This was really interesting. I did go to the campaign for answers. And their first reaction was essentially to deny that these things had ever taken place. They read me this long spiel about how Mr. Trump abides by an obscure 1942 court decision governing how you can ask for money and that, in fact, he'd never said, OK, don't pay me, pay my foundation. And I said, are you sure? Never? And they said, well, you have to find an example that proves us wrong. And so I gave them several examples. And in one case they said - they said, oh, yes, OK, you're right, that was an exception. And the other cases they just haven't responded.

[08:35:00] CUOMO: Does the IRS know about this? We - we know that you've reported in the past that a donation that he had given through the foundation come under - came under scrutiny. It was dismissed as an accounting error by the campaign, but it was still fined as if it was done with wrongful intent by the IRS. Why aren't they on this?

FAHRENTHOLD: Well, they could be. What we know about the investigation or investigations of Trump's foundation is that the New York attorney general has said publically that he is looking into it. He regulates charities in New York State, where the Trump Foundation is headquartered. The IRS hasn't said anything one way or the other. That one fine that we know about was something that Trump assessed on himself so the IRS could decide that actually he owes a lot more money or it could decide that what he did was proper. We don't really know what the IRS is doing and won't sort of until they're done.

CUOMO: Do you think that the campaign is aware of this? I think it was Boris Epshteyn that you talked to. We have him on "New Day" once in a while. He's a very zealous defender of Trump. Also an attorney. Do you think that they were trying to give you the runaround or you think they were unaware of this? FAHRENTHOLD: Well, I think that they seemed like they had prepared for

it. That was an interesting - I was not expecting that, for them to have come up with sort of a totally alternative theory for how Trump could have done this and not paid income taxes. I was surprised by that.

CUOMO: What was that theory, by the way?

FAHRENTHOLD: So his theory was that Trump would not owe income taxes if - in cases where somebody owed Trump money, Trump would say, well, no, I - you don't owe me any money anymore. I'm renouncing the money that you owe me, but you might consider giving it to a charity, and doesn't name the Donald Trump Foundation. Just give it to a charity. And then somehow the other side - the other party in that transaction decides spontaneously to give the money to the Trump Foundation. So Trump wouldn't have controlled where it went. He said that was how Trump raised money for the foundation, but I said, well, give me an example, when did it happen like that, and he couldn't.

CUOMO: How big a deal do you think this is?

FAHRENTHOLD: Well, it sort of depends on whether he paid taxes on that money and whether the IRS finds that they - whether the IRS really looks into this. It could be the beginning of a much larger, as I said, legal problem for Trump if it looks like there were problems both with how the money came into the Trump Foundation and how it came out, how it was spent. But for me, at this point, without the IRS telling me what they know, it's really hard to know.

CUOMO: And, obviously, you're suspicious here because you've reported in the past that there was, what, 258 grand that he had used to settle business matters with money that came out of the charity, which obviously you're not allowed to do.

FAHRENTHOLD: Right, that's one big thing you're not allowed to do. It's against the law. If you manage a charity, to take the money out of the charity a spend it on things that benefit yourself or spend it on things that benefit your businesses. And so, yes, $258,000 went apparently to help settle legal disputes that Trump's for-profit businesses were involved in.

CUOMO: Who would have ever imagine that we'd be covering two candidates who have so many potential legal and maybe even criminal matters up in the air throughout the course of the election.

Mr. Fahrenthold, thank you very much for trying to clarify and define these issues for us. Appreciate it.

FAHRENTHOLD: Thank you.

CUOMO: Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Chris, there are communities in California and Oklahoma that are reacting to deadly police-involved shootings this morning. Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump represents one of the victims' families. He's here next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:41:55] CUOMO: A police shooting in southern California of a black man adds more discussion to the debate of race and police. It seems, at the onset, to be a different kind of case. There doesn't seem to be the same kind of red flag about whether or not it's justified, but it does bring us back to focusing on what we've seen before. Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, where there were dueling rallies in a way after the death of Terence Crutcher's shooting. A death by a police officer. You had people protesting to support the police and also to support fairness and justice for black lives.

Joining us now, national civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump. He's representing Crutcher's family.

Counselor, how is the family?

BENJAMIN CRUMP, NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: The family is doing well thanks to all the people who came out yesterday, black, white, Latino, to stand in unify for prayer, peace, and justice. And so it was a very positive day, Chris.

CUOMO: Now, I know that we've spoken too much in the past about these issues, unfortunately, but while the discussion is good, but the context is also often tragic. And you have said more than once, I don't want to see dueling rallies. It should all be the same rally, that supporting the police is a must, and does not compromise the interest of justice for black men and women.

CRUMP: Absolutely, Chris. And what you saw yesterday was two or three people out there trying to be detractors, but the thousand that marched to city hall in the name of unity and peace and justice and transparency was a combination of really what demonstrators who Tulsa the city was. Remember, they were transparent, unlike Charlotte and other cities that we see in America. And what's so important, we think, is to build that trust. You need transparency, but you need accountability. So it remains to be seen if we're going to be able to get the accountability, but it's a good start, Chris.

CUOMO: What do you stay to people when there is transparency, it goes through the system, and there's not a conviction, because the concern is, you don't want the system perverted to avoid accountability and you don't want the system of perverted to give false accountability either and just have someone locked up to somewhat be a salve, to somehow cure a wound, because that's just as much of an injustice as anything, with wouldn't it be?

CRUMP: Absolutely. And it's equal justice. And, Chris, what you want is to build trust with the community. It has to be transparency, plus accountability, equals trust. But it's also due process for everybody. For not only the victim and the epidemic that's going across America of unarmed people of color killed in unbelievable manners, but also due process for the police officers to have their day in court.

Now, when you have this transparency, like we see on that video, it provides evidence. And we know if it was the other way around, we would be held accountable. The question is, will anybody be held accountable for these black lives that are being taken at an alarming rate by the people who are supposed to protect and serve us. It almost one a month, Chris.

[08:45:14] CUOMO: The - well, and, obviously, you know, every case is different. Every case deserves individual analysis. The reason that I'm couching what happened in el Cajon (ph) so much out there in California is because it doesn't set up like these other cases. You know, there's a man who some say was going through some kind of breakdown. He seemed to draw on police based on the - the picture we've seen, more video is going to come out. Not every case should be treated with the same suspicion. Fair point?

CRUMP: Fair point, Chris. And, remember, on the Crutcher matter, because that's the one I can speak to directly, when you watch that video, it causes a lot of tension, not only in the community, but in your soul. And Dr. King said, peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice. So the police can't be right every time. And if you accept that premise, then you have to conclude, then why hasn't anybody being held accountable? And that's what I think is the crux of the matter with all of these communities of color rising up in protest saying, our lives matter. We are Americans, too. And we want equal justice under the law.

CUOMO: And that's what justice is, fairness under law. That's why we stay on these stories and we will continue to do so. Counselor Crump, thank you for joining us on NEW DAY.

CRUMP: Thank you, sir.

CUOMO: All right, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Chris, on a much lighter note, late night comics making hay of the presidential debate. We have it all for you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:50:10] CUOMO: I love that lick (ph).

All right, so after Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton duked it out on the debate stage, late night hosts pounced. And their answers added up to some real late night laughs. Here they are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SETH MEYERS, "LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS": Donald Trump blamed his poor performance on a defective mike that may have been planted at his podium on purpose. Apparently the mike had a defect that caused it to pick up everything he said.

STEPHEN COLBERT, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": They're a little suspicious. She may not have pneumonia, but she is showing all the signs of dance fever.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Whoo, OK!

COLBERT: Hot dang!

JIMMY FALLON, "THE TONIGHT SHOW STARRING JIMMY FALLON": Yes, well, we actually have audio from the sound check from last night. First up was Hillary Clinton. Listen to this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Testing, testing, trumped up trickle-down, trumped up trickle-down. Pause for applause. And, nothing. OK!

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Other than CNN, I won every poll easily. You know, I - I won CBS.

COLBERT: Yes, he won the CBS poll. That's impressive. Except for the fact that CBS did not conduct a post-debate poll. Doh! That close. That close!

FALLON: It had higher ratings than any other debate in U.S. history. Did you know that? The ratings would have been even higher if it weren't for all the people covering their eyes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Joining us now, comedian, "Daily Beast" contributor and host of "The Dean Obeidallah Show" on Sirius XM, Dean Obeidallah, and CNN's senior media correspondent and host of "Reliable Sources," Brian Stelter.

Those were some good gags right there.

Dean, who gives the late night comics more material, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, COMEDIAN: I think Donald Trump, just by the nature of Donald Trump. He's given the media more attention. But I think this is great. Look, record ratings, 80 million people watched the debate.

CAMEROTA: More, right, Brian?

OBEIDALLAH: Eighty-two.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Eighty-four, yes.

OBEIDALLAH: But keep in mind, probably 130 million people will vote. So 50 million didn't watch the debate. And what did they learn about the debates? From the late night comics. From watching their FaceBook news feed, the viral clips. And these things go to define people and inform them. So I think comedy could be the key to winning this election. That's why I'm here.

CAMEROTA: Of course you think that, Mr. Comedy (ph). Wow, it rests on your shoulders.

OBEIDALLAH: It really does.

CUOMO: Well, and that's why there winds up being a responsibility that goes along with satire, right? One of the things that allowed Jon Stewart to distinguish himself was that there was an underlying intelligence, if not an agenda, to what he was trying to achieve. Sometimes it's just funny now. I thought Colbert was going to grab that mantle, but he stayed in the funny mode. Where is that balance for you, Brian, in terms as, you know, satire as commentary, and criticism versus just comedy?

STELTER: Well, I see a number of the late-night hosts, including Colbert and Samantha B (ph) and Seth Meyers and John Oliver all trying to speak up about Trump and the threat that they believe he poses. Jimmy Fallon, not so much. Fallon has been a little softer. He's just had a little more fun with all the candidates. But it seems to me like some of these naturally liberal late night hosts are trying to sound the alarm about Trump. It probably turns off some of their viewers, but impresses some of their own viewers.

CAMEROTA: Political satire "SNL" is back.

OBEIDALLAH: Yes.

CAMEROTA: So they will have quite a fall -

OBEIDALLAH: Sure.

CAMEROTA: With making hay of all of this. What do we - I mean but they've lost a couple of important people. So what are we expecting this fall?

OBEIDALLAH: I think you're going to see Kate McKinnon. I think you'll see debate sketch. I worked at "SNL" for eight years. If they don't come back and do the (INAUDIBLE) debate sketch -

STELTER: They have to.

OBEIDALLAH: But Kate McKinnon, I image she'll play Hillary with a huge smile and taking victory laps and Darrell Hammond will play Donald Trump. It's the greatest time for "SNL" every four years. And the country will be watching.

STELTER: Yes.

OBEIDALLAH: We'll all be talking about the sketches on Sunday morning (INAUDIBLE) -

STELTER: Actually, Lorne Michaels told me they had to wait until the first debate to start "SNL" this year.

CAMEROTA: Oh, my gosh.

STELTER: They wanted to purposefully - you know, because it's almost October, and they decided to wait to start the season until after the first debate. I imagine we're going to see Hammond as Trump taking lots of sips of water, a lot of sniffling, I'm sure. I mean there's some obvious jokes that are set up in the debate.

CUOMO: Will you see Trump? Will you see Clinton?

STELTER: I think so, but not until the end of the month. I mean I think they'll wait until later in October. Am I wrong?

OBEIDALLAH: It's probably - it's likely, but there was such a backlash last time Trump hosted. It didn't go on. I wonder if they put him on and let him do - come on just to make fun of himself and have fun, or do they feel a sense of obligation now. Especially Jimmy Fallon got a lot of heat by certain people for not pressing Donald Trump, by giving him like a Kardashian-type interview. So I wonder. But it's good for ratings. Lorne Michaels will do it. That's (INAUDIBLE).

CAMEROTA: That's interesting.

CUOMO: They won't go on, though? If - if you become us, you know, that's - why do they pick these things? They pick them because it's going to be a pass, right?

STELTER: For sure. And that's the value of "SNL" for Trump last year. And I think he will appear as a guest because he's in some way in on his own jokes. He's an entertainer. He knows how to play to the cameras. That was one of the surprises about the debate for me was that he wasn't more prepared to play to the cameras and play to the audience at home.

OBEIDALLAH: He wasn't prepared. I mean that was part of the problem I think. And that's the joke. So if you didn't watch the debate, the takeaway from the jokes, the comedians, the themes, the sniffles, of course, and the interrupting, but really not being prepared and then essentially losing the debate in the eyes of the media and then lashing out against everyone but himself. And I think that paints a narrative.

[08:55:10] I mean Sarah Palin was the ultimate comedian's painting a narrative. It stuck. But this paints a narrative. It fills people - not everyone watches CNN or cable news.

CAMEROTA: What?

OBEIDALLAH: They should, of course. They should be watching. But this stuff gets through. It gets through to people who don't care about news, don't care about serious politics. They laugh, but they learn something while they're laughing. And that's what's effective.

CAMEROTA: Do they? I mean, I guess. I mean how do you know what the takeaway is from just these punch lines?

OBEIDALLAH: (INAUDIBLE). I honestly think the best comedy is one where you're laughing and you're learning at the same time. And you can do it. And it can be subtle. It can be "SNL's" caricature. Sarah Palin, famous line, right, "I can see Russia from my house." She never said that. That was Tina Fey who said that. It became part of the lexicon -

CUOMO: Tina Fey ruined Sarah Palin for me.

OBEIDALLAH: Exactly.

CUOMO: I cannot look at the real person now and not think about Tina Fey. But that gets you to Alisyn's point, as a good one, is it something

that they learned, but there's also a balance with disaffection. You mock the process. You mock the seriousness of it. You make it all seem like a joke, especially in this election, which is fairly presented as a choice of less worse for people between Clinton and Trump. Do you create jaundice?

STELTER: I - I agree with you. I would just say, though, because there's so much fear and anxiety, we need to laugh more than ever.

OBEIDALLAH: I agree.

CAMEROTA: On that note, Dean, Brian, thank you very much. Great to talk to you this morning.

STELTER: Thanks.

CAMEROTA: All right, "Newsroom" with Carol Costello is going to pick up after this very short break. Chris and I will see you tomorrow.

CUOMO: TV laugh contest, now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)