Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump Names SCOTUS Pick, Dems Signal Another Battle; Cabinet Confirmation Battles Boil Over. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired February 01, 2017 - 07:00   ET

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

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's Steve Bannon's words put into policy.

{07:00:04] SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: Less than 2 weeks into the Trump administration, we are already in a crisis of confidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Democrats decided that they're not going to accept this president.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Democrats are holding up votes for President Trump's key nominees.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They ought to be embarrassed, Mr. President.

JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I'm honored, and I'm humbled.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Judge Gorsuch is a home run.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I only hope Democrats and Republicans can come together for once.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Good morning. Welcome to your NEW DAY.

Up first, President Trump's long-awaited pick for the Supreme Court is here; and now we're going to have a big Capitol Hill showdown. The choice is Neil Gorsuch of Colorado, tapped to fill the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia. Republicans are saying he's the perfect pick, praising the 49-year-old conservative judge. Democrats are vowing to challenge him, calling him a hostile selection.

CAMEROTA: So the White House is trying to move on from the fallout from the president's travel and refugee ban. Administration officials insist the executive order is not a ban, despite the fact that the president and his press secretary keep calling it a ban. Whatever you call it, hundreds of State Department diplomats are coming out against it.

It's day 13 in the White House. Ahead for Donald Trump, and CNN has every angle coverage, starting with Jeff Zeleny, live at the White House. What's the latest, Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

There are few bigger decisions the president can make than appointing someone to the Supreme Court. So after President Trump's introduction of Judge Neil Gorsuch last night to the nation, he gets an introduction on Capitol Hill today. He'll be meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Now, there's no question that Democrats are vowing to block this fight. But Republicans, after questioning the first few weeks of the Trump administration, suddenly seem to be coming together.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TRUMP: Here they come. Here they come.

ZELENY (voice-over): In a primetime reveal, President Trump unveiling Judge Neil Gorsuch as his nominee to the Supreme Court.

TRUMP: I only hope that both Democrats and Republicans can come together for once for the good of the country.

JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: As this process now moves to the Senate, I look forward with speaking with members from both sides of the aisle.

ZELENY: Setting up a battle between Senate Republicans...

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: I think it was an absolute home run.

ZELENY: ... and Democrats, who are vowing a confirmation fight after President Obama's nominee to fill the seat of the late Justice Anthony Scalia was blocked for ten months.

BLUMENTHAL: If I conclude that he is out of the mainstream on issues like privacy rights, including women's health care and Roe v. Wade, or worker and consumer protection, I will use every tool at my disposal to block his nomination.

ZELENY: For the White House, it's a chance to turn the spotlight from the growing backlash over the president's executive order on immigration and refugees. The fall out continuing, with more than 900 State Department diplomats signing a memo of dissent against the travel ban.

House Speaker Paul Ryan admitting the rollout was unusually rough.

SEN. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Regrettably, the rollout was confusing, but on a go-forward basis, I'm confident that Secretary Kelly is going to make sure that this is done correctly.

ZELENY: Ryan speaking about Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who is in charge of implementing the action. An action he defended, despite chaotic scenes and flip-flopping on green card holders. JOHN KELLY, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We knew it was coming. It

wasn't a surprise it was coming. And then we implemented it.

ZELENY: Meantime, the White House is trying to rebrand the order.

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It is by nature not a ban. It is extreme vetting.

ZELENY: Ban is exactly how the president and his press secretary, Sean Spicer, describe the action.

TRUMP: We're going to have a very, very strict ban.

SPICER: It's a 90-day ban.

The ban deals with 7 countries.

ZELENY: Pressed on the point, Spicer provided no clarity, instead taking aim at a familiar target.

SPICER: No, I'm not confused. I think those are the words that are being used to describe it are derived from what the media is calling this.

ZELENY: Despite legal challenges and protests, the administration is signaling it has no plans to change the order. Three high-ranking Republican senators saying they were told the White House will not be rewriting its controversial travel ban.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZELENY: Now, there's no question that this order will also be front and center in the discussion on the confirmation hearings coming up for the Supreme Court nominee.

But you are about to hear a lot more about Neil Gorsuch. And one thing you will be learning also, he was a Harvard Law School classmate of President Obama. Then-Senator Obama in Illinois voted for this judge in 2006 to confirm him on the federal appeals bench. So he's been widely confirmed already by Democrats. That is one argument Republicans will make here as Democrats try and block this.

But Chris, this is a new battle and new campaign; and Democrats say they are simply going to try and do what Republicans did last year and block this. But they need eight Democrats only for this. Most people expect a confirmation, but not an easy one.

CUOMO: David Gregory pointed out, so did Merrick Garland. He got another quick oral pass as well, just as Gorsuch did. How will that play into this?

[07:05:08] Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much.

So the Democrats are also stepping up the showdown over Trump's cabinet picks, blocking confirmation votes for key nominees. Actually walked out of one Senate hearing, which made one top Republican fighting mad.

CNN's Sunlen Serfaty live on Capitol Hill with all the details. We have high dudgeon on Capitol Hill.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Chris. And to give you a sense just how tense the dynamics are up here, that you have a very noncontroversial nominee, Elaine Chao, who yes, was confirmed for transportation secretary last night.

But you have six Democrats, including very notably, the Senate Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, voting against her.

And then you have this boycott of two of Donald Trump's nominees. Treasury secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin and Health and Human Services nominee Tom Price.

Democrats saying that they want more time, that they feel mislead by a few things that both these nominees said in committee. But Republicans are calling them out, calling foul, saying no, Democrats fully understand here that they have no ability to truly stop any of these nominees, so what they're doing is just trying to delay and stall these nominees from going forward.

Here's Chairman Hatch yesterday, very angry over this boycott in his committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: They ought to be embarrassed. It's the most pathetic treatment I've seen in my 40 years in the United States Senate.

They are idiots. Anybody that would do something like that, it's a complete breach of decorum. It's a complete breach of committee rules. It's a complete breach of just getting along around here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: Now today, after numerous delays, it's very likely that Rex Tillerson will be confirmed by the full Senate to be the next secretary of state. And Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he's facing a delayed committee vote. That was pushed back from yesterday after himself facing numerous delays, being dragged out by the Democrats. Very likely, he will get kicked out of committee today, Alisyn, meaning potentially, a full Senate vote later this week.

CAMEROTA: OK, Sunlen, thank you very much. You've given us lots to discuss.

We have Utah Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz.

Good morning, Congressman.

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: Good morning.

CAMEROTA: So where are you on this travel ban? Good idea, bad idea? CHAFFETZ: Oh, I think the administration has been a little

inconsistent in how they portrayed it, but I do think the idea of vetting, properly vetting, thoroughly vetting these people coming out of these seven countries is the right public policy. I think President Trump is right. It's what he campaigned on. I'm glad he's doing it. I think it needs to be done. We had the FBI director testify before Congress these people are not properly vetted. So the safety and security of the United States needs to come first.

CAMEROTA: But aren't green card holders properly vetted for years?

CHAFFETZ: They should. Oh, I think they -- to suggest that legal permanent residents, green card holders should be part of this. That was an early mistake. It was cleared up, as best I could tell, within hours; but I do think that was -- that was not the right move.

CAMEROTA: So it's your understanding that they are not a part of it. They are -- so green card, legal permanent residents are not a part of the travel ban. They can come back. And what about the permanent or indefinite ban on Syrian refugees?

CHAFFETZ: Well, I didn't see it as an indefinite ban. I do think, in a war-torn country, when you feel for these people, right? I mean, there is definite destruction; and there has been a massive problem for years now. And I've been to refugee camps in Jordan and other -- and you know, where there's 80,000 people there. But these people have to be properly vetted, and I don't think that's asking too much. I think that's what the country wants.

CAMEROTA: Sure, but I mean, we've heard from so many people in the State Department and other organizations that they spent 18 months vetting them. And the Trump administration does say it's indefinite on Syrian refugees.

CHAFFETZ: Well, if you actually go in and look at how they do the vetting, sometimes these vetting interviews are, you know, eight, 10 and 12 minutes. Some of them are longer.

But until you can actually go through and figure out exactly who they are, you know, I think you need to be very cautious, though. I just do, and that's what President Trump campaigned on. And he won pretty convincingly so I think that's -- he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

CAMEROTA: so why do you think the execution was so messy or chaotic?

CHAFFETZ: I mean, I chalk it up to being in the first few days in office. I also think it's incumbent upon the Democrats to confirm the president's nominees for these cabinet positions.

Until you have his senior management team in place, it's hard to also be critical of the White House who needs this help in each of these departments and agencies.

So on the one hand, the Democrats are going to complain about the execution don't also hold up their nominees. We need Tom Price, for instance, as the Health and Human Services secretary. We needed the Homeland Security secretary in place probably earlier, so he and his team could make sure that it was -- it was properly executed.

CAMEROTA: But Congressman, but are you blaming -- but are you blaming the Democrats for the chaotic execution of the travel ban?

CHAFFETZ: No, no. No. No, I'm just highlighting the need to confirm these people to the senior level of the departments and agencies. No, of course it's not. I think it was an early mistake in terms of its execution and, I think, the public policy is right. And I think they hopefully learned from it.

Certainly, the execution of the announcement, the Supreme Court nominee was, by all accounts, I think flawless and they even kept it secret. So they have certainly come a long way in the first ten days or so.

CAMEROTA: Congressman, you of course, are the chairman for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. You do all sorts of investigations into possible malfeasance. Forty-three items have been listed in a proposed agenda for what you want to look into. Will you be looking into any of Donald Trump's possible conflicts of interest?

CHAFFETZ: Well, the items that we listed are broad strokes. This is the Trump administration, so by definition, all of those 43 items are going to be about what's going on in the Trump administration.

Now we're obviously going to have to look back, if you're going to look at what the government has been doing. That will be on the Obama administration.

I will deal with these situations with Donald Trump one at a time. I am not going to personally target the president. I didn't do that with Barack Obama. But as issues come up, we'll deal with them one at a time.

CAMEROTA: Well, Democrats say issues have already come up and that they're not listed in your 43 proposed agenda points, for instance. Will you be looking into whether or not President Trump or any of his businesses, the Trump Organization, have received foreign funds somehow?

CHAFFETZ: Well, again, I'm not going to -- I know the Democrats are flailing about this issue, and they want to -- to stir the pot. It's about the only thing they have to do at this point. But I think the president is required to do his financial disclosure. By all accounts, he has done that. The president is exempt from most of all of the conflict of interest laws.

CAMEROTA: What about the Emoluments Clause we hear so much about, that he's not exempt from?

CHAFFETZ: No. There's an interesting lawsuit in place, and it could be interesting to see how it goes forward on the courts. That is not something I'm looking at right now. We also -- we have been looking at the GSA lease. This is the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., where the president is both, you know, the -- he is leasing the hotel. But he's also now the chief executive, so we did ask back in December for a copy of that contract. That was provided in the last 48 hours or so. Some 500-plus pages, and we'll see where that goes.

CAMEROTA: But you're comfortable with the Trump Hotel and even building more and foreign dignitaries coming to stay there? So far, from what you've seen, you're comfortable with how sit working.

CHAFFETZ: Well, my understanding is, if there's somebody who's coming from a foreign country, then those profits are going to be given directly to the treasury.

So like I said, I did initiate in December asking for a copy of this contract to see how it looks. So we'll deal with these issues one at a time as they come up.

CAMEROTA: OK. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, keep us posted. Thank you very much...

CHAFFETZ: OK.

CAMEROTA: ... for being here on NEW DAY.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Chris.

CUOMO: That's a good issue, Alisyn. You know, the congressman talks about one contract. Trump himself said that there were dozens that were necessary. Has anybody gotten to see them? Has any state gotten the filing that would be needed to change the status of his businesses? Good questions. No answers yet.

So Democrats are doing battle against the president's cabinet nominees and now his Supreme Court pick, but is this a losing battle? Where is the high ground for Democrats? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:18:10] TRUMP: The qualifications of Judge Gorsuch are beyond dispute. He is the man of our country and the man who our country really needs, and needs badly, to ensure the rule of law and the rule of justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: High praise for Neil Gorsuch from President Trump and fellow Republicans who did the vetting. Democrats, not so much. They're preparing to do battle over his Supreme Court nomination. They call it a hostile choice. So what's going to happen?

Joining us now is Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Republicans say Gorsuch got a complete pass by you guys the first time around. Why a change now?

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D), RHODE ISLAND: Yes, he was voice voted, what, 11 or so years ago onto the circuit court. I think two things are different.

First of all, the Supreme Court, as everybody concedes, is different than the circuit court, which is why it's been protected by leaving the 60-vote margin in place.

But the second thing is that we have seen the emergence of a five-wing -- five-member right-wing block on the Supreme Court that is not judicially conservative so much as it is politically conservative and very activist at pursuing those politically conservative goals.

So the big question for Judge Gorsuch is, is he going to be a truly judicially conservative judge?

CUOMO: Right.

WHITEHOUSE: Or is he going to rebuild the Republican majority on the court that became such a wrecking crew in favor of corporate special interests, Republican elections advantage, and the right-wing social agenda?

CUOMO: You know, I'm sure you're doing your homework. You're known for doing your homework. I spent time last night. One, it was hard to find cases that were written by Gorsuch on that appellate panel that went to the kind of issues that you'll be concerned about with SCOTUS.

[07:20:07] And then, when I did find decisions, he seemed to be fairly hewing to existing standards, not looking to strike out new ground. What do you see?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, I think the big problem in the hearing coming up is going to be the unknown: how can you predict the future? I do think that the American people have been very poorly served by what those five judges did. That campaign of activist decisions, I think, has discredited the court. It has created lasting damage in decisions like Citizens United, which I don't think virtually anybody in America has improved our democracy. Huge numbers oppose it. But it's been such a boom for big billionaire special interests and for the fossil fuel industry and all of that.

So that's where I think our focus needs to be. I think picking through his record on the circuit may or may not give clues as to that, but making the case that this can't happen again.

CUOMO: Right.

WHITEHOUSE: We cannot have a Supreme Court that is delivering politically conservative outcomes, no matter how activist it requires the judges to be. Five to 4, 5 to 4, 5 to 4. It's a pattern, Chris. It's not a coincidence.

CUOMO: Right. But you know, you have two areas of pushback. One is, elections have consequences, which is a little hacky but true, nonetheless. And two, well, by your own standard that, well, we have to be careful, because we can't judge the unknown, well, that would mean that nobody would be acceptable to you, unless it was a very activist judge that you liked their decisions; and you're not going to get that. So how do you sell it?

WHITEHOUSE: Don't forget that we've got hearings and a lot of time ahead to look at his record more closely. So this may shake itself out more. I think the hearings can be sometimes a process that brings things to light, clarifies some of these questions.

So I think the point now is not so much this guy is or isn't qualified. The point right now is that we've got to make sure we try to protect the court from becoming the kind of political delivery system that the five Republicans have made it.

And that is a novelty in the Supreme Court's history. In my view, going all the way back -- the last example would be the judges that worked so hard to protect slavery back in the old days. And since then, we've had a long run of judges who took being a judge seriously and who called balls and strikes.

And since then, since Roberts, basically, we've had a very activist court that delivered for these big political interests and kind of made a joke of the notion of calling balls and strikes. They're moving the strike zone around to help their favorite interests.

CUOMO: All right. I get where you're coming from on it. We'll see what the hearings yield. You got a little bit more leverage here. Because if -- unless the filibuster gets blown up, you've got a 60- vote cap that you need on these so you have some more leverage.

On the cabinet side, you don't have that leverage. You're going to have up and down votes. But you're walking out of hearings, and you're saying you're going to fight. To what end are the Democrats fighting this? What is the good fight here for you guys?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, I think the key is to make sure that the American people are aware of the extent to which huge conflicts of interest and huge failures of disclosure and transparency continue to bedevil these nominees.

And as they go forward, Chris, I've been a prosecutor for many years, and my experience is that where there are conflicts, scandals will follow. And it's very, very important for the American people to know what these lurking conflicts of interest are and for us to continue to pursue them, even as these people are in office.

CUOMO: All right.

WHITEHOUSE: Over and over again, we've seen cabinet officials have to leave office in disgrace, because they have bowed down to the special interests and because they have... CUOMO: Right.

WHITEHOUSE: ... had these terrible conflicts of interest, and it's so easy to foresee that in the Trump administration, which probably has the worst conflicts of interest of any swamp cabinet ever.

CUOMO: But you know, as a prosecutor, I don't have to tell you, we only know what you show. So when you guys come up with the goods on people, that will embolden your case.

The optics right now are how much opposition for the sake of opposition are the Democrats going to play to, especially after what we just lived through with the Republicans, who did exactly that by decree. And the Democrats said it was so wrong for so long. What do you think the future holds?

WHITEHOUSE: Let's look at Pruitt, the nominee for the EPA. Here's a guy who ran a dark money operation and won't disclose anything that happened in the dark money operation in which is looks like millions of dollars changed hands.

Clearly, there's a basis for a potential conflict of interest there. He hasn't coughed up 3,000 e-mails between himself and his office and the big fossil fuel special interests. It's just wrong to come in and not have that kind of disclosure.

[07:25:02] Until very recently it was the Republicans who were absolutely insistent on disclosure of e-mails. But now that it's e- mails between a nominee and the fossil fuel interests they so adore, then suddenly they've lost interest completely.

But I think the American people understand that, if you've got 3,000 e-mails going back and forth with the interests you're supposed to regulate, my God, we ought to have a look at them, just to see if that signals an unacceptable conflict of interest.

CUOMO: So I guess the challenge for you guys is to make things accessible to the public in a way they can be on your side and overwhelm your political minority right now.

Senator Whitehouse...

WHITEHOUSE: Bring the facts to light, Chris. Bring the facts to light.

CUOMO: Well, that's what we do every damn day. Senator, thanks for joining us on NEW DAY. We'll see you again.

WHITEHOUSE: Thank you.

CUOMO: Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: You sound like you're tired of it, Chris.

CUOMO: No, no, no. Just getting warmed up.

CAMEROTA: I know that.

All right. We are not yet two weeks in. And there's already been a flurry of activity from the new president. So what do Trump voters think about his performance so far? We ask them, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)