Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Former FBI Director James Comey's Testimony Before Congress Examined; President Trump and President's Attorney React to Comey Testimony. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired June 09, 2017 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] DAVID FRUM, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE ATLANTIC": That's what the president did. Am I person of interest? If the answer is going to be anything I don't like, will you shut down this whole investigation is embarrassing.

MATT SCHLAPP, FORMER POLITICAL DIRECTOR TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: He gave the answer he liked. He gave the answer he liked. He said you are not a person of interest.

FRUM: Matt, Matt, Matt.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Go ahead, David.

FRUM: This is turning into, this whole episode post-testimony an ugly dog contest for pathetic talking points, really.

SCHLAPP: Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

FRUM: It's true. It's true.

CAMEROTA: Matt.

FRUM: The president confirmed he fired Comey to shut down an investigation into espionage. The president asked -- whatever talking point you give, we have the fact here. Everything the president said about the encounter was a lie. There was an investigation into espionage, the president has confirmed both to the American people and to the Russians themselves that this is why he shut down the investigation. And the idea that Comey -- sorry, the president is somehow vindicated because at that time he was not the target of the investigation he wanted shut down, sad.

CAMEROTA: Matt, I have a question for you. Is it ever appropriate for any president, President Trump or President Bush or President Obama, to ask the head of the FBI for a loyalty pledge?

SCHLAPP: Yes, absolutely. As a matter of fact, I sat in on the personnel process in the whole beginning of the Bush administration. And with every single person -- by the way, the head of the FBI, Alisyn, this is very important, serves at the pleasure of the president. It is slightly unique in that they get these five year terms.

CAMEROTA: Ten year. SCHLAPP: No, no, five at a time. The president can serve the FBI director -- can fire the FBI director any time he wants.

CAMEROTA: Yes, but did George W. Bush ask Mueller for a loyalty pledge.

SCHLAPP: It was implicit in every person we hired to serve in the administration. It happened with every person he interacted with.

CAMEROTA: OK.

FRUM: This is what president --

SCHLAPP: Let me finish.

CAMEROTA: Quickly.

SCHLAPP: This question of loyalty is a question of this. Can you see yourself serving this president? Do you respect this president? And do you respect the agenda on which he is trying to push?

CAMEROTA: OK.

FRUM: Matt, Matt.

SCHLAPP: And people act like loyalty means you are asking to take a blood oath to do something wrong.

CAMEROTA: OK, OK. Matt, you made your point. Go, David.

FRUM: Taking all the air time won't make your arguments better.

SCHLAPP: David, I'm not an ugly dog and I'm not taking the air time. Sorry, buddy.

CAMEROTA: Matt hold on. Please, let David finish.

FRUM: As I said, the president of the United States and his supporters are enunciating a new rule. It has never been true in American history the director of the FBI is a tool of the president. That has never been true. Yes, the president could fire the FBI director theoretically. In the past it has always happened for good cause. This is a new action, an attempt to assert political control over the police force of the United States. It is incredibly dangerous. It is something that does not happen in free countries.

CAMEROTA: OK, that's the last word. Gentlemen thank you very much. Matt, David, thank you.

Thanks to all of you. We have a lot of news. Let's get right to it.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right, good morning to all of you. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Friday, June 9th, 8:00 in the east. President Trump breaking his silence on Twitter, lashing out at Jim Comey. He wants you to know that Comey is a liar, except for the things he said that were good for the president. He also calls him a leaker.

Now, Comey repeatedly told senators that it is the president who was lying about why he fired him and some of his efforts to get him to drop the Michael Flynn investigation.

CAMEROTA: I think it's our seamless segue that people really enjoy the most.

CUOMO: What I enjoy is when people get to see just how on the edge of getting it done we are when it comes to live television.

(LAUGHTER)

CAMEROTA: And there is this. Meanwhile, Republicans are defending President Trump's actions, arguing that he's new to the job. There is a steep learning curve and they are pouncing on Comey's concerns about former attorney general Loretta Lynch and why she tried to downplay the Hillary Clinton email investigation. That's what they think the biggest nugget was from yesterday. So we have a lot to cover. Let's begin with CNN's Joe Johns live at the White House. Joe?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, the president stayed off of Twitter for a long time. And then when he weighed in, it was very cautious, essentially echoing the words that were in a statement by his attorney, Marc Kasowitz before the Comey testimony. Let's take a look at this morning's tweet from the president of the United States. "Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication and, wow, Comey is a leaker." Trump and his attorneys seizing on the fact that Comey did tell the president he was not under investigation, but all of this really sort of ignores the bigger picture. The headline of the Comey testimony is that the former FBI director weighed in on no uncertain terms, saying the president is a liar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Although the law required no reason at all to fire an FBI director, the administration then chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI.

[08:05:05] JOHNS: Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly calling the president of the United States a liar, both when discussing President Trump's initial explanation of why he was fired.

COMEY: By saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.

JOHNS: And when explaining why he decided to start taking meticulous notes about their interactions.

COMEY: I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting.

JOHNS: The White House pushing back. SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: I can definitely say the president is not a liar. And I think it is frankly insulting that that question would be asked.

JOHNS: During almost three hours of testimony, Comey recounted the events that ultimately led to his abrupt dismissal.

COMEY: It is my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation. I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.

JOHNS: Confirming for the first time that his memos are now in the hands of special counsel Robert Mueller, raising the possibility that obstruction of justice may be part of Mueller's investigation.

COMEY: I don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct. I took it as a disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the social counsel will work towards.

JOHNS: Comey did lay out a number of interactions that concerned him, including the president clearing the room for allegedly telling Comey he hoped he could let the Flynn investigation go.

COMEY: So why did he kick everybody out of the Oval Office? Why would you kick the attorney general, the president, chief of staff out to talk to me if it was about something else? And, so, that -- that to me is -- as an investigator is a very significant fact.

JOHNS: But was it an order?

COMEY: I took it as a direction. This is the president of the United States with me alone saying "I hope this." I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's how I took it.

JOHNS: The president's attorney flatly denying that this interaction took place.

MARC KASOWITZ, PRIVATE ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: The president never in form or in substance directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone.

JOHNS: While simultaneously celebrating other parts of Comey's testimony.

KASOWITZ: Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publically what he repeatedly told President Trump privately, that is that the president was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference.

JOHNS: Still unclear whether the president actually recorded their conversations as he suggested on Twitter after firing Comey.

COMEY: I've seen the tweet about tapes. I hope there are tapes.

JOHNS: The president's lawyer also sharply criticizing this admission from the former FBI director.

COMEY: I ask a friend of mine to share the content with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

JOHNS: Comey ALSO raised concerns about a discussion he had in 2015 with former attorney general Loretta Lynch about downplaying the significance of the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server.

COMEY: At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me.

JOHNS: Comey also said Lynch's impromptu tarmac meeting with former president Bill Clinton led him to announce the outcome of the initial Clinton e-mail investigation.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOHNS: Now today in the Rose Garden, the president is expected to attend a news conference with the president of Romania, an opportunity to get at least a couple questions to him to try to gauge his reaction in person to the Comey testimony. This will be the first news conference the president has done in about three weeks. Chris and Alisyn?

CUOMO: All right, Joe, that will be an anticipated event today.

Let's bring in the panel, CNN politics reporter and editor at large Chris Cillizza, CNN counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd, and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. This is great. We've got the intel, we've got the politics, and we've got the law. Let's start with the politics. Chris Cillizza, what do we believe now that everybody has time to marinate and spin? What is the state of play post Comey?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, EDITOR AT LARGE, CNN POLITICS: He said, he said, with a giant question mark about a taping system at the White House. And then obviously several ongoing investigations in Congress and the one Bob Mueller is overseeing. But --

CUOMO: Do you think there are tapes?

CILLIZZA: To me when you go the next step here, Chris, is the tapes. Do they exist? Sarah Huckabee Sanders joked about it yesterday and said, I'll look behind the couches.

[08:10:00] We, the media, didn't bring this up. Donald Trump tweeted on May the 12th, three days after he fired Jim Comey that the "tapes," quote-unquote, I don't know what that means. I'm not sure why that word was in quotes. But --

CUOMO: He said you better hope there are no tapes.

CILLIZZA: You better hope there are no tapes. Since that time Trump has no comment in an interview with FOX, saying I can't talk about it. Sean Spicer has said the president has nothing to add, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she had no idea, that was yesterday, she had no idea if there was a taping system. There is one person who definitely knows there is a taping system, I presume, which is Donald Trump. I think that recording, if they exist, is even more important now than it was before, and if it doesn't exist, we need to know that, too.

CAMEROTA: Let's pretend it doesn't. Let's move ahead as though it doesn't and, Jeffrey, we're just going to have to take the word of the president and the word of James Comey and figure out how to reconcile those.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That's true. But, you know, it is important to remember, investigators investigate, and there is a lot more to look into. And let me just give you one example. The day before Comey's testimony, there was testimony from Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, and the head of the national security agency about their contacts with Donald Trump regarding the Russia investigation and the same issues that Comey was testifying about. They refused to answer effectively. They are going to be called back. They may be subpoenaed.

And if they were approached by the president in a similar way to try to shut down the Russia investigation, then that will be an important piece of the puzzle about what went on here. So it just shows you how, you know, investigations proceed, and we focus on these big Super Bowl moments, understandably, like Comey's testimony. But between special counsel Mueller and the Congressional committees, there is just a lot more to look at here, and they are going to continue looking.

CUOMO: So, Phil, what do you see through your lens in this? We did hear Comey say yesterday he told the president, the dossier, we're not looking at you for that. A couple of other times he was pretty careful about his answer. We're going to have Susan Collins on here, Republican senator. She asked him very intricately about it. He said to the president there is no counterintelligence investigation you are involved in. But then he said this special counsel is probably looking at Trump for obstruction. What do you think we learned yesterday about anything that really matters?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: We learned a couple of things. Number one, we learned that everything -- almost everything the media was reporting was accurate. And all Comey did was to confirm what the president of the United States had told us.

We're talking about he said, he said. We don't need to do that, Chris. The president of the United States told us that he fired the FBI director for conducting a counterintelligence investigation. That's a fact.

We learned one interesting thing as well, though, and I think this is critically important and nobody is talking about it. Comey keeps throwing grenades right at the foot of the attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Do you see what he said yesterday? Jeff Sessions when he recused himself from the investigation said this is sort of a technicality. I had a couple passing meetings with the Russian ambassador, no big deal, but as a courtesy I'll step back. What does Comey do? In Washington terms, he tosses a grenade. He says I thought that the attorney general would recuse himself, but if you want me to explain why, I have got to do it in a closed session. You know what that's saying? It wasn't a technicality and you should ask me more. Sessions has a lot to answer for including why he never interceded with the White House to stop these private meetings. And I think Comey twice in two days threw grenades at him.

CUOMO: All right, strong point.

CAMEROTA: Let's play that moment.

CUOMO: Let's play the sound, and then Jeffrey, you can weigh in on the legalities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: He was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia related investigation problematic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Yes, that begs some questions, Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: Well, and in the closed session, according to our CNN reporting, Comey talked about the fact that there may have been a third meeting between Jeff Sessions and Russian officials that he didn't report in his sworn statements about his contacts with Russian officials, which makes Sessions' position very problematic and potentially another figure to be investigated by the special counsel, the attorney general of the United States. So between the clear tension between the president and Jeff Sessions and Sessions being investigated in several places, Sessions' current status seems very precarious.

CUOMO: Cillizza, am I being cynical to say that --

CILLIZZA: Yes.

CUOMO: Other than I think you're the best that we've had on.

(LAUGHTER)

CILLIZZA: That's just pure honesty.

CUOMO: You have, Mueller has his investigation, all right, and whatever potential criminality he sees. That's one thing. But didn't we hear all we needed to in the GOP response tomorrow.

If anything political is going to be done about this inappropriateness that people refer to, it's going to come down to a vote. The GOP has the numbers, assuming something violent doesn't happen in the mid-term to change the balance of power. They clearly don't want to move against the president. They clearly stood behind him and dismissed this, even flagrantly, pointing at Loretta Lynch as being more interesting than everything they've heard about the President of the United States Donald Trump. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?

CILLIZZA: I think it tells you a lot. I mean, I think what you have to do if you're looking at this is bifurcate it. There's the legal piece of it and the investigative piece of it, and that's Congress, that's Mueller, obviously. And then there's the political piece of it. And those things, obviously, they're concentric circles. They're not overlapping circles.

On the political front, any time you see a president face deep distress, politically speaking, it's not because the opposition party turns on them. It's because their party turns on them, right? George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, these people - Bill Clinton when he was in the polling doldrums.

The reason that happens is because your party abandons you. Trump is mid to high 30s in approval rating, but what that - the numbers underneath those numbers are important.

Democrats hugely opposed to Donald Trump and the job he's doing. Independents, about two-thirds opposed to the job he's doing, not split. But Republicans still, broadly speaking, two-thirds, 70 percent, supportive of this president.

As long as that's true, a Republican member of Congress, let's say, in a safe congressional district looks at it and says there's zero to gain for me breaking with the president. All I'm asking for at that point is a primary challenge sometime next year.

So, unless and until, they make that collective decision that politically, for survivability, they cannot sort of tacitly or otherwise support this president, I just don't see there being a sort of broad-scale running away from him and his numbers sort of collapsing out.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST, NEW DAY: Phil, I want you to put your FBI hat on quickly for us. You heard criticism from people saying that James Comey just seemed stunned often by what the president was saying rather than doing whatever protocol he was supposed to do.

He did say that he considered telling Attorney General Sessions, but he knew that Sessions is going to be recusing. He went to the acting deputy, but never got a response. Is there something else he should have done to alert somebody else?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I've heard that conversation. I heard it again this morning. I would've been stunned had I been the FBI director.

I don't think - I think it's hard for people outside this city to understand how weird this is. We talk about it every day and it seems like it's becoming normal. It's not. So, I can see Comey walking away saying, 'wow, what am I supposed to do?'

But the piece that's missing Alisyn is, again, going back to Sessions, Comey shouldn't have to go to Sessions to say, please stop this from happening.

Any attorney general, I've worked for three of them should've said, why did they take me out of that meeting, what was said, and immediately call the White House and said, thanks, Jim; hey, chief of staff, hey Mr. President, never do that again.

Michael Mukasey, the toughest attorney general I worked for, never would have let that happen ever.

CAMEROTA: OK. That's great perspective. Thank you all, gentlemen, very much.

All right. So, based on what James Comey said under oath, do President Trump's actions amount to obstruction of justice? We discussed with the key players of the Watergate scandal. What parallels do they see? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:22:41] CAMEROTA: OK. It is a central question that lingers after James Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill. Do President Trump's actions amount to obstruction of justice?

Joining us now two men who know. Philip Allen Lacovara, he's a former US deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department who served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors, and John Dean, CNN contributor and former Nixon White House counsel. Gentlemen, it's great to have your experience with us to inform us.

Mr. Lacovara, you have prosecuted Watergate. You say that the details that you heard yesterday are red meat to prosecutors such as ...

PHILIP ALLEN LACOVARA, FORMER US DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL: Such as Bob Mueller.

CAMEROTA: Well, that means - such as - what details did you hear that you consider particularly juicy?

LACOVARA: I think it was - what's most significant is that the president himself, out of his own mouth, provided the essential motive for a criminal justice - criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice.

And that is, his admission in his tweet and his rather remarkable assertions to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador that the reason he had fired Coley was to relieve the pressure that the president felt on him arising from the Russia investigation.

That is precisely within the confines of the federal obstruction of justice statute, which prohibits any person from endeavoring to interfere with or to influence a federal criminal investigation. In my view, there's not much of a line of defense other than the diversion - don't look here, look there - that the president or his people can mount.

CAMEROTA: John Dean, do you agree? What did you hear?

JOHN DEAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT NIXON AND CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I would agree. In fact, I would add to what Philip said. Trump's own words again, when he was speaking with Lester Holt, who said, well, I got rid of the director because that FBI investigation thing, it was a phony story, fake news and what have you.

He's just displayed in a remarkable fashion the kind of criminal intents you need. And the obstruction statute is broad. So, he's been playing with a very, very dangerous bit of law.

CAMEROTA: Mr. Lacovara, we've been talking all morning and yesterday morning about how there's a difference between sort of the political fallout and the legal fallout of all of this. Do you think that what you've heard does rise to the level of becoming a criminal case?

[08:25:13] LACOVARA: I think the answer to that question is yes.

And as Jeff mentioned earlier, there's still more fact gathering to be done. Anyone who saw Director Coats and Admiral Rogers testifying or avoiding acknowledging during their testimony the other day had to conclude that the president had also intervened with them to ask them to try to influence the direction of the Russia investigation, which is another quite direct parallel with Watergate where President Nixon had his aides, who ultimately went to prison, intervene with the intelligence community to try to wave off the FBI from continuing the Watergate investigation.

In this case, you don't even have the insulation that President Nixon had, which was the intervention of his aides in doing this. President Trump himself was directly apparently was placing these calls.

CAMEROTA: OK. So then, play this out for us, John Dean, if in fact you're both right and it does rise to that level of some sort of criminal action, does Special Counsel Robert Mueller have the power to indict President Trump if he agreed with you?

DEAN: That is actually a fascinating question. Phil and I have talked about that. As it stands right now, the Department of Justice has a set of regulations that came out of 1973 when Spiro Agnew got himself in trouble with the law and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that the vice president could be indicted, but the president of the United States could not be indicted.

That memo was updated in 2000. The reason that Philip is particularly interested in it, he prepared a very thorough memo on the other side of the issue. It is not a settled legal question. It has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. So, unless Mr. Mueller is starting down the route that Philip found he could go, it's the policy of the Department of Justice that presidents can't be indicted. But this doesn't mean that he's not making a dandy case that can be referred up to the House of Representatives, the Judiciary Committee, where they do handle impeachment.

CAMEROTA: Right. But then we're back to the political calculus that we've been talking out. And as you know, Republicans control Congress. And if it's anything based on what their feedback has been today, they are totally disinclined.

DEAN: It will not happen during this Congress. It would happen after 2018 should the Democrats take control of the House.

CAMEROTA: OK. So, very quickly, Mr. Lacovara, what do you think is next?

LACOVARA: Well, I think Bob Mueller is going to continue the investigation. I think he's going to see whether, as John says, the House has any interest in conducting its own parallel investigation.

And then, ultimately, I think he's going to have a very tough choice to make, which is whether to test the proposition whether the president - a sitting president can be indicted. As I mentioned earlier, I think the law and policy is that even a sitting president is not above the law.

President Trump famously said during the campaign that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and wouldn't lose a vote, I think by the same token, he would think that he is immune from federal criminal law. I don't think that's the system the founders established here.

CAMEROTA: All right. Gentlemen, thank you very much. It's great to be able to call upon both of your experience. Thank you for being here. Chris?

CUOMO: All right. Coming up, a big guest for you. A senator whose questions led to the Comey leak revelation. What does Republican Susan Collins believe? What should be done? The answers next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)