Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump's War on Facts; Trade Tensions Escalate; Kavanaugh and Accuser Should Testify; Clinton Blasts Trump. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired September 17, 2018 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00] JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: And even Putin himself says he wanted Trump to win.

Next, the idea that the Mueller team is composed of 17 angry Democrats. For what it's worth, according to "The Washington Post," 13 of the attorneys working for Mueller are now or were registered Democrats, with nine having donated money. But, of course, Bob Mueller is a long-time Republican.

Finally, President Trump likes to say that the Mueller investigation has taken too long, cost too much and turned up nothing. OK, high estimates put the current cost at $26 million, which could be offset by the millions in property Manafort has agreed to forfeit. To date, the Mueller investigation has resulted in charges for 37 individuals and entities, including 12 Russian intelligence officers, 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, a former Russian military interpreter and seven Americans, all seven pleading guilty.

Compare that to, say, the Whitewater investigation. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate, 15 people were convicted after $60 million and about eight years. Or Iran-Contra, 11 convictions, about eight years from inception to final report and $47 million in late '80s money. Get the picture? By these metrics, the Mueller probe is at least in line with past investigations.

So while President Trump wants to muddy the waters by suggesting the Mueller investigation is illegal, run by Democrats and hasn't turned up anything, don't believe the hype, because none of that is true.

And that's your "Reality Check."

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: John, that is so helpful to have it all in one place, have you spell it out. I feel like you could do that one every day.

AVLON: We can just update that.

CAMEROTA: Have one maybe evergreen. So thank you very much for that.

All right, time for "CNN Money Now."

President Trump is likely going to hit China with a new set of tariffs. CNN chief business correspondent Christine Romans joins us.

Hi, Christine.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, guys.

His trade agenda front of mind this morning. The president tweeting just moment ago, tariffs that put the U.S. in a very strong bargaining position. If countries will not make fair deals with us, they will be tariffed. Expected more of those tariffs for China. Multiple reports over the weekend the president is serious, dead serious. About 10 percent trade taxes on $200 billion more of Chinese goods. Ten percent, not the 25 percent level he threatened in early August.

Now, these new tariffs will apply to more than 1,000 products, including refrigerators, air conditioners, furniture, television and toys. Higher prices for consumers just as the holiday season approaches.

This is on top of tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods already announced, already in effect. China has vowed to retaliate on any new tariffs. The president shrugging off those threats and celebrating his tariff strategy, tweeting on steel this morning. The American Iron and Steel Institute says production from American steel mills, yes, is almost 10 percent higher over the past year and mills last week were operating at 80 percent capacity. So the president is celebrating that.

Soybean farmers not quite so thrilled. They've had to have billions in bailouts, of course, because of the strategy with China.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Christine Romans, thank you very, very much.

The president perhaps trying to focus on that amid all the controversy surrounding his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. What the president thinks about these new on the record accusations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. We have new developments, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:37:47] CAMEROTA: OK, so, this morning, White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway insist that Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexual assault when they were in high school should be heard. Does that mean they should testify again before the Senate Judicial Committee? And could these damning allegations derail his nomination. Here to discuss -- or confirmation, I should say -- we have CNN political commentator, Republican consultant and host of PBS' "Firing Line" Margaret Hoover, and Kirsten Powers, CNN political analyst and "USA Today" columnist.

Ladies, great to have you here to walk through all of this.

Let's start with the political and then we'll move on to the ethical and the cultural.

Politically, Kellyanne Conway was just on morning TV and she said this about what the thinking is today inside the White House. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: This woman should not be insulted and she should not be ignored. I've spoken with the president. I've spoken with Senator Rand (ph) and others. This woman will be heard. She's going to -- I think the Senate Judiciary Committee will decide how and through which forum. In other words, will it be by telephone, will it be in person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Margaret, as we have learned, what Kellyanne Conway says at 8:00 a.m. may not reflect what tweet comes out at 9:30 a.m., but what do you make of her words?

MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It seems to me, at least from the White House and across the Senate and on Capitol Hill, there is this increasing and growing sense that this woman's account should be heard. She had -- we're in a new moment, this Me Too and Time's Up era has decided that it is important for women who come forward and tell their truth to have their voices heard.

That said, I think we need to proceed incredibly cautious here because this movement has shown that there is no due process in the court of public opinion and we are dealing with an extraordinarily, as we all know, important lifetime appointee and, especially in the Senate, a place where many senators regret and lament how quickly Al Franken was tossed aside by his -- by his peers. There is a moment here for cooler heads to prevail, for a woman's voice and story to be heard and for Brett Kavanaugh to also share his words, his set of experiences and for a calm and judicious and thoughtful process to evolve about an event that may have happened once and that happened when children were minors. When you mix adolescence and alcohol, we all know bad things can happen. We -- I would just urge that we proceed with caution.

[08:40:15] CAMEROTA: OK. But the clock is ticking, Kirsten, and Thursday they're supposed to vote on this. Your thoughts?

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well -- so I totally understand the feeling that 17-year-olds and alcohol and bad things can happen. And, you know, if he, in fact, did this, does it necessarily say anything about his character today? Probably not. I understand all of those arguments. But I still think that if this happened and if we knew for a fact this happened, that he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, not to punish him because of what Margaret just said and about 17-year-olds and people change, but because it sends a message. And so if we're living in a society that has zero tolerance for sexual assault, we don't want to send a message to 17-year-olds today that, well, if it happened a really long time ago and we kind of understand that 17-year-olds can be 17-year-olds, it sends a really bad message.

So, I would say, if we knew for an absolute fact that this happened it would be disqualifying. The problem is, how do you litigate something that happened 30-plus years ago? And, you know, we have statute of limitations in the legal world precisely because people's memories are so unreliable when you're dealing with issues that happen so long ago. You'd have to call on witnesses. Now, in this case, there weren't any actual witnesses besides the people that were there. But other people who were around who -- did they hear anything, it's just not reliable. So how do you fairly litigate it?

And so that -- that would be my question. And I kind of operate in a do unto others as how you would have them do to you. Would any of us want to have to have high school classmates coming and accusing us and having to rebut it? I think that's a very difficult situation to have real -- a fair hearing.

CAMEROTA: Oh, I think the whole thing is delicate. I mean you guys have just spelled it out beautifully, all -- how complicated this is. Do we want to be held responsible for what we did drunk in high school or --

HOOVER: Which --

CAMEROTA: Is sexual assault in a different category? And even in 1982. And I -- and I remember it well and I can put the 1982 lens over that, was this appalling in 1982?

POWERS: Yes, of course it was.

CAMEROTA: And should be it disqualifying?

POWERS: But the -- what I would say is, real time, yes, but I think it's very difficult. We're not talking about a real time situation. And even in the Al Franken example -- I actually think Al Franken should have gone and I think what he did was very bad and he was accused by multiple people, you know, many women, same stories and he did it as an adult. And he did it recently, you know, within the last decade. So we're not talking about something about kids 30 years ago.

CAMEROTA: OK, but, Margaret, do you think that if this is true -- if it's true, if you believe her, you'll never be able to know 100 percent. But if the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is true, should it be disqualifying for Brett Kavanaugh?

HOOVER: Look, I -- that's such a hypothetical. I mean Brett Kavanaugh, what -- we've kind of -- we just need to characterize or remind people in this conversation, as Brett Kavanaugh said, this did not happen. He categorically says this is not true. This did not happen. So for us to stipulate hypotheticals based on if it is true, it's -- I mean this is going to -- it sounds like it's one person's word against another and it could very well be the truth.

CAMEROTA: Right, but both have to decide.

HOOVER: Right.

CAMEROTA: I mean these lawmakers are tasked with deciding. They're tasked with trying to figure out who they believe, who's most credible. They're going to have to make a decision, right, about whether or not they vote yes or no for him.

HOOVER: Yes, they are going to have to -- they are going to have to make a decision and people, the country, and these senators are going to have to hear both sides and decide who they think is correct. But I -- like, none of us should be, I think, saying if x, y then z yet. Let's just -- let's -- let's not rush to a determination. Let's, as Kellyanne Conway said and others, let's let this process play out in a cool, calm and collected way so that the country can benefit from cooler heads prevailing and not this -- this -- a mob, frankly, and -- you know, a mob.

CAMEROTA: I mean, but, frankly, look, I'm on their timeframe. I mean part of the urgency is that they were going -- the Senate Judiciary Committee was going to vote on this on Thursday and we do not know yet if they're going to postpone that vote, Kirsten.

POWERS: Yes, I mean, what I've heard is at this point they're not postponing it. I think the feeling is that -- that she should be heard. But he says it didn't happen.

Now, we have the other issue of, by her own description, he was wasted out of his mind, possibly blacked out and -- which means he -- if it -- if it -- it could have happened and he doesn't even remember that it happens, right? Another problem is, she doesn't know exactly where it happened or when it happened. So there's no way for him to even have an alibi to an extent anyone could have an alibi for 35 years ago. But that's why it makes it so difficult.

And so what we're going to end up having is sort of a political circus, right, where I can predict what's going to happen, the Democrats will believe him and the Republicans won't.

[08:45:01] CAMEROTA: Yes. OK, ladies, thank you.

POWERS: I mean Republicans will believe him and not believe her, sorry.

CAMEROTA: Understood. All right.

POWERS: Yes.

HOOVER: Or the Republicans may believe her but say that this can't be the new standard, pulling out adolescence with alcohol from 35 years ago and saying this is disqualifying. Now, everybody's -- everybody's -- everything they did as a minor now counts for your future.

CAMEROTA: It is complicated. As we've said, it is complicated and we will see what the Senate Judiciary Committee decides to do today.

Thank you very much, Margaret and Kirsten.

BERMAN: I've got to say, I'm very curious to see how politicians handle that if this public testimony does happen, if she makes this case that they say, we're going to campaign on, yes, we believe it, but it was so long ago it shouldn't matter for a Supreme Court nominee.

How will this play in the elections going forward? We'll discuss, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:49:53] CAMEROTA: Well, time moves fast here. Just days ago it seemed almost a guarantee that Brett Kavanaugh would be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Now that is in question after this woman has come forward with an accusation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. So, will Kavanaugh and his accuser testify this week before the Senate panel?

Let's get "The Bottom Line." We have CNN political director David Chalian in the house.

Great to have you here.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Good to be here.

CAMEROTA: So things are moving at lightning speed just this morning, but we heard Dick Durbin say that he didn't think that there was any way before Thursday's vote, which is scheduled, that they could have the accuser and Brett Kavanaugh come back before the Judiciary Committee.

What's going to happen today?

CHALIAN: I mean Thursday is real soon upon us. That's a fast timeline. And I think the Republicans, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley specifically who are going to run this process, are going to have to be careful about just how they calibrate getting all the facts and making sure everybody can make a fully informed decision when the committee votes versus looking like they're rushing something through just to get Kavanaugh onto the court. That's going to be their calculation this week. And Thursday is soon. So I don't know if they'll be able to meet that deadline, Alisyn.

But I do think what you're going to -- what is going to happen today, what you're going to see, is that you're going to start hearing from all the members on the Judiciary Committee, especially on the Republican side. We -- we've heard from Flake, of course, who is on the committee. But now we're going to hear from all the other members on the committee to hear where they are on the timing of this and you'll start getting a sense of what sort of McConnell's marching orders are.

BERMAN: Yes, it's going to be hard. If she says she's willing to testify publicly, it's going to be hard for Republicans to explain why they will not allow it.

Now --

CAMEROTA: Which is what her lawyer told us she is willing to do.

BERMAN: And, look, Dick Durbin says he doesn't want it this week because obviously Democrats want to drag this out as long as they possibly can also. So there are politics at play on both sides here.

David, the election. You know, we're less than two months away. CHALIAN: Fifty days from today.

BERMAN: Fifty days.

CAMEROTA: David knows it now.

BERMAN: Thank you. So glad you're here.

CAMEROTA: He has his clock set by it.

BERMAN: I'm not sure I fully can gauge how this will play in the elections. I see it putting perhaps some Democrats in red states in as much of a bind as it puts Susan Collins, you know, she's not a free -- but others here.

CHALIAN: It depends, John, I think, because if indeed Collins and Murkowski let's say start waffling on the nomination, that could provide some cover to those red state Democrats that the Republicans aren't even unified on this, so they might have some (INAUDIBLE) to vote.

Here's what I think, actually from a broader perspective, of why this is probably the worst possible issue area for the nomination to come into question on now. We are in the midst -- 50 days away from an election -- we are in the midst of an election season that is completely driven in terms of energy by women, female candidates, and a record number on the ballot, especially on the Democratic side, right? Female voters coming out to put those women in nomination.

This -- the energy that is fueling the Democratic Party right now, that is part of why they feel they have a real chance for success in November, is a female powered energy. So to have this issue thrown in the middle of it right now, that -- that could prove really troubling for the Republicans at this stage of the game.

CAMEROTA: OK, we just are getting some word that Brett Kavanaugh says he is willing to answer questions about this and has hired an attorney. So he is willing to testify publicly, it sounds like, and so is she. And so we will see what the Senate Judiciary Committee does about that.

OK, moving on. You brought up female candidates. Hillary Clinton has a piece in "The Atlantic" about the fear that she says has been confirmed in terms of Donald Trump's presidency. Let me read a portion of it if they want to -- OK, the assault on our democracy did not start with Trump's election. He is as much a symptom as a cause of what ails us over many years. Our defenses were worn down by a small group of right wing billionaires, people like the Mercer family and Charles and David Koch, who spent a lot of time and money building alternative reality where science is denied, lies mascaraed as truth and paranoia flourishes.

So, what is her relevance today? I mean, listen, politics is so fickle, it's amazing that we're asking what the relevance was of the Democratic nominee for president.

CHALIAN: Right.

CAMEROTA: But as we head into the midterms?

CHALIAN: Well, listen, Hillary Clinton is a voice of the resistance, right? And she is sort of an iconic figure right now of the resistance in this moment in time. As I was saying, this is so much of the environment we're in right now, Alisyn, is the after effect of her loss in 2016, obviously. And so she has a role to play in that. Although you'll notice, on the campaign trail, it is not -- she has not had the most robust campaign schedule out there yet. You do not hear Democratic candidates across the country running for the House and the Senate clamoring to have Hillary Clinton to get out there and campaign for them. In fact, you have some Republicans in some of these red states for the Senate who are running ads, you know, reminding constituents that Heidi Heitkamp supported Hillary Clinton. That that's a negative.

So -- so she -- it's not as if she's the most popular Democratic surrogate right now. What she has here is the update to her book and she is going to do a bunch of fund-raising and hit the campaign trail a bit this fall and she's making the argument here that the American democracy is under siege. Yes, not only because of Trump, but also because of Trump. And she lays that out here in "The Atlantic."

[08:55:01] BERMAN: We're going to hear more from the right on this new writing today, I think, than we'll hear (INAUDIBLE).

CHALIAN: It will jazz them, without a doubt.

BERMAN: David Chalian, great to have you here with us. Thanks so much.

CAMEROTA: Good to have you.

CHALIAN: Sure.

BERMAN: "The Good Stuff" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Time now for "The Good Stuff."

A news crew in South Carolina went from reporting about Florence to rescuing a woman stuck in flood waters. The journalists said they heard Barbara Flannigan (ph) yelling for help. When they got to her car, they found her praying inside, as the water continued to rise all around it. The news crew jumped into action and pulled her to safety.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it like it just pulled me in and I couldn't stop it. I had my foot on the brake, but it wouldn't stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Fortunately, Flannigan is OK.

CAMEROTA: OK, so sometimes journalists are heroes. I think that that's a very good message. And also they did just get the scoop.

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: They were able to be her first interview.

BERMAN: Sometimes journalists launch a new show at 9:00 a.m. this morning.

CAMEROTA: What? I've heard about this. So, should we sample it? It's time for CNN "NEWSROOM" with Poppy Harlow and some new guy named Jim Sciuto.

Welcome.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome new guy.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: It's good to be here. It's good to be here. I haven't been kicked off yet by Poppy.

HARLOW: But it -- hey, hey, Berman, it's --

BERMAN: It happens to all of us eventually.

HARLOW: Yes, right, it's not half time yet. You know, he might walk off, like that NFL player at half time. We've got to see how it goes.

[09:00:05] SCIUTTO: A long time to go.

HARLOW: I'm thrilled you're here. Miss you always, Berman, but, you know, I'm glad you're before us every morning.

BERMAN: You guys will crush it. Go for it.

HARLOW: All right.

SCIUTTO: It's great to be here.

CAMEROTA: OK, great to have you, Jim. We'll be watching.