Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
President Trump's Big Week On The World State At The United Nations; GOP Allies Urge President Trump Not To Fire Rod Rosenstein; Feinstein Calls For Delay In Kavanaugh Nomination After New Allegation; CNN Reality Check: Cruz Claims Support Of Preexisting Conditions. Aired 7:30-8a ET
Aired September 24, 2018 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[07:30:00] ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR -- be expecting to hear from him.
Christiane Amanpour joins us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: President Trump begins the week here in New York. He'll be speaking at the United Nations in the next hour. The president will chair a U.N. Security Council on Iran later this week.
Joining us now, CNN chief international anchor Christiane Amanpour. Christiane, good morning.
What a difference a year can make. The Donald Trump who we saw last year at the U.N., in many ways, may not be the Donald Trump that we see this year.
"The New York Times" pointing out this morning that his advisers are most concerned not about him being undiplomatic, but -- and I'm quoting here -- "That he'll be overly enthusiastic about engagement with wily adversaries."
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Well look, Erica, here we are at the U.N. General Assembly -- the annual sort of descent of world leaders onto the city of New York -- and you know that it causes a lot of traffic and blockages, and the NYPD has just been doing a sweep for all sorts of security and the delegates who are going in all to say that you're absolutely right. Everybody will be on the edge of their seat listening to what President Trump has to say this year.
And he will be here about three times, starting today, to chair different kinds of meetings.
Now last year, if you'll remember, the thing that got everybody chattering in the General Assembly outside around the world was his incredibly -- well, how can I put it? You remember his fire and fury, his "Little Rocket Man" -- that whole blast-off against Kim Jong Un of North Korea.
And that all the ambassadors and world leaders wondering what on earth is going to happen next. Well, what happened next was that the two leaders met.
[07:35:00] There is a certain amount of lowering of temperature between the United States and North Korea. There are pledges as yet unmet by North Korea but nonetheless, pledges to denuclearize. And this seems to be going on at least in a less hyper way than it was this time last year.
So people are wondering whether the president will try the same tactic when it comes to Iran.
HILL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: As you mentioned, the Iran Security Council meeting which he plans to chair on Wednesday is going to be very, very closely watched because this administration, although it says it is not in the business of regime change, many believe that that is exactly what it wants -- egged on by Israel or the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and Prince Mohammad bin Salmon of Saudi Arabia.
So that's going to be something very, very close to watch.
And then, of course, the whole America First sovereignty all about how the United States is pulling out of all sorts of multilateral U.N. arms, whether it's UNESCO, whether it's the U.N. Human Rights Council, whether it's lowering by dramatic numbers the threshold for refugees coming into this country.
And, of course, what he will do regarding sovereignty and nationalism around trade, China, and the like.
So that's what we're waiting to listen to, Erica.
HILL: It also -- it also brings up the question, too, for leaders around the world -- there is what we hear from the president, whether it's coming out of his own mouth or what he's putting on Twitter. And then there's also what we hear from Sec. Pompeo, and it's not always in lockstep.
So, who do leaders -- I mean, who are they listening to? Who are they looking at, at this point?
AMANPOUR: Well look, you're absolutely right.
Since the president was inaugurated, there has been this attempt to read the Trumpian tea leaves. Who's saying what, what should we listen to, and what should we watch for?
And a lot of world leaders around the globe have seen sort of taking on board this Trump factor, understanding that what comes out of his tweets are not necessarily what happens in terms of policy and wondering who is speaking for him.
In the old days they used to think well, Rex Tillerson would say things that were much more moderate regarding North Korea, regarding Iran, regarding other things, than President Trump.
They would listen to Sec. of Defense Mattis, wondering whether that would be something they could hang onto.
But now, in the year since last year's assembly, President Trump has gotten rid of a lot of those people. No more Rex Tillerson. Now, we have Mike Pompeo who is much more aligned with President Trump's hawkish foreign policy.
And we have John Bolton -- no longer Gen. H.R. McMaster as National Security adviser. Again, much more aligned with President Trump's hawkish policy on Iran. But again, even there, there are differences between what Bolton says about North Korea and what Trump says about North Korea.
So, in short, world leaders -- even those who President Trump is engaging with -- are not quite sure who and what in the administration to believe. So it's always a question of let's see what happens rather than what's said.
So, you're correct. There's still -- there's still a little bit of a balancing act -- a high-wire act that many world leaders are trying to walk very delicately trying to figure out how to engage with this administration.
Remember, one thing that has happened in the intervening year is not only President Trump pulling the U.S. out of these U.N. organizations, but also really questioning and throwing up the idea of multilateral institutions, whether it's with Europe on trade, as I said.
You know, on all sorts of issues that have underpinned the global world order, which this body is up -- you know, has to uphold. That which the U.S. created some 70 years ago after World War II, Erica.
HILL: A lot to watch for. Christiane, always good to talk with you. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Sources tell CNN that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed secretly taping President Trump and talked about removing him from power. So will the president the fire him?
We'll discuss, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:42:40] BERMAN: Republican allies of President Trump are urging him not fire Deputy Attorney Gen. Rod Rosenstein after this blistering report in "The New York Times" says that Rosenstein suggested secretly recording the president and discussed efforts to remove him from office. Rosenstein has denied the story twice.
Joining me now is Matt Schlapp. He is the former political director for George W. Bush and chairman of the American Conservative Union. Matt, thank you very much for being with us this morning.
Actually, there's a split among conservatives and Republicans who often give their opinions about what the president should do. Should he fire Rod Rosenstein or not?
What do you think?
MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION, FORMER POLITICAL DIRECTOR TO GEORGE W. BUSH: I think there's very little chemistry between the president and the leadership at the DOJ. Is that saying it kind of politically, John?
And I think a president should put the people around them who they trust. I don't think there's any trust between the president and Rod Rosenstein and I would think it would make complete sense that right after the election that he has the people in those important positions who he thinks want to push his agenda.
BERMAN: Fire him, you're saying.
SCHLAPP: Sure. Every single person who serves in a position like Rod Rosenstein does serves at the pleasure of the president. And the president should put the people in those positions he has trust in, especially at the Department of Justice, one of the most important jobs in government.
BERMAN: Why wait? You say after the election. Why not do it now?
If any president should be surrounded, as you say, by people that he or she trusts, you should be surrounded by those people immediately, not two months from now.
SCHLAPP: You know, I'd be -- I would have absolutely no problem with him firing him now. I would have no problem -- I would have had no problem with him firing him at any point along the line.
I think the problem for someone like -- and I don't know Rod Rosenstein -- don't know him personally. I've just been watching it like you've been watching it -- like the American people have been watching it.
And the president needs to put the people around him in these positions who believe in his agenda, who believe in his presidency. And if they don't, then you're going to have these conflicts. I think there are plenty of wonderful people over at the Department of Justice, currently, who could take this job.
Now look, Rod Rosenstein, I believe, is saying that this -- that this report is factually inaccurate.
BERMAN: Yes.
SCHLAPP: If it is, he and the president ought to sit down and have a talk about it and see if they can resolve their differences.
[07:45:00] BERMAN: As you say -- and one last question on this, though. I do think it's interesting that you -- by suggesting that he should wait until after the election, you're suggesting you believe there would be a political cost to firing Rod Rosenstein now.
What would that political cost be?
SCHLAPP: Not at all.
BERMAN: You don't think there'd be a political cost?
SCHLAPP: No. I don't -- I was quoted yesterday in an NBC News report that I don't believe there'd be a cost. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of Republicans would cheer him on.
The drama associated with the fact that we started off talking about Russian collusion and we've ended up seeing this politicization of the FBI and that Rod Rosenstein played a role in that at a certain point, I think has a lot of --
BERMAN: Yes.
SCHLAPP: -- a lot of voters across the country saying this is repugnant. This is not what we want and the FBI is this great institution we need to -- we need to execute effectively, not be politicized.
BERMAN: So you would like to recant your earlier statement of wait until after the election and you would cheer him on if he fired --
SCHLAPP: No.
BERMAN: -- Rod Rosenstein today.
SCHLAPP: John, I -- there's no -- there's no political consequences to firing Rod Rosenstein now or after the election, period. It's all positive.
BERMAN: So you think he should do it -- you think he should do it today?
SCHLAPP: I think he should do it when he wants to do it. He's the president, I'm not. The American people didn't elect me.
BERMAN: That is, in fact, true -- nor I.
Matt, you've become a superstar overnight for something you said about the Supreme Court confirmation process, and I would like to read this tweet out loud so people can see it.
You said, "This Kavanaugh confirmation has transformed into a disgrace. How is it when Dems win, their Supreme Court noms get an easy time but ours get mauled?"
Now, there were those, Matt, who pointed out some irony in that tweet given that Merrick Garland -- he didn't get a hearing. That Merrick Garland was accused of being appointed by a Democrat and that was enough not to get him a hearing.
Whereas, Brett Kavanaugh is accused now by two women of sexual assault. He denies it but that is causing an additional hearing.
So how do you explain?
SCHLAPP: John, name the other Democratic pick that the Republicans knocked back?
BERMAN: Look --
SCHLAPP: I'll wait for the answer.
BERMAN: You go back sometimes --
SCHLAPP: Give me the names and all the --
BERMAN: But, Matt -- listen, I hear you, I hear you. You're talking about -- you're talking about --
SCHLAPP: I'll give you all the names that the Republicans --
BERMAN: -- history. You're talking about Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor -- you know, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and we -- and we could go back.
And yes, I remember Robert Bork and I remember Ginsburg --
SCHLAPP: So let's -- can we --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: But, Matt, hang on, hang on -- no, no, no, no, no -- no, no. No, let me ask this.
SCHLAPP: You didn't give me an answer.
BERMAN: We're talking about the last two -- the last two Supreme Court nominees. One was Merrick Garland, nominated by a Democrat, who didn't get a hearing. And one was Neil Gorsuch --
SCHLAPP: Right.
BERMAN: -- who soared through.
So within the --
SCHLAPP: Right.
BERMAN: -- last two years you have an example of Republicans blocking a Democratic nominee -- blocking completely --
SCHLAPP: John --
BERMAN: -- and a Republican -- and a Republican nominee sailing through.
SCHLAPP: Any reporter that fails to give the full picture of how Supreme Court nominees by Republicans are treated in juxtaposition to how Democratic nominees are treated is doing a disservice. We all know what happened to Robert Bork. Robert Bork was guilty of
wanting to follow the Constitution. Doug Ginsburg was right behind him. Both those men were rejected.
You move forward to what happened with Clarence Thomas. You -- let me finish.
BERMAN: But you could go back -- you could go back to Abe Fortas. I mean, if you want to go back Abe Fortas --
SCHLAPP: Let me finish, John.
BERMAN: -- and you could go back to FDR, you will get Democratic --
SCHLAPP: This is really --
BERMAN: -- nominees who were blocked also.
SCHLAPP: This is --
BERMAN: So all I'm saying is that it depends on when you're counting in history.
SCHLAPP: This is really important. Let me finish.
BERMAN: If you want to talk about the last few years --
SCHLAPP: This is -- this is really important.
So in my lifetime -- which I said in my tweet, if you want to talk about my tweet.
In my lifetime -- I've turned 50 years old. In my lifetime, Republicans have not backed one nominee.
Merrick Garland -- you know what? He's a fine judge, he's a good human being. No one ever questioned his character. No one ever said that he did -- that he broke the law.
What they simply said is they wanted to follow the Biden Rule because the opening happened so close to the election.
What Democrats do is they go after these Republican nominees. The maul their characters, they make charges. Sometimes, the charges are eerily similar.
I know Brett Kavanaugh. I know his character.
Why are all these charges coming out at the very tippy-top at the end of the process? I'll tell you why. He's the fifth constitutionalist vote on the court. Neil Gorsuch was the fourth; Brett Kavanaugh is the fifth.
He's guilty --
BERMAN: Right. SCHLAPP: -- of being the personification of the fight between blue and red, and he's not -- it is not an --
BERMAN: OK, OK.
SCHLAPP: -- appropriate way for us to consider people on the Supreme Court.
BERMAN: I will -- one could argue that Merrick Garland was also the personification of blue versus red. One could argue --
SCHLAPP: He wasn't the fifth vote.
BERMAN: -- that Merrick Garland -- that Merrick Garland was nominated three months before -- earlier in the process than Joe Biden when he made the floor speech which you now call the Biden Rule -- when there was no open Supreme Court nomination. I know you guys always refer to that but the Garland nomination was either before that.
I would suggest Neil Gorsuch --
SCHLAPP: Let me add --
BERMAN: Hang on.
SCHLAPP: Yes.
BERMAN: Neil Gorsuch sailed --
SCHLAPP: Can I refute?
BERMAN: No, because there's nothing to refute. You could refute but you'd be wrong because all of those statements are factually correct.
Neil Gorsuch sailed through.
SCHLAPP: John --
BERMAN: Neil Gorsuch sailed through with Democratic votes.
I guess your standard now, just to be clear -- and first of all, happy birthday -- but your standard now --
[07:50:00] SCHLAPP: I feel like I should be asking you questions at this point.
BERMAN: Your standard now -- your standard now is if it's the swing vote, that's what you're saying. The swing vote is what matters here?
SCHLAPP: No. I'm saying the standard -- what I'm saying is for Democrats is that they know that a swap for a constitutionalist like Brett Kavanaugh for Anthony Kennedy means that if you look at the decisions over the course of the last 25 years, you would actually have five justices who have a reputation for having an original understanding of the Constitution and upholding that in their decisions. BERMAN: But, Matt, they didn't do it with Gorsuch.
SCHLAPP: That is what he is guilty of. Look into the senator --
BERMAN: But look, they let Gorsuch -- they let Gorsuch --
SCHLAPP: John, let's just talk just a little bit longer. Let me just -- let me just say this. Neil Gorsuch --
BERMAN: Just answer me if they let Gorsuch through and then go and then go --
SCHLAPP: When you look at the senator from Hawaii --
BERMAN: Did they let Gorsuch -- did Gorsuch get confirmed?
SCHLAPP: Yes, as the fourth vote, and Kavanaugh would be the fifth. There are nine members of the Supreme Court. This is the important opening.
If you look at the senator from Hawaii --
BERMAN: Yes.
SCHLAPP: -- who said basically, she doesn't believe that Brett Kavanaugh deserves the presumption of innocence because he has an originalist approach to the Constitution.
What it tells you -- when you look at Dianne Feinstein who had this accuser's letter for six weeks and did nothing with it, what it tells you is that they know how important the stakes are for the issues they care about that go before the court.
It means that we're politicizing every aspect --
BERMAN: Yes.
SCHLAPP: -- of the Supreme Court.
What I'd like to see the Democrats do is what the Republicans do. You're right, Sotomayor got an overwhelming support.
So did Elena Kagan who, by the way, hired Brett Kavanaugh at Yale Law School. If you -- excuse me, at Harvard Law School.
BERMAN: Yes.
SCHLAPP: If you look at all of these other Democrat nominees to the court, they get overwhelming support.
BERMAN: Yes.
SCHLAPP: Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called what's going on at the hearing a circus.
BERMAN: Look, Matt -- SCHLAPP: If you're qualified to be on the court that should be what matters.
BERMAN: I gave you -- we gave you -- you got a lot of time to talk here and we thank you for that. Laying out the new Schlapp rule which indicates that if you are deemed a swing vote then that has a different set of standards --
SCHLAPP: By Democrats.
BERMAN: That has a different set of standards than others. So are you calling the --
SCHLAPP: By Democrats. Not my rules, the Democrats' rules.
BERMAN: It's the Schlapp rule.
SCHLAPP: John, don't put words in my mouth. It's the Democrats.
BERMAN: I didn't say that.
SCHLAPP: It's the Democrats who are going -- no, it's the Democrats who are going after Brett Kavanaugh because he'd be the fifth vote.
BERMAN: OK.
SCHLAPP: It's not my rule.
BERMAN: OK.
SCHLAPP: It's their rules. It's actually not a rule.
BERMAN: There are differences --
SCHLAPP: It's a slur --
BERMAN: There are differences --
SCHLAPP: -- and they're a disgrace.
BERMAN: There are differences here again, among the other differences is that as far as I know at this point, only Brett Kavanaugh was accused now by two women of having committed sexual assault. He denies it -- absolutely, he does and that is where we are on Monday morning.
Matt Schlapp --
SCHLAPP: He has been accused -- he's been accused by one woman with no corroboration --
BERMAN: Two.
SCHLAPP: -- and another woman with no corroboration. And, 12 people were called on this most recent accuser.
"The New York Times" refused to run the story --
BERMAN: Yes, Matt.
SCHLAPP: -- because they couldn't find nobody else --
BERMAN: We talked -- and we talked -- we talked to Ronan Farrow. We talked to Ronan Farrow --
SCHLAPP: They talked to dozens of people --
BERMAN: We talked to Ronan Farrow --
SCHLAPP: -- to corroborate the story.
BERMAN: He explained why and what their process was --
SCHLAPP: He does not work for "The New York Times".
BERMAN: -- that they came forward.
I understand that. He works for "The New Yorker".
SCHLAPP: Ronan does not work for "The New York Times".
BERMAN: I understand that, Matt.
SCHLAPP: Right.
BERMAN: He explained why "The New Yorker" decided to run that story when "The New York Times" did not.
Thank you very much for being with us.
SCHLAPP: Not corroborated.
BERMAN: Again --
SCHLAPP: You're welcome, John. Thank you for having me.
BERMAN: You say not corroborated. Ronan Farrow did point out that he did speak to people at Yale who, after the fact, said --
SCHLAPP: It's not corroborated.
BERMAN: -- that they had heard the stories. Not corroborated to your satisfaction, again. Let people read the story --
SCHLAPP: To "The New York Times".
BERMAN: -- and listen to what --
SCHLAPP: To "The New York Times" --
BERMAN: -- to what Ronan Farrow says.
SCHLAPP: -- not to me. BERMAN: I understand Matt what you're saying. I just want people to go read the story for themselves.
Thank you for being with us. I appreciate it -- Erica.
SCHLAPP: Thank you, John.
HILL: So what happens Republicans campaign for eight straight years on repealing something finally have a chance to get it done and then realize in order to do it they must also erase an extremely popular policy?
We're going to take a look in our "Reality Check."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:57:45] HILL: Time now for a CNN "Reality Check."
Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke had their much anticipated first debate on Friday night and it was every bit the slugfest that people were expecting it to be. One moment though, in particular, is really begging for a reality check, so CNN senior political analyst John Avlon is on it.
JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right, Erica.
Deep in the heart of Texas is not where you'd expect to find one of the country's hottest Senate races. After all, the Lone Star State hasn't elected a Democrat statewide since the last century.
But this year, all eyes are on the Gen X cage match between conservative Ted Cruz and progressive Beto O'Rourke.
Now, Friday night they squared off in a fiery first debate and one exchange about health care really jumped out. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: We can protect preexisting conditions -- and you need to understand everyone agrees we're going to protect preexisting conditions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: Not so much. This casual comment from Sen. Cruz does not track with reality.
After all, right now, the Texas attorney general is leading a legal charge with 19 other states to overturn Obamacare, including its massively popular protections for those people with preexisting conditions. It's a lawsuit Ted Cruz supported and called reasonable as recently as this June.
And this shouldn't come as a surprise, folks. After all, Ted Cruz promised to repeal, quote, "every word of Obamacare" during his 2016 presidential campaign. He also led a shutdown of the federal government over Obamacare funding against his own party's wishes, holding the Senate floor for 21 hours and once he ran out of things to say, famously doing this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRUZ: Do you like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam I am. I do not like green eggs and ham.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: Seusstastic.
But the politics of Obamacare have changed in the Trump era.
A recent CNN poll shows that health care is the number one issue for voters heading into the midterms. And a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that protecting people with preexisting conditions is considered very important for 75 percent of Americans with even a majority of Republicans supporting it.
In other words, almost a decade after the bruising Obamacare battles, the health care fight is trending to the Democrats' advantage.
Now, Senate Republicans have floated a bill that would keep the protections but there's one big problem. It doesn't limit what insurance companies can charge to cover the preexisting conditions like Obamacare does.
Now, critics say that loophole allows politicians to act like they preserve protections but at a price that makes it functionally out of reach for most folks, and people seem hip to this trick.
The Kaiser poll found that 56 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of Independents, and 88 percent of Democrats want to keep the Obamacare provisions prohibiting insurance companies from charging sick people more --
