Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

New Reporting Lays Out President Trump's Past Attempts at Controlling Investigations into Presidency and Campaign; President Trump Reportedly Asked Acting Attorney General Whitaker to Change Leadership of Michael Cohen Investigation; Interview with Democratic presidential candidate John Delaney. Aired 8-8:29a ET

Aired February 20, 2019 - 8:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to your New Day. It is Wednesday, February 20, 8:00 in the east. And this morning there is a huge report in the "New York Times" that raises new questions about whether President Trump tried to obstruct justice. The "Times" reveals that the president asked then acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker, to install a U.S. attorney who is a Trump ally to be in charge of the probe into hush money payments made by Michael Cohen. That never happened. The attorney that President Trump wanted had already recuse himself over a conflict of interest. Here's what the president has to say about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you ask Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to change the leadership, the investigation into your former personal attorney Michael Cohen?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, not at all. I don't know who gave you that. That's more fake news. There is a lot of fake news out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So the "Times" also details how the president's attacks on the Russia investigation, which he has done publicly now more than 1,000 times by their count, had moved from a P.R. strategy to a legal strategy, and that includes attacking investigators on the case, to raise questions about the legitimacy of law enforcement and to discredit witnesses.

Meanwhile, one of the investigators, fired former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, has revealed a new claim about President Trump and Russia. This is what he told Anderson Cooper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Do you still believe the president could be a Russian asset?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY FBI DIRECTOR: I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation. And I'm really anxious to see where Director Mueller concludes that. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right, joining us now is Maggie Haberman, CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times." She is one of the reporters on the "Times" article detailing the president's attacks on the federal investigations surrounding him. Maggie, you have been busy.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's been a busy couple of days. Thanks for having me.

CAMEROTA: Thanks for being here, because this is -- we talk about this all the time, it's hard to keep track day in day out of the different times that President Trump has possibly run afoul of obstruction of justice laws and rules, but your article is very comprehensive. And you look at what has transpired over the arc of two years. And when you do that, you realize it wasn't just asking Matt Whitaker to install Geoffrey Berman, who is a Trump ally, and he wanted him to be in charge of the hush money payments. There was also asking Don McGahn to get rid of Robert Mueller but McGahn didn't carry that out. There was asking Corey Lewandowski to get rid of Jeff Sessions, but that didn't happen. And so it's really helpful to see it all in one place. Do you have a sense of why these people, Matt Whitaker and Don McGahn and Corey Lewandowski didn't follow through on the president's orders?

HABERMAN: I think that Don McGahn considered it to be an inappropriate move legally if they were to go ahead and do that. I think that he thought it was going to open the president up to impeachment if he went ahead and did that, and I think that most people around the president did that. Corey Lewandowski did not fire Jeff Sessions because Corey Lewandowski doesn't work for the government, and that would have been inappropriate. And I think that even is Matt Whitaker wanted to get Geoff Berman un-recused, I'm not sure that he could have. This goes Department of Justice ethics officials, and this was cleared there.

So you actually have a machinery that has worked pretty well. What you also have is a president who has wanted to control this, to the extent that he can, and we he can't control it, to defang it. And that's what a lot of what using allies in Congress to attack investigations has done. The president's folks will say, he's voicing opinions, he's asking questions, he didn't actually do anything, and that as a citizen, he is entitled to do that. We aren't prosecutors, so we can't make that estimation. All we can do is lay what the facts were.

BERMAN: Walk us through your reporting on what happened with Matt Whitaker here, starting with the timeline here, because this has to be after the midterm elections, after Jeff Sessions was pushed out, so November to December at this point.

HABERMAN: Right, it was after he was pushed out. And it was around the time CNN had reporting that we also had that the president had called Whitaker very upset right after Michael Cohen had pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. Remember that plea was in connection with the duration of time that a Trump Tower Moscow project was going on. In another phone call the president asked Whitaker if it was possible to have Geoff Berman un-recused from the Cohen case. He had recused over I think it was some issue involving a law firm that Berman had worked for a while back. He wanted to see if that could be undone.

It clearly was not undone. Berman was not put back in charge of the Cohen case. Berman is not recused from everything to Trump. He is not, as I understand it, recused from the investigation into the Inaugural Committee, for instance, this president's inaugural committee. So it was very specific to Cohen. Look, I think the Southern District of New York investigation into Michael Cohen has spawned an outlet. And remember, that was a referral from Mueller. It began there. Mueller basically said not mine, handed it off to Manhattan federal prosecutors.

[08:05:05] But that is a case that a lot of Trump advisers think presents a greater threat to him than the Mueller probe does. The Southern District can keep these things going for a very, very long time. Mueller we have every reason to believe is concluding his work soon.

CAMEROTA: And so is there a feeling among the people around the president that this is a real exposure to obstruction of justice?

HABERMAN: There is a feeling that he has exposed himself to accusations that he has obstructed justice. They argue that he has not obstructed justice, and I don't expect them to change that argument. And their argument is look, nothing was done, nothing changed. However, it does fit a pattern, as we have said here, of trying to control the various investigations that touched on him, for whatever reason. Is this because he's a 70 something year old man who is used to doing things a certain way in his private business as his defenders say, or is it that there is something there that he is concerned about. We have no way of knowing. We just know how he approached it.

BERMAN: We heard the president in our lead in to you respond to your reporting yesterday. I want to read you something he wrote this morning. He says "The press has never been more dishonest than it is today. Stories are written that have absolutely no basis in fact. The writers don't even call asking for verification. They're totally out of control. Sadly, I kept many of them in business. In six years, they all go bust!" Your reaction to that, Maggie?

HABERMAN: My reaction is we've heard him say something like this repeatedly. But if he would like us to open the door to the reporting process as I'm dealing with this White House. We reached out to him on Friday. I sent several e-mails that went unanswered until yesterday. We went through a detailed list of what we were planning on reporting. They chose not to engage, and then afterwards, the president acts surprised. Whether his aides are not telling him what we are looking at or whether this is a game and he knows what it is and he is pretending, I can't read his mind. But we certainly follow normal reporting practices and went over it at length with both the White House and the Department of Justice. BERMAN: Just to be crystal clear on that --

HABERMAN: If this was news to them, it would be surprising.

BERMAN: Just to be crystal clear, his claim that the writers don't even call asking for verification, that's a lie. That's not true.

HABERMAN: That's not true. That's a lie. And I don't know whether he knows it's a lie or whether he is telling himself this is true, whether his staff doesn't tell me that we have reached out. But I find that awfully hard to believe that his staff did not brief him once again that this kind of a report was coming.

CAMEROTA: That's the thing, right. So part of what I gleaned from your comprehensive reporting is how many people around him and close to him keep him from himself. So his impulses where he wants people gone and he issues these order, because, as you say, maybe that's how it worked at the Trump Organization, and they humor him or they just don't do it or they just buy time and slow roll it.

HABERMAN: Yes, several advisers have said to me over the years you wait until he asks you to do something three years in a row, because the first couple times it's usually just musing. So you wait and see whether he sticks it to and keeps going. I think in the case of wanting Mueller fired, that was something that he had harped on over many days. I think that in the case of Geoff Berman, it's not clear how many times he went back at that, but he's obviously been agitated about that for a while. And under normal circumstances asking once with most presidents would be considered eyebrow raising.

BERMAN: We are talking about the president's legal jeopardy here, perhaps the pattern of obstruction, perhaps the issue of corrupt intent, which comes up in your story. There is another person who could be in some jeopardy, who is Matt Whitaker. Matt Whitaker testified before the House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Communications. And he was asked very specific questions. At that point it was based on the CNN reporting and also you say the "New York Times" had reported also there were conversations where the president had expressed displeasure with Matt Whitaker on the Cohen investigation. But he was asked directly about it, and he made this statement. Let's listen to Matt Whitaker here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT WHITAKER, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: At no time has the White House asked for nor have I provided any promises or commitments concerning the special counsel's investigation or any other investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Any other investigation would cover SDNY, would cover Michael Cohen in this case, correct?

HABERMAN: Didn't he say ask for promises, wasn't that his language? Or did he say we didn't discuss it or all. BERMAN: He said nor has asked for, nor have I promised, nor have I

provided any promises or commitments. I have not been asked for promises or commitments.

HABERMAN: Promises or commitments is the language that we are sticking to. He did not say, and we did not discuss it in anyway shape or form.

But, look, I can't speak to what's in Matt Whitaker head. I think that the question of whether he perjured himself before the House is something the House is looking at. It was clear immediately that day that that was going to be something they were going to look at. I can't establish whether that's true. All I can do is look at the scope of that denial and think that it's somewhat in error.

[08:10:00] CAMEROTA: One of the interesting things in the article also is that while the people around the president were trying to be, I guess act as guardrails, perhaps just out of self-preservation. You talk about the private meeting that the president had with GOP lawmakers, and that they decided on the strategy to become attack dogs against the Mueller investigation, and they were willing to do the president's bidding in wanting to go after Mueller. And I'm talking Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz, and I believe Jim Jordan might be in that crowd, and just how that whole strategy developed.

HABERMAN: Look, I think that whole strategy developed out of a desire to protect the president. And I think that we have seen that frankly play out over the last two years. I think in many ways the Congressional piece of this raises equal if not greater questions because Congress is supposed to be an independent branch of the government, and the criticism of the Trump administration has been that it has treated the Republican Congress that it had for the first two years of his term as if it was an extension of the executive branch. That is obviously not what Congress is supposed to do.

I do want to say, it is legitimate to ask questions about how this investigation came to be. It is legitimate to ask questions about the motives of people who were fired and then write books. I think all of those are totally fair questions. The problem is that the Trump White House, as we've seen all morning, treats Andrew McCabe as a truth teller when it serves their purpose, and then a liar and leaker when it doesn't, and that has been the case over and over with people.

I think some of this is also not new. Bill Clinton's folks had a strategy to attack the Congressional investigation into him, to attack the special prosecutor investigating him. It's just that it was kept separate from the president's mouth and the White House. It was a separate apparatus. And the fact that everything is overlapping here is part of what makes it unusual.

BERMAN: Can I just ask you one last thing, Maggie, that I learned for the first and I think everyone else did from this article, which is that the White House Counsel's office had writing a memo expressing concerns about how Sean Spicer was explaining the departure of Michael Flynn. What happened there? HABERMAN: So there was a multi-page memo that was written that was

not just about Sean Spicer. It was also about Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general, and how her interactions related to the Flynn case and would have taken place. And frankly the memo does not shed a whole lot of light on what actually happened. The circumstances around Flynn and his dismissal remain one of the murkiest episodes in this White House tenure.

But there was a briefing between the White House counsel and Sean Spicer before Sean Spicer went to the podium, and Sean Spicer made a number of misstatements, some greater in scope than others. The thing that the White House counsel was the most concerned about was the fact that he overstated the degree to which this had been an investigation and the degree to which the Counsel's office had said there was nothing wrong here. I think the Counsel's office wanted to document that they had not done that, they had not said that Flynn did nothing wrong. Spicer told people at the time that he was merely following the talking points that the White House counsel's office provided. But this was clearly a memo that somebody in the counsel's office anticipating this might come up later wanted to lay out.

CAMEROTA: Maggie Haberman, thank you very much for sharing all of your reporting with us.

BERMAN: Thanks Maggie.

HABERMAN: Thanks, guy.

BERMAN: So one Democratic candidate has been running for president longer than any other, already visiting all 99 counties in Iowa long before the others even declared. We're going to speak with John Delaney, what he has that the other candidates don't. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:17:12] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So if the question is, which Democratic presidential candidate has been running longer than any other? The answer is John Delaney, former member of Congress from Maryland, he joins us from Des Moines, in Iowa.

I should know you have visited all 99 counties in that state already. Congressman, thanks for being with us.

JOHN DELANEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks for having me, John.

BERMAN: So, I want to ask this of all the candidates we have on. In our most recent CNN polling, we asked Democratic voters the quality they most want to see in a candidate. Number one on that list, a good chance to beat President Trump.

So, why are you in your mind the best presidential candidate to beat Trump?

DELANEY: The best way to beat Trump is build a coalition of voters, so we can get candidates like myself, who can get progressives, moderates, independents and disaffected Republicans all on the same page, around a common set of goal and around a common vision, around this notion that we should be more unified, and actually starts solving problems, that coalition can beat President Trump easily in my opinion, and I'm the candidate that build that coalition, that's what my campaign is about.

BERMAN: Why? What about your record and personally makes you the right candidate to build that coalition?

DELANEY: Well, first of all, I got a different background than my competitors. I grew up in a blue collar family. My parents didn't go to college. I started two businesses. I was the youngest CEO on the New York Stock Exchange.

And then I rolled up my sleeves and I served in the Congress of the United States.

So, that kind of background as an entrepreneur, as a public servant, as a kid from a blue collar family, that's the background of someone who is about solving problems, about building something, about seeking common ground, about treating people with respect. Not acting like half the country's entirely wrong about everything they believe, someone who sets a record and has a track record of achieving it.

Those are the kinds of attributes I believe that the American people are so desperately looking for, in contrast to the current president, who is not honest with them, is not getting things done, and just doesn't have those kind of qualities that the American people are looking. So, if we put forth a candidate that can build the kind of coalition I'm talking about, I think we will not only win all these elections, but we'll be able to govern which is as important.

BERMAN: The question for you today is, can a Democratic socialist build that coalition? I'm asking you, because Senator Sanders from Vermont has jumped into the race, his second run for the presidency.

Your reaction to that announcement yesterday was: the primary is going to be a choice between socialism and a more just form of capitalism. I believe in capitalism, the free markets, and the private economy. I don't believe socialism is the answer and I believe it's what the American people want. I don't believe top down government only approaches are the right answer.

[08:20:02] So, you don't believe Senator Sanders is the right candidate?

DELANEY: I don't think -- listen, I think capitalism is the greatest innovation and job creation machine ever created. But I also believe there is a clear role for government to prepare our citizens for the future, give them that needs -- the things they need to succeed and help create a more just society.

So, my solutions that I put forth -- like, for example, I got the only bipartisan carbon tax bill in the Congress. So, a lot of people are talking about climate change and all these kinds of things they want to do, most of which are completely impractical. And yet I do the hard work, build a bipartisan coalition and actually introduce a bipartisan carbon tax which will cut carbon emissions by 90 percent.

I believe my first year in office, I will get a big carbon deal passed with all the Democrats and Republicans who live in coastal states and what it will do is it will lower carbon emissions and will give a dividend back to the American people. That's real solution that makes sense, and it involves the private economy and the government working together to solve a problem. That's the way we solve problems in this country. I don't believe in the kind of central planning approach where you have a top-down government solution to every problem. I think the government should set incentives.

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: If a candidate, Senator Sanders, or another candidate, who supports what you consider to be socialist ideas, gets the nomination, would you support them in the fight against Donald Trump?

DELANEY: Yes, all the people running are so much better than President Trump, who I think doesn't have a moral compass and is dishonest with the American people. Of course I believe, I would support them all.

But, look, if we want to win, if we want to beat Trump, we should not put up a candidate who embraces socialism. That's not what the American people want. I mean, if you are doing what I have been doing, been to all 99 counties, been to towns Perry, Iowa, where I was yesterday. And if you talk to people, they want solutions, they want us to find common ground.

BERMAN: What counts? My question is -- what then counts as socialism here? Does Medicare for all in your mind count as a type of socialism? I ask you in particular because you have vast experience in the healthcare industry and working with companies on healthcare and you support a plan that's not Medicare-for-All, but would provide a guaranteed universal coverage, correct?

DELANEY: Yes, that's right, that's right. So, you know, these labels, I don't actually care so much about some of these labels. I think the Medicare-for-All bill in the U.S. Senate as proposed is not good policy, because it basically gets private insurance kind of out of healthcare.

And the problem with that is real simple. If you look at government reimbursed healthcare, Medicaid pays 80 percent of cost, Medicare pays 95 percent of costs, and commercial insurance pays 115 percent of costs. So, if you actually have the government paying all the bills and healthcare as proposed in these single-payer proposals, there is no evidence that government will ever pay costs, which means people will stop investing in a healthcare system and will have lower quality and limited access.

So, see, I look at those proposals and say, well, they sound good. They're actually not good policy. What I propose a universal healthcare poise everyone has a right but it works in conjunction with the private insurance market, right, so people have options, and, you know, more flexibility in how they choose their healthcare. But they also get bake healthcare as a right, which I believe it is.

I believe it's a basic human right. And I think particularly when we are looking at an economy where people are going to be changing jobs too often, we shouldn't have a healthcare where people's healthcare is tied to their jobs.

BERMAN: You are saying we should remove the deductions that corporations get for providing healthcare, correct?

DELANEY: That's right, and that's how I would pay for this universal expansion. I'd still encourage corporations to actually help their employees get plans and negotiate good deals, but the problem with the corporate deductibility of healthcare, it fundamentally creates an incentive to tie your healthcare to your job. And I think that's a bad plan, because I don't think that's good for wages, because when healthcare costs go up, people don't get raises.

I don't think it's good for healthcare, because so many people have no linkage to the cost of healthcare. My dad who was a union electrician had one job for 60 years. I think my daughters, I have four daughters, I think some could have ten jobs in the future. I want to have an economy where people are starting a business, or trying to get a better job. I don't want them to think about their healthcare when they're making that decision.

BERMAN: Former Congressman John Delaney, candidate for president, please come back and continue this discussion again soon.

DELANEY: Thank you.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe says, quote, it's possible that the president of the United States could be a Russian asset. Let that one sink in. We discuss it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:28:43] CAMEROTA: Fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe makes a jaw breaking statement about President Trump and the Russia investigation. Here's what he told CNN's Anderson Cooper last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Do you still believe the president could be a Russian asset?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: I think it's possible. I think that's why we started our investigation. And I am really anxious to see where Director Mueller concludes that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. Joining us now to discuss, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst. Also Josh Campbell, former FBI supervisory special assistant and a CNN law enforcement analyst. He served as special assistant to Andrew McCabe and James Comey.

So, you guys are the perfect guests for us to have today.

Josh, let me start with you. What happened in your brain last night when you heard your former colleague Andrew McCabe say that he thinks it is possible that the president of the United States is a Russian asset?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, it's stunning, and, you know, many of us obviously study national security and look at the progression of the Mueller investigation and all the corruption that he's allegedly uncovered in Trump world, seemingly every day we become numb to it that folks say the president might be corrupted in that way.