Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Sen. Susan Collins (R) Maine Interviewed about Michael Cohen's Testimony to Congress; Sen. Susan Collins (R) Maine is Interviewed about Opposing President Trump's National Emergency Declaration to Appropriate Funding for Border Wall; Paul Manafort to Face Sentencing in Virginia Court; Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D) Illinois is Interviewed About Whether Michael Cohen Misled Congress About Potential Trump Pardon; NYT: Biden's Team Says He's 95 Percent Committed to Running in 2020. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired March 07, 2019 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: -- March 7th, 8:00 in the east. And new this morning, two big questions. One, did Michael Cohen lie to Congress? And, two, how deep was the dangle? What was the president's team discussing or offering when it comes to pardons? According to Michael Cohen's current lawyer, Cohen had his ex-lawyer talk to the Trump team, including Rudy Giuliani, about a possible pardon. Michael Cohen himself testified last week under oath that he never asked for a pardon. So could he be in new legal jeopardy? And what about the president's legal team? Were they open for business on the pardon issue?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: CNN has learned that Michael Cohen handed over new documents to the House Intelligence Committee yesterday showing edits to the false statement that he delivered to Congress in 2017 about the Trump Moscow Tower project. Cohen told lawmakers that one of the president's lawyers edited his testimony, but, confusingly, Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, says that Cohen himself authored the false line.

Joining us now to talk about this and so much more, we have Republican Senator Susan Collins. She is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Good morning, senator.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, (R) MAINE: Good morning, alisyn.

CAMEROTA: So it seems that there is a lot more material that has come out from Michael Cohen in just the past week. There are these cancelled checks that we have now seen paid from President Trump to Michael Cohen. There is all of this reporting about requests for pardons. We don't know who made the overture, which side. Do you have new questions for Michael Cohen?

COLLINS: There is a lot of conflicting information. It seems to me based on the public reports and public hearings, as opposed to our closed hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee, that Michael Cohen has given at least three different stories when it comes to the pardon. I felt that Senator Kaine said it best this morning when he said there

was a lack of direct evidence and it was very difficult to sort out. In the Senate we are focused on the issue of Russian interference in the 2016 elections and Russian efforts to influence public opinion and exploit divisions.

CAMEROTA: And have you felt that Michael Cohen on those topics has been credible for you?

COLLINS: It's difficult to know. We're trying to put the pieces of the evidence together. And we clearly need to re-interview some witnesses whose accounts he contradicts. But I would point out that he was convicted of -- or pled guilty to lying to our Senate Intelligence Committee. So it's difficult to put the pieces of the puzzle together. But we are trying to get to the truth as is the special counsel.

CAMEROTA: If you find that he asked the Trump team for a pardon, does that change your opinion of him or his testimony?

COLLINS: If Michael Cohen asked for a pardon?

CAMEROTA: Yes.

COLLINS: I do think that that is problematic because it casts doubt over the veracity of all of his testimony.

CAMEROTA: I want to move on to the declaration of the national emergency at the border, because you are one of four senators who has said that you will vote to block the president's declaration of a national emergency. And I'm just wondering if the new numbers we saw yesterday from Customs and Border Protection, that there is a crisis, or certainly the numbers have spiked. And it appears to be a humanitarian crisis where more families are presenting, more unaccompanied children are presenting. They are trying to seek asylum. According to CBP, they can't sustain all of the people according. So I'm wondering if that has changed your plan and opinion on what you want to do with the national emergency.

COLLINS: There's no doubt that we need stronger border security and that our immigration system is broken. But that's an entirely different issue from the Constitutional authority vested in Congress to appropriate funds. I don't see this debate about being whether you are for the wall or against the wall, whether you like President Trump or you dislike President Trump. I see this as a very important Constitutional debate where Congress must step up, protect its institutional prerogatives, and defend its role under Article One of the Constitution. It is not the job of the executive branch, it's not the job of the judicial branch to appropriate money. It is the job of Congress.

CAMEROTA: Well, President Trump says you're wrong. Here is his tweet to that very point. "Senate Republicans are not voting on constitutionality or precedent. They are voting on desperately needed border security and the wall. Our country is being invaded with drugs, human traffickers, and criminals of all shapes and sizes. That's what this vote is about. Stay united." Your response?

COLLINS: I don't see it as being what this vote is about. I support stronger border security, including a wall where it makes sense along the border.

[08:05:05] But what this debate is about is whether the president of the United States can take billions of dollars that have been appropriated that he has signed into law and then repurposed them for other projects. In many cases, the $2.5 billion of this amount is coming from essential, vital military construction projects. I don't believe that the president has that authority under the constitution. I think the better approach would be for him to submit a supplemental appropriation and work with Congress to try to get it through, not to unilaterally act.

CAMEROTA: Do you agree with him that our country is being invaded by criminals of all shapes and sizes from the southern border?

COLLINS: I would not use that language, but there is no doubt that we have drugs coming in. Ninety percent of the heroin is coming in through the southern border. A lot of that is coming through legal ports of entry. And so we need to strengthen security there as well. And there is no doubt that we do have a humanitarian crisis that needs to be dealt with.

So I have supported billions of dollars to help deal with that humanitarian crisis, to put up physical barriers, to increase technology, to have more personnel and roads to remote areas. We need an all of the above approach and we need to be guided by the experts at the Department of Homeland Security. But still, that doesn't change the fact of the separation of powers under the Constitution, and that's what I'm concerned about.

CAMEROTA: Senator, do you feel like the White House has been turning up the heat on you and the other three Republican senators who have said they are going to vote to block it?

COLLINS: Has been turning -- I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

CAMEROTA: Turning up the heat. Sarah Sanders has spoken out publicly about do your job. The president is tweeting directly at you and your other three Republican senators. So I'm just wondering if you are feeling more heat in the past week or two.

COLLINS: I know the president feels very strongly about the issue. And I, too, feel very strongly about border security. I helped bring a bipartisan bill to the floor last year that would have given the president $25 billion over 10 years. But we just cannot continence have the president unilaterally shift vast sums of money around for which he does not have the authority to do, in my judgment, under the National Emergencies Act or other laws. He does have some authority to shift funds, but not to this extent, particularly after Congress turned down his request.

CAMEROTA: Yes. COLLINS: I don't want to make Congress meaningless in the

appropriations process when it is arguably our chief role under the constitution.

CAMEROTA: Very quickly, do you think there will be more than four Republicans who vote to block?

COLLINS: I do.

CAMEROTA: You do? You have a sense? You have talked to people and you think that at the vote there will be more. How many?

COLLINS: I don't know. I haven't taken a count. But I can tell you from talking with my colleagues that many are troubled, even those who are the strongest supporters of the president's and his views on border security.

CAMEROTA: Tell us about this hearing that you are having that affects so many Americans' health.

COLLINS: I'm holding a second hearing today on the high cost of prescription drugs. This is a major problem in our country, particularly for our seniors, 90 percent of whom take at least one prescription drug. Yesterday, we heard the voices of patients who told us that they simply could not afford the cost of prescription drugs, that they need to maintain their health, or they have gone deeply in debt in order to do so. That just isn't right. There are a number of actions that we could take to help make the whole system more transparent and to put pressures on the marketplace to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Today, we'll hear from a panel of experts who will give us their policy advice for solutions in this area.

CAMEROTA: And quickly, tell us about one of the solutions, just what you think might be the easiest solution to help fix this.

COLLINS: One of the things that we need to do is to deal with our patent system. And I have introduced a bipartisan bill that would do just that. What we are finding is that when the patent is about to expire on a brand name prescription drugs, often the manufacturer makes some small change in the drug's formulation or packaging, gets a new patent in order to keep competitors, generic competitors, that would force the price down out of the market.

[08:10:06] So I have introduced a bipartisan bill that would take aim at the gaming of the patent system. Patents are legitimate but they should not be abused.

CAMEROTA: Really interesting. Senator Susan Collins, we'll be watching today. And thank you very much. We always enjoy having you on NEW DAY.

COLLINS: Thanks so much, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: John?

BERMAN: In just hours former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort will be sentenced for bank and tax fraud. Manafort faces really what could be the rest of his life in prison if the judge listens to Robert Mueller's recommendation of a sentence of up to 25 years. Our Sara Murray is live at the federal courthouse in Alexandria with the latest. Sara?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You're right, John. Today is the day Paul Manafort could learn if he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Prosecutors have asked for up to 25 years for the eight crimes that Paul Manafort was convicted of here in Virginia. That includes defrauding the U.S. government, defrauding banks, failing to pay taxes on his Ukrainian lobbying work.

And prosecutors say he really hasn't shown very much remorse. He's basically blamed everyone else for his crimes. For his part, in court filings Paul Manafort has said he's sorry. He's asked the judge for leniency. But he went to trial here in Virginia, he never did take the stand in his own defense. Today he will have an opportunity to speak if he decides to take it before he's sentenced for his crime.

This is a 69-year-old man. He's someone who has already been incarcerated for about nine months. His health has been declining. At times he's been using a wheelchair, at times he's been using a cane. So that could be his last attempt to ask the judge for some leniency to make a final plea. But this is just the first round of sentencing for Paul Manafort. Next week he will be before a different federal judge, this time for crimes of witness tampering and conspiracy. So this could just be one of two potential jail sentences he receives. Back to you guys.

CAMEROTA: Sara, thank you very much for the update from outside he courthouse there.

There are also new questions about Michael Cohen's public testimony. Did he mislead Congress when he said he never asked for a presidential pardon? We take that up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[08:15:42] MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have never asked for nor would I accept a pardon from President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So did Michael Cohen mislead Congress under oath when he said it in a public hearing last week? We ask that because Cohen's lawyer says that Michael Cohen had his former lawyer ask about a possible pardon.

Joining us now is Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi. He serves on both the House Intelligence and Oversight Committees.

So, Congressman, you've heard from Michael Cohen --

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL), INTELLIGENCE & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES: Good morning.

BERMAN: -- both in public and in private. So, when he says, I never asked for a pardon, was he lying?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: First of all, thank you for having me on. I can't get into the closed door testimony of Michael Cohen. I think in an open setting and as explained by his lawyer, there is a narrative he's presenting with regard to the pardons. The one thing -- that the big question that this testimony is that I think the presidential has potentially abused the pardon power and that's why and others have introduced the Presidential Pardon Transparency Act, whihci recognizes that the president does have a prerogative to pardon, but there has to be transparency as to how he uses that power.

BERMAN: OK. It does absolutely raise questions about were pardons dangled and to what extent. But now talking about his public testimony and we were there, we watched it, we just played it there. I'm talking about CNN's reporting, along with "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Washington Post", that Michael Cohen's current attorney Lanny Davis said the former attorney, Stephen Ryan was directed to ask about a pardon.

When Michael Cohen said in public, I never asked for a pardon, do you have concerns he was lying?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think what Mr. Davis has said is there is a certain time frame that Mr. Cohen's previous testimony applied to. So, I think you would have to dive into exactly what that time frame is with Mr. Davis. But they have presented a narrative which they believe to be consistent. But again, I think it goes to the bigger question of the presidential power --

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: Do you believe it to be consistent, though, Congressman?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think that overall, based on what I have seen, I think that it appears to be consistent based on the narrative that he's been presenting. That being said, I think the bigger question remains, does the pardon -- is the pardon power being abused by the president?

BERMAN: Do you or have you seen direct evidence that raises questions in your mind that the Trump team was open for business when it comes to pardons?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I think if you look at the president's tweets talking about how Paul Manafort is a hero for not Cooperating and Michael Cohen is a rat for Cooperating with the special counsel that implicates potentially the pardon power and rewarding those who cooperate with the president and those who turn state's evidence, so to speak.

BERMAN: Any evidence you've seen in these committees, though? And, yes, I've seen the tweets, it's notable that Paul Manafort is getting sentenced today. So if the president is going to pardon Paul Manafort, he's going to hurry up and do it they actually more time.

But have you seen more evidence that pardons were dangled?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Again, I can't get into what happened behind closed doors. But in the open settings as well as the testimony that's publicly known, we know that the president has been talking about pardons and that his team has also been indirectly dangling this potential pardon to those who are cooperating.

BERMAN: So, understand, CNN was the first to report yesterday that Michael Cohen produced his written testimony from 2017 where he now admitted he pleaded guilty to lying about the timeline of the Trump Tower Project in Moscow. He's given it to the house intelligence committee and shown the edits he said were made by the president's lawyers.

Can you tell us if there were substantive changes to that testimony?

[08:20:06] KRISHNAMOORTHI: What I can say is he did produce a lot of documents as part of his testimony yesterday. It seemed to corroborate his verbal testimony, making him more credible. And as you know, his verbal testimony in the open setting before the Oversight Committee was very clear that the president's attorneys assisted him in changing his statement. And as you know, the statement was materially false, false enough that he would be convicted of lying to Congress.

BERMAN: Lanny Davis, again, who is Michael Cohen's current attorney --

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes, sir.

BERMAN: -- told us overnight it was Michael Cohen who was the author and the sole author of the timeline, suggesting that his discussions with the president about Trump Tower stopped much earlier than they did.

Do you have any reason to believe that when the president's legal team reviewed that, that they knew it was false?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, let me put it this way -- again, based on the open testimony and what we know about what the president knew and did in 2016, the president clearly was continuing to negotiate through Michael Cohen, with regard to the Trump Tower Moscow.

So, the extent that he knew, his attorneys knew. So, when they saw January 2016 as the end date and the timeline that even Michael Cohen presented, that obviously is their knowledge of a materially false fact.

BERMAN: Well, is it as obvious as that, though? Because we do know that the president told his lawyers, no, no, this discussion went on much longer? Do we know Michael Cohen for sure -- do we know that the president knew for sure Michael Cohen was going in line?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: What we know is his attorneys actually reviewed this particular document and those attorneys are obviously representing the president and they presumably knew what the timeline was that Michael Cohen was presenting as well as what the president did during 2016 and those things contradict each other.

BERMAN: You know, I appreciate you letting me press you on this, because these details in these sort of hinge points here really do matter, because they get to Michael Cohen's credibility and they get to the potential culpability of the president and his legal team.

So, let me ask you as you are a member of both key committees, what do you think the next most important single thing is to focus on?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: With regard to this particular timeline or just generally?

BERMAN: Generally.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I think the next thing generally is there were various witnesses that were actually called out by Michael Cohen within his open testimony and the Oversight Committee as well as the Intel Committee. The next logical steps would be to call the witnesses in and ask them to testify as to the particular events in question.

As Chairman Cummings said in the Oversight Committee, Michael Cohen laid out various names of witnesses. We should follow the transcript as to who should be called in next.

BERMAN: Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thank you very much for joining us this morning.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you.

BERMAN: Come back on NEW DAY real soon.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you.

BERMAN: Alisyn?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Is Joe Biden running for president? John, I'm asking you. It's not rhetorical.

BERMAN: I'm 95 percent certain he is.

CAMEROTA: So are his strategists. There is new reporting that gives us our biggest clue yet.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:27:43] CAMEROTA: Joe Biden is almost running.

BERMAN: That's a great headline.

CAMEROTA: That's our big headline.

"The New York Times" reports that a top Biden aide is telling people that the former Vice President Joe Biden is 95 percent committed to making a presidential run in 2020.

BERMAN: That's almost.

CAMEROTA: That's more than almost on the continuum.

Joining us now, one of the reporters on the story, Jonathan Martin, "New York Times" political correspondent and CNN political analyst. Also with us, we have Joshua Green, national correspondent for "Bloomberg Businessweek" and also a CNN political analyst. And Abby Philip, our CNN White House correspondent.

OK, J-Mart, is he running or not?

JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think everybody around him wants him to run. All the groundwork is being laid. There is a staff in place. They're going to have their headquarters out in Philadelphia or -- and Delaware.

There are, you know, unions like the firefighters who are primed to endorse him after he gets in, if he gets in. So, everything is prepared except for one thing, guys. The vice president himself has yet to give the sign. So, here we go again.

This is similar to four years ago except for Biden is even further along in his thinking. The staff is certainly further along in their planning. But there is this sort of odd juxtaposition as when he reported in the story where behind the scenes, you know, Biden's people are doing everything to get ready and are telling would be competitors in the primary, i.e., Michael Bloomberg, he's going to run, Biden is going to go, so heads up.

But at the same time, Biden is out there in public openly wondering about, you know, the pitfalls, his family. So, it's quite a moment. It does lead to, you know, the boy that cried wolf element to the story, where even the most fervent Biden supporters in the world, if you talk to them, they keep a little window open of, well, maybe he won't go through with it after all.

BERMAN: It's interesting. The wolf may not be the problem here. It might be progressives, Abby. It might be that the Democratic Party is different than the party that Joe Biden was such a big part of for decades.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there's no question. He's had a long history in politics. Longer than most people who even want to bother running for the problem, which is his problem.

END