Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Terrorist Attacks Kill Hundreds in Sri Lanka; House Democrats Faced with Decision to Impeach President Trump. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired April 22, 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 AVLON, CNN ANCHOR: Dozens of foreign nationals are among the dead. Government officials are admitting they knew about warnings before the attacks, and now they're issuing an apology to the families of the victims.

CNN's Ivan Watson live in Colombo, Sri Lanka with the breaking details. Ivan?

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: -- and they have been conducting controlled blasts here right next to a Catholic Church that was targeted by a suicide bomber on Easter Sunday. And we've already witnessed one of those controlled blasts, which was massive. It shook the whole neighborhood, triggered panic, and threw pieces of the van on the rooftops of the building I'm on. So I may have to jump indoors to protect myself here.

But I think it just goes to show how on edge the Sri Lankan capital is right now after what appeared to have been a very coordinated series of terrorist attacks in three churches on Easter Sunday, in three cities across the country, as well as three luxury hotels here in Colombo. The security forces are not taking any chances now. There's going to be a full curfew set into place at 8:00 p.m. local time. They've cut off local access to social media, worried about basically rumors being spread uncontrolled online.

And people are worried. I spoke with a nun today whose father was injured in the attack on the church here who feared she could be a target because of her nun's habit and because of her cross. A government minister here says this is a brand new type of terrorism for Sri Lanka, and that's saying something, because this country fought a civil war for decades that ended nearly a decade ago. So they've witnessed political violence firsthand, but perhaps nothing as organized as this.

The police say they found 87 detonators in a bus station in Colombo this afternoon. They disposed of a pipe bomb on a road near the airport Sunday night. And they've detained dozens of people as well. So it is a fluid situation as they try to find the people that may have been responsible for these unspeakable atrocities. John?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Ivan, we'll take it here. Thank you very much. Please be careful. Obviously, the situation there is still unstable. Thank you for that. CAMEROTA: Back here, turning now to politics. The Mueller report outlines at least 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by President Trump or at least what would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if it were anybody but the sitting president. And so Democrats are now grappling with how to tackle this. What are they supposed to do about this wrongdoing?

Let's bring in CNN political analyst David Gregory, Kirsten Powers, "USA Today" columnist and CNN political analyst, and Rick Santorum, CNN senior political commentator and former senator. Senator Santorum I want to start with you, because when we spoke last week, you were sort of ho-hum on the Mueller report. And now that you know more of what's in it, including those against 10 examples of wrongdoing that, if it were a regular person, would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice but can't because it's a sitting president, now how do you feel today?

RICK SANTORUM, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I don't think there's anything in that Mueller report that we didn't already know. The reality is the 10 things that were mentioned are 10 things that have been out there in the public --

CAMEROTA: It doesn't matter that we knew it. I'm just saying the wrongdoing.

SANTORUM: The question is whether the president exercised his authority, as the president can influence activities of his own executive department. And the answer is he can. Look, as I said last week before the report came out, I was never concerned about any collusion or anything with respect to the Russians' activity, which certainly were substantial, and any kind of coordination or any kind of help by the Trump campaign. That was never a concern of mine. I didn't believe any of it was true, and the Mueller report substantiates that.

CAMEROTA: True, but what about the obstruction?

SANTORUM: The obstruction, is the president's behavior good behavior? No. It is outside the bounds of what a president should be doing? Probably in some cases, at present, yes. I don't like a lot of the things the president does. I've been saying that all along as all these things have come up. The question is, it's a political question for the Democrats as to whether they want to pursue impeachment because the president is what we knew he was going to be when he was elected president.

(LAUGHTER)

AVLON: Rick, I love when you make the Bill Clinton argument from back in the day. Just to be clear, there are several obstruction arguments, things put forward in the Mueller report that were not known, private conversations in the West Wing among senior staff, several of that had been previously reported.

[08:05:06] But Kirsten, let's take Rick's question to you. Democrats really at a crossroads here. People on the left predominantly saying this is about principle, predominantly saying this is about principle, predominantly saying, look, this is about principle. It's not the pragmatism about whether we can actually get a conviction in the Senate. How do you see the state of play right now?

KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: First, I want to also say it's really not true that we knew everything that was in the report. And I'm not going to spend the whole segment on this. This is not what we're talking about. But even the idea that the president was trying to fire Mueller, was constantly ridiculed by Trump supporters, was called fake news. Every time we would discuss it on air, people would say, Democrats always say the president is going to fire Mueller but he never did it. Well, now we know why, right. So it wasn't accepted by everybody that this is what was happening, that the president really was intending to do this and the only thing that was happening was he was being thwarted by people around him who are no longer there. So now there are no so-called guard rails in the White House to protect the president from doing things that are like this.

In terms of the Democrats, I would say that, yes, I tend to be a principle person and say you should what's the right thing in terms of your principles. If the president did something that was impeachable, then he should be impeached, I guess is the idea. The problem with that is you do have to weigh, what are you going to end up with in the end. And if the goal of the Democrats is to get rid of Donald Trump, then you have to consider, is this something that is going to be helpful? Are you willing to go after your principles if the result is Donald Trump getting reelected. And that's the question that Democrats have to ask each other. Do we want this.

CAMEROTA: Some people -- yes, yes.

POWERS: And if, in fact, that's what's going to happen. I think there are some people who would argue that that's not necessarily what's going to happen, that perhaps he could redound to their benefit. I'm a little skeptical about that.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I just think it's important to remember that impeachment should not be seen as a political weapon that's used by one side and one side only. I think it hurts the institution. I think it hurts the party that uses impeachment that way. I think Democrats have to view this as a course of action that they would only go down if they thought there was bipartisan support for it. I think that's what's important.

CAMEROTA: But there isn't bipartisan support. Of course not. There isn't bipartisan support, but why not impeach in the House where they could do what happened with Bill Clinton, knowing that they won't get a conviction in the Senate?

GREGORY: Right, because I think that's not the way to use impeachment.

CAMEROTA: But David, just to challenge you. Why is it using it as a weapon? Maybe it's standing on their principles and saying these are impeachable offenses. GREGORY: Right, but if it's used by one side or the other, back and

forth. We saw this with Republicans back in 1998. It was a political problem for them, and it started to get into a cycle of using it instead of building consensus. The consensus that was there during Watergate is what allowed it to fall short of impeachment proceedings because there was bipartisan consensus on Nixon. And I think that is -- it's not a question of you challenging me and us having the debate. I think that is why leaders like Nancy Pelosi are facing this tension right now. And I think there's potential other courses of action. Is censure an opportunity? Are there continued hearings that fall short of impeachment that are an opportunity? I think the principled questions that you're raising are important ones. And Democrats have to figure out a way to manage each other, manage the caucus to pursue those.

POWERS: The problem with the argument about you have to have bipartisan consensus, I think politically that's probably true. But we don't know for sure. We look back at the Clinton impeachment and say it went badly for Republicans. But we're in a completely different era, so we don't really know what would happen.

But the idea you would have to have bipartisan support, there's nothing that would ever happen that would turn Republicans against Donald Trump unless he became a socialist or a Democrat. I really can't think of anything that would cause them to come together, even if it was something that was in the Mueller report times a million would we still say, oh, well, you can't do anything because there's no bipartisan support.

At some point you do have to do what is the right thing to do. And I think that that's what Democrats are trying to figure out. What is the right thing here for the country? Is the right thing to do this if it means he gets reelected or not? They have to weigh all these different things.

AVLON: Rick, I wonder, you said at the top that you felt the president exhibited bad behavior, particularly with regard to obstruction that you didn't want to associate yourself with. So I wonder where you stand on, the remark that Rudy Giuliani put out, do you think there's anything wrong with accepting information from the Russians?

[08:10:00] SANTORUM: I think what Rudy's point was that talking to someone who happens to be a Russian is not problematic. The question is whether that person is a Russian who is connected to the Russian government. And so obviously there's people --

AVLON: Let's assume the answer is yes given the Mueller report.

SANTORUM: Well, again, if it's someone who is connected to the Russian government, no, you shouldn't be taking information from them. You shouldn't be soliciting and having conversations with them. I agree with that. But that's not necessarily what was known at the time.

CAMEROTA: But it is what was promised. SANTORUM: Pardon?

CAMEROTA: It is what was promised. Don Jr. did believe that it was a Kremlin-linked person who was bringing dirt on Hillary Clinton.

SANTORUM: I think that's inappropriate. There's no question about it. You should not be soliciting information from a hostile foreign government. And so I agree that that's problematic. But that's not what Rudy said. He said receiving information from Russians is not against the law, and it shouldn't be against the law.

GREGORY: But I think there's something to adhere. I think part of the problem with this group and the Trump campaign, is you heard it from the top, you heard it from the candidate who said we would take opposition research from anywhere. Who wouldn't do that? There's lots of people who wouldn't do it. And you see the results of 2016, you had a foreign power seeking to influence American voters in all kinds of ways, usually in fake ways, to use that influence. That's why campaigns should stay really far away from anything that could get you into trouble because it may not be obvious all the time. But I don't think they had the experience. I think they had a fair amount of arrogance, and I think they just thought who cares, we'll get it from all quarters. I don't think that's the right attitude in a campaign. And that's also what Rudy was saying. He was spinning the report, but asked directly, would you accept this kind of information? He said no, out of an abundance of caution I wouldn't do it. That should be the mindset of any campaign.

AVLON: I think we achieved a glitter of bipartisan consensus somewhere in that conversation. It's great to talk to you all.

CAMEROTA: Thank you, guys.

AVLON: So tomorrow is the deadline for the IRS to turn over President Trump's tax returns to a House Committee. So what if they don't do it? We're going to talk to a member of that committee, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: House Ways and Means Committee has given the IRS until tomorrow to turn over six years' worth President Trump's tax returns. Will they comply? Joining me now is the right guy to talk about it. Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee, he serves on that committee, he represents Democrats in Flint, Michigan. Representative Kildee, deadline tomorrow, do you think they'll comply?

REP. DAN KILDEE (D-MI): Well, based on the responses that we've seen so far, and the direct letter that went from the President's personal lawyers to the Treasury Department to the IRS, I'm doubtful that they will comply. We still expect that they would. It's an ambiguous language. The Department is supposed to respond to this request. It's not a should or a could. The language and the law says that they shall provide these returns.

But let's be clear, if they don't, we will pursue every legal avenue available to make sure that the law is upheld. And we have a responsibility to do that.

AVLON: And do you know what the first legal salvo will be?

KILDEE: Pardon me?

AVLON: Do you know what the first legal action will be? Are you prepared to escalate that fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary?

KILDEE: Well, we will -- we will do everything we can to defend our statutory and constitutional responsibility. I won't get into what the next specific steps are, those decisions are going to be made by Chairman Richard Neal, the person who under the law is given the authority to require these reports -- these returns to be delivered to him.

But they -- nobody should have any doubt that we will pursue this using the fullest extent of our authority under the law.

AVLON: Now their defense is going to be - and President Trump's lawyers already indicated that there's no legitimate legislative purpose, which is one of the things the statute says. This is just political. So what what's your response to that accusation?

KILDEE: Well, there is a legitimate purpose, the purpose is that we are considering legislation that could affect the way the IRS treats a President of the United States. And we have very serious doubts as to whether or not the IRS is properly auditing and enforcing the tax law on the President of the United States.

But further, it's not up to the Executive Branch to reach into the Legislative Branch and determine for themselves when there is a legitimate purpose for legislation. I mean, just imagine what that would mean that the Constitution that separates these powers would somehow allow the Executive Branch when they get uncomfortable to decide when the Legislative Branch has the authority to pursue an area of inquiry. This is an important question.

And let's not be confused, this is not about releasing the tax returns to the public. That's something that Donald Trump promised he would do; and as he does many, many times has broken that promise. This is about whether or not the Ways and Means Committee will have access -- the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee will have access to this material in order to inform our deliberations on this question as to whether we should take legislative action affecting the way Presidents are treated by the IRS.

AVLON: Quick yes or no? Do you believe President Trump is under audit?

KILDEE: I have no way to know. And I don't think we can go by what he says because Donald Trump a very loose relationship with the truth. He will say whatever is most convenient for him in the moment, but we have no way of knowing. And that's actually one of the questions that we need to have answered and one of the reasons that we would like to get a look at the returns and the associated documents. There is no legal requirement that the IRS audit a President. It has

been a practice. That's one of the areas that we're considering when we look at the legislative approach to this issue.

AVLON: You are born and bred Flint, Michigan, so you represent it in Congress, there's been a lot of movement on that longstanding story about the contamination of the water there. You've helped secure over $100 million in funding to help clean it up. But the judges gave the green light to sue the Federal government, the EPA. I wonder, given that the state had oversight at the time and didn't apply necessary treatments, why is the Federal government, the EPA particularly, should they be liable for this devastation of the Flint water system?

KILDEE: Well, the Flint water crisis was a failure of government at every level. The vast majority of the responsibility lies with the State of Michigan. They are the ones who lied to the people of Flint about the quality of the water when they knew that it was bad.

[08:20:06] KILDEE: But there is responsibility at every level. And where I think the EPA could have done more is blowing the whistle earlier, when they had evidence that the water was contaminated, even though the state of Michigan was assuring the public that it was not, they should have said something then.

Now, we did change the law. Congressman Fred Upton and I passed legislation, the Kildee-Upton Requirement that says when the EPA knows that water is contaminated, if the local government or the state government doesn't inform the public within 24 hours, the EPA is then required to do so. I wish they would have done so just out of an abundance of caution. They did not. And I think that's one way that the EPA, I think could have done much better to protect the public.

AVLON: As the judge says, generations could be affected. Quickly before we let you go, your Deputy Chief Whip in the House, there's going to be a conference call later today to decide what road to take with regard to impeachment or censure, as well as the ongoing investigations. Where do you think things should go?

KILDEE: Well, this is one of the hard ones. We have to make a judgment as to what's best for the American people. I have been really disturbed by what I've read in the Mueller report, particularly the interactions between the President and his counsel, Don McGahn. We're going to have to make a hard call on this.

You know, the easy ones where we know there'll be blowback, but there's no question about what we should do. We have to carve a path knowing that there was going to be some competing interests here. But I've got to tell you, this is one we're going to agonize over. This President -- the look that we've had into this presidency through this report is frightening.

AVLON: Congressman Kildee, thanks for joining us on NEW DAY. Appreciate it.

KILDEE: Thank you. You bet. ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, John. It's a question most

2020 Democratic candidates are not excited about. Should President Trump be impeached? We will tell you which candidates say yes, no and/or maybe.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:58] CAMEROTA: Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren -- a student loan cancellation and free college proposal is what she is talking about today, John, this comes ahead of tonight's CNN Presidential Town Halls and CNN's M.J. Lee interviewed Senator Warren about this ambitious proposal and she's live for us in Manchester, New Hampshire with more. What did you learn M.J.?

M.J. LEE, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, Elizabeth Warren made a huge splash last week when she called on the House to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump, but aides at the time, you remember, said do not expect an impeachment to be the central theme of her campaign going forward, that she plans to remain focused on policy and we are seeing the first real sign of that this morning. Elizabeth Warren putting out a major student loans and free college proposal.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEE (voice over): Senator Elizabeth Warren out with a sweeping new proposal to wipe clean millions of American student loan debt and overhaul the country's higher education system.

The Massachusetts Democrat dropping the ambitious plan ahead of CNN's five candidate Young Voter Town Hall in New Hampshire.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Anyone who's got outstanding student loan debt can have up to $50,000.00 worth of student loan debt cancelled out, so long as their income is under $100,000.00 then it kind of steps in up to there's no help for anybody whose family income is above $250,000.00. And that's it. That's gone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (voice over): The proposal would also make all public colleges' tuition and fee free. Inject $100 billion into Pell Grants over 10 years and create a $50 billion fund for historically black colleges and other minority serving institutions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: There's a real access problem for low-income students, for students of color, and that is -- it's not just paying the tuition. It's how they pay for books. It's how they pay for the expenses of having a baby taken care of if they already have a child at home or being able to cover commuting expenses, or maybe it's a chance to live in a dorm. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (voice over): Warren's campaign puts the total cost of the proposal at $1.25 trillion. All of it, she said paid for by her wealth tax.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: I've got a proposal. How about a two cent wealth tax?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (voice over): And Warren telling CNN, this is personal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: I actually got a scholarship, I dropped out. I got married at 19, and I took a job answering phones and I felt that was going to be my whole life. And the fact that there was a commuter college about 45 minutes away that I could pay for on a part-time waitressing job, it opened the door. And that was my chance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (voice over): The senator seeking to drive the debate over student debt in the giant 2020 field. Senator Bernie Sanders popularized the idea of free college in his 2016 White House campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: ... make public colleges and universities tuition free.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (voice over): His latest legislation in the Senate would make public colleges tuition free for families making $125,000.00 or less and make community colleges tuition free for everyone. Warren says her plan does more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (on camera): And you are already a co-sponsor of Bernie Sanders' is free college bill. How is your plan better than that plan?

WARREN: Well, it goes further.

LEE: So is it fair to say that your bill is more progressive than Bernie Sanders' bill?

WARREN: Well, it's certainly bigger.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (voice over): But not every Democratic candidate a fan of the idea of free college. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG, (D-IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Americans who have a college degree earn more on average than Americans who don't. And as a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea. I think expecting somebody to pay zero might go further than what's reasonable.

LEE (on camera): Do you agree with his analysis?

WARREN: No. I think that the way we build a future where everyone has got a chance is we start out by investing in their education.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEE (voice over) Warren telling CNN she believes policy is her path to the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEE Do you think you can win the 2020 race by being the policy candidate?

WARREN: Policy is personal, it touches people's lives?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[08:30:10]