Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
Senate Committee Subpoenas Don Jr. about Russia Contacts; House Panel Votes to Hold Attorney General in Contempt; South Korea: North Korea Launches Unidentified Projectile. Aired 6-6:30a ET
Aired May 09, 2019 - 06:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Republican-led committee issued a subpoena to Donald Trump Jr.
[05:59:22] MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: A party-line vote holding the attorney general in contempt. The president invoking executive privilege.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): We are now in a constitutional crisis.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you think it's a constitutional crisis, impeach the president. If you don't, move on.
(SINGING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kendrick Castillo died a legend. He died a trooper.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like a flash, he jumped up. She said, "He's a hero. He saved me."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Thursday, May 9, 6 a.m. here in New York. And the battle between President Trump and Congress just became a family affair.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed the president's eldest son, Don Jr., for more testimony about his Russia contacts. Don Jr., you'll remember, helped to organize the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Now, what's interesting HERE is that the Senate Intel Committee is run by a Republican. This move is a sign that some members of the Republican Party are not in line with the president's desire to halt all Russia investigations.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Now, we should tell you something: that the fireworks over Don Jr. are separate from what some call a constitutional crisis. So it's one heck of a Thursday.
House Judiciary Committee -- the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for not releasing the full, unredacted Mueller report.
That came after President Trump's sweeping assertion of executive privilege over the entire report and the evidence. As for Mueller himself, Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler says they will subpoena the special counsel to testify if they have to.
And we have breaking news this morning. Some kind of apparent test from North Korea. Now South Korea's military says the North has fired some kind of a projectile. We don't know what it is. But what does this say about the president's chummy relationship with Kim Jong-un?
We have this all covered for you. Let's begin with CNN's Lauren Fox, live on Capitol Hill.
Lauren, behind door No. 2, you have a constitutional crisis. But between -- behind door No. 1, the president's son is being subpoenaed.
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. A dramatic day yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, which voted to hold William Barr, the attorney general, in contempt of Congress.
But you had a little drama on the Senate side, as well, with the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee moving forward with that subpoena for the president's son.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FOX (voice-over): The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee issuing a subpoena to the president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., to get additional testimony for their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The source saying Trump Jr. is considering invoking his Fifth Amendment rights or just not showing up at all. Trump Jr. testified before the Senate Judiciary and both Intelligence Committees in 2017. But Senate Intelligence wants to know more about his involvement in the Trump Tower meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, and about his father's efforts to build a tower in Moscow.
Trump Jr. could face questions about his previous testimony. Trump associates like Rick Gates and Michael Cohen disputing some of Trump Jr.'s answers.
A source close to Trump Jr. slamming the subpoena and the committee led by Republican Senator Richard Burr in a fiery statement, writing it's, quote, "an obvious P.R. stunt from a so-called Republican senator too cowardly to stand up to his boss, Mark Warner, and the rest of the resistance Democrats on the committee."
This comes as a constitutional showdown between the president and the House Democrats heats up. NADLER: The House of Representatives find William Barr, attorney
general, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt.
FOX: The House Judiciary Committee voting to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt after Barr's refusal to hand over the full, unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence to Congress.
NADLER: We've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it.
FOX: The vote coming after President Trump claims executive privilege for the first time, blocking the release of the unredacted Mueller report. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler calling Trump's move unprecedented.
NADLER: We're not overreaching. We're just trying to exercise the normal oversight to make this a government of more than just a king who's above the law.
FOX: Democrats are outraged.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Are you kidding me? You can't assert executive privilege after the fact.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): This isn't about executive privilege. It's about burying the evidence.
FOX: House Republicans backing the White House and the attorney general.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're just manufacturing a crisis.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I think it's all about trying to destroy Bill Barr, because Democrats are nervous he's going to get to the bottom of everything.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOX: House -- House Democrats still want to hear from Bob Mueller, the special counsel. And Jerry Nadler said last night on our air that he will move forward with the subpoena, if he has to, to get Bob Mueller before his committee.
BERMAN: All right. Lauren Fox for us on Capitol Hill. Lauren, thanks very much.
Want to bring in Joe Lockhart, former Clinton White House press secretary and a CNN political commentator; Jennifer Rodgers, former federal prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst; and John Avlon, a CNN senior political analyst.
I think there are two hugely significant things surrounding the Donald Trump Jr. subpoena. No. 1, family members of presidents don't often get subpoenas, if ever.
CAMEROTA: Well, this is an unusual family arrangement, I mean, in the White House.
BERMAN: Indeed. You said -- you said "a family affair" at the top of the show. I was thinking "Family Matters" and Urkel. But leave that aside for a moment.
The second this is, is this shows a rift inside the Republican Party. There is a split here. Richard Burr is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He had to approve this subpoena for Donald Trump Jr. And other Republicans are calling this a matter of party fealty.
Just look at Kevin McCarthy's tweet: "Donald Trump Jr. has already spent dozens of hours testifying in front of congressional committees. Endless investigations by either party won't change the fact that there is no collusion. It's time to move on. It's time to focus on the issues, not investigations."
This is a split, Joe Lockhart. I don't know if it's significant. I don't know if it will last. I don't know if Richard Burr will stand up, but as of this morning, there is a split in the Republican Party over what to do next.
JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, there certainly is. I mean, the knives are out for Richard Burr. It's -- you know, it's just unknown what his motivations here are. It might have something to do with, in the Mueller report, you know, it was revealed that he was sharing information with the White House that he probably shouldn't have. Maybe he's trying to rehabilitate himself.
The knives are out now for McConnell. Remember, Mitch McConnell went on the Senate floor just yesterday or the day before and said the case is closed. And then someone from his own party, a chairman of a committee, comes out and says, "Well, no, it's not. We need more testimony."
So it's very curious on the political level, as far as what's going on with the Republicans, and very curious, you know, what they want out of Don Jr. They've had him before. You know, Mueller didn't do anything with Don Jr. But the idea that the son of the president has now been subpoenaed and may potentially take the Fifth, I mean, that's a big deal.
CAMEROTA: It sounds like, Jen, what they want out of Don Jr. is consistency. So yes, he sat down and was interviewed for hours, I mean, as to Kevin McCarthy's point.
But then other witnesses came in and contradicted what he told them, particularly about the Trump Tower meeting, about Trump Tower Moscow. So is it unusual to call back a witness for -- with whom you may have some consistency problems?
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. Not at all. So -- so as you gather information in an investigation, of course, you're learning things from different people, different witnesses. It's not at all unusual to want to speak again to a witness who you spoke to earlier on. Then you may hear some contradictory things; "let's clear this up."
I mean, I think people who think that Burr is actually trying to catch him in perjury have it wrong.
I think the important things, there are two. Two things, right? One is it's important that they are continuing to look at the Russian interference. I don't think they're trying to get at perjury for Don Jr., but at least they're still looking at the actual interference and what we can do to stop it. That's what they're supposed to be doing. And none of the other Republicans seem to want to do that. And then we'll see what Don Jr. does with respect to his Fifth Amendment rights, which he may very well invoke.
BERMAN: And then we'll see what Richard Burr does, which to me is the most fascinating question here.
CAMEROTA: Do you mean if Don Jr. refuses the subpoena?
BERMAN: I mean when Don Jr. refuses the subpoena, more accurately. When he doesn't show up, John, what do you think Richard Burr does?
JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think at the end of the day, the committees need to respect the integrity of the committee, and that goes beyond party loyalty or fealty to the Trump family, for God's sakes.
Look, let's cut through all the "Alice in Wonderland" nonsense around this. Don Jr. testified before Congress and said flat-out, no, that no foreign nationals had reached out to him about assisting the Trump campaign. That's not true. There are other situations where that would be quite a punishable crime.
So it's perfectly legitimate for their wanting to get clarity and clarification on his testimony, to answer open questions. And in this particular environment, when a Republican senator has the temerity of trying to actually do his job and put country over party, he's seen as an apostate. That's insane.
CAMEROTA: Joe, you know, the Senate Intel Committee are the ones who were seen as the adults. There wasn't as much drama. They were more tight-lipped about what they were doing, as opposed to the House Intel Committee. And so there -- it sounds like they've just been continuing apace away from cameras without us knowing what's been happening until now.
AVLON: Doing their job.
LOCKHART: Yes. No, I mean, they are doing their jobs. But you know, even in the Senate and even if they are more adults, there are still politics at play here.
And you have to know that Senator Burr right now is under intense pressure --
BERMAN: Oh, yes. LOCKHART: -- from the White House, from some of his colleagues. You know, I saw yesterday that Breitbart was now going after McConnell, saying he's part of the conspiracy and he can't control his caucus.
So there is a lot of politics, even if they're just trying to do their job.
I guess the real question is, if you're just sitting out there watching and not, you know, inside Washington, is it's a broader question to the entire family, which is if he did nothing wrong, if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal about going up to Capitol Hill one more time and answering questions? Why do you have to have -- to be subpoenaed and compelled to testify, if Jennifer is right? Is all they want to do is, you know, sort of, you know, dot [SIC] the "T's" -- "T's," I mean, dot the "I's" and cross the "T's" and make sure that they've got everything right.
[06:10:03] BERMAN: You talk about a matter of party fealty here. The response, the blind quote that was given out --
CAMEROTA: I saw that.
BERMAN: -- to every news organization on earth, calling Richard Burr "a so-called Republican."
CAMEROTA: I didn't think it was so blind. There was that, that blind quote that was going after Richard Burr. And I just heard very familiar phraseology.
BERMAN: Like the president of the United -- from?
CAMEROTA: I don't know. I mean, it sounded like something that Rudy Giuliani would say out loud.
BERMAN: I don't know. We don't know.
Let me play you -- I want to play what Mick Mulvaney told Major Garrett at CBS about the fact that I think Mulvaney thinks there's some princely privilege here, which is something you would like, being a royal watcher. That somehow that Donald Jr. deserved or required some different level of respect from the committee, because he's a president's son. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICK MULVANEY, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: He's a private citizen and not a member of the administration. That being said, the fact that the president's son got a subpoena from a Republican-led committee. And listen, I'm all for bipartisanship on the -- on Intel Committees. I think it's one of Adam Schiff's great failings, is to sort of politicize the Intel Committee in the House.
So I have no difficulty with bipartisanship, but to subpoena the president of the United States's son and not at least get a heads-up, I thought, was, let's say, bad form.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: There's no special privilege to be a presidential family member about receiving a subpoena. Is there, Jen?
RODGERS: No. The law does not recognize that as a special category of subpoenas. So no, he's not above the law. He has to answer a subpoena like anybody.
BERMAN: And the chief of staff there, if I'm not mistaken, also just made clear that, given that he's not a staff member, there's no executive privilege that would cover or protect Donald Trump Jr. from testifying.
RODGERS: Correct. There don't appear to be any applicable privileges at all. So the only thing for him is, if he legitimately thinks he has an articulatable criminal exposure here, then he can plead the Fifth. Otherwise, he's got to testify.
CAMEROTA: John, I'm sorry. You were guffawing?
AVLON: Well, look, I mean, just first of all, Mick Mulvaney bemoaning partisanship on the House Intelligence Committee, when Devin Nunes conducted himself that way the first two years of the Trump administration.
There is a princeling aura around the kids. And look, you know, they're playing public roles on behalf of the campaign or, in the case of his sister, in the administration. The stunning impulse to stab Barr, when he's been trying to work --
CAMEROTA: Burr.
BERMAN: Burr.
AVLON: Burr. I apologize. Burr with Warner. In a pretty bipartisan fashion while also expressing skepticism about collusion publicly before the report is notable. These are people trying to do their jobs in the face of overwhelming reflects (ph) of partisan pressure.
BERMAN: I've got to say, what does Burr do when Donald Trump Jr. says no? That's what I'll be watching for, or what does Burr say today when questioned about this?
All right, friends. We have breaking news. For the second time in a week, North Korea has apparently launched an unidentified projectile. Is the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, trying to send a message to the president and the world?
I think the answer to you is fairly obvious. Paula Hancocks, live in Seoul, South Korea, with the breaking details. Paula, what have you learned?
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, I think it's a resounding "yes" to that question. We just have new information in over the past few minutes from the defense ministry here, saying that they believe there were two potentially short-range ballistic missiles that were fired. They did say projectiles. They now believe that they could be missiles.
They said that one flew 260 miles, the other 160 miles, which would put them then within that range of short-range missile. Now, they were fired from the northwest of the country in the vicinity or in the area of the Sino-Ri missile base.
This is a missile base North Korea has not admitted to that we know about, because we've seen it on satellite imagery.
Now, it comes less than a week after North Korea fired what was suspected to be a ballistic missile, short-range, on Saturday morning, as well as the weapons test. North Korea has said about that it was just a routine drill. There was no need for anyone to be concerned.
And we saw the U.S. and South Korea effectively downplaying that. The U.S. president, Donald Trump, tweeting I am with Kim Jong-un. The deal will happen.
So the fact that these two are also suspected to be short-range ballistic missiles. Could we see a suitable or a similar response from the U.S.?
BERMAN: The U.S. has been drawing some kind of a line between the short-range and then the inter-continental missile. Still, though, the president's response to the first action was "I am with him," Kim Jong-un. Not much of a deterrent there to engage in more tests. You think?
CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, and the fact that he has said that he loves him. His words.
President Trump loves Kim Jong-un. And that he seems to trust him. So this is just a very interesting development. It would be very fascinating to see what the White House does.
BERMAN: Well, it's also -- there is a de facto acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear state and now a de facto acceptance of North Korea as a state that tests missiles. And if you flip this, and if it were a Democratic president, what would Republicans and Donald Trump be saying?
All right. Jerry Nadler, the House Judiciary chair calls it a constitutional crisis. The battle between the president and the legislative branch continues. Will it escalate? And what can the president do to stop Congress from conducting oversight? That's next.
[06:14:04] Plus, there's something else.
CAMEROTA: Yes, so I hear. Also coming up, I speak to Pennsylvania voters and ask them the big burning political question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: I know it's early days, but if the election were held today, who would you vote for? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Elizabeth Warren, without question. She has
policy plans. She knows what she's doing. She knows where she wants to go. She has a bold vision for the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: OK. There's five other answers that you're going to want to hear. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:20:10] CAMEROTA: All right. As predicted yesterday here on the show, it all came to pass. The House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt.
After President Trump asserted executive privilege over the entire Mueller report and its underlying evidence. Can that move prevent Robert Mueller from testifying before Congress?
Back with us is Jennifer Rodgers, John Avlon and Joe Lockhart.
What's the answer, Jennifer? Can the executive privilege argument stop Robert Mueller?
RODGERS: Ultimately no. But unfortunately, it will take a little bit of time to sort that out.
I mean, this weaponization of the executive privilege is really obvious and obviously in bad faith. And the court will consider that when they are evaluating whether there was a waiver and whether the assertion was in good faith. But unfortunately, courts take time. Right?
So ultimately, I think they will say no executive privilege applies. It was asserted in bad faith. It was waived. Everyone will be allowed to testify. The documents will be released. Unfortunately, we just have to get that judge decision.
BERMAN: It was too broad. They made a legal mistake by going so broad there. Because if it's privilege over everything, then you're not explaining exactly what each issue was. And courts have made it pretty clear they want that.
RODGERS: It was a clumsy strategic move.
BERMAN: So John, my question is, if this is a constitutional crisis like Jerry Nadler told Alisyn yesterday, and like he is now saying publicly and like others are saying, where's the space between constitutional crisis and impeachment proceedings?
I'm curious where this goes. Because if it's a constitutional crisis that sounds bad to me.
AVLON: Because it is.
BERMAN: Where, then, would impeachment start? Why is there daylight between the two?
AVLON: Well, look, our system is not functioning the way the founders might have imagined with impeachment as an exit ramp for a presidency that's gone off the rails, because polarization and hyperpartisanship have taken root to such an extent, if the House convicts, the Senate is never going to. Certainly not by pressure. You don't have the kind of bipartisan bases that existed during the Nixon era. So that's the practical answer.
But look, we are in unprecedented waters. Yesterday, this vote, this action, this conflict will be written about in history books. And the fact that the president and the administration, apparently almost out of presidential pique, took such a blanket response to executive privilege will cause problems for them down the road. It's not going to be sustained.
Even John Yoo, who famously defended executive privilege and waterboarding for the Bush administration said that's taking it a little bit too far, folks. You know, when you've lost John Yoo on executive privilege, you've got a problem.
CAMEROTA: Do you know who is very upset about this, Joe, is Marco Rubio. He talked a lot about how the attorney general should, you know, not be stonewalling basically.
So listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): The stonewalling by the attorney general has been so egregious that I think he has to resign.
The problem here is that the attorney general, just the day before, was willing to show some of these documents. They just gave him more time. Others, he wasn't willing to show at all. And now they've argued executive privilege, which is basically a protection the president uses if someone in the White House or the president themselves wants to protect their communications from discovery.
But a day earlier, they weren't -- they weren't using executive privilege. So what changed in between?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: You know what changed? Six years. Oh, wait. Seven. That was 2012, Joe. It is so striking to hear that. That's when Senator Marco Rubio was arguing against Attorney General Holder during Fast and Furious.
LOCKHART: Yes, well, listen, he's gone to the Lindsey Graham School of Hypocrisy. And, you know, regret that there's something called the Internet, and we can all find this stuff.
I think there is a very broad -- it is a constitutional crisis, I agree. But there's a very broad political chess game being played here. I think the Republicans and the president are trying to goad the
Democrats into opening impeachment hearings. I think Nancy Pelosi is trying to keep this in the investigative phase, knowing that once you go to impeachment, you know, it's -- battle lines are drawn. You can't stop in the middle of impeachment and say, "Oh, we didn't really feel like doing this."
I think the critical question, and Jennifer might be able to weigh in on this. I think Pelosi, at the end of the day, will only consider impeachment if it's the single only way to get at the truth. And she can make that pace and build to the public.
And that will come down as a judgment of will the courts put more weight behind the Democratic legal moves if there's a judicial proceeding ongoing or they will -- will they look at this and say this is clearly in bad faith, you know, turn over the documents?
CAMEROTA: But just to be clear, Marco Rubio has been silent this time around.
BERMAN: Yes. We have not heard --
CAMEROTA: Of course.
I mean, you're saying that he's in the Lindsey Graham camp. That's a different category, Joe, in terms of defending the president.
LOCKHART: No, no, I think he -- Marco Rubio has defended -- has defended the president here and has been, you know, a party loyalist. I mean, it is the definition of hypocrisy to have a principled position one day and then, when the situation is reversed, have a principled position that's just the opposite.
[06:25:17] BERMAN: To Joe's legal point, though, does impeachment, would it, the impeachment process, give House Democrats more rights in the eyes of the court to get some of the things that they want?
RODGERS: Absolutely, right? I mean, you have to show a legitimate legislative purpose in order to get a lot of these things. We're fighting about the security clearance information, the tax returns and, of course, all of these witnesses and so on.
So impeachment is one of those legitimate purposes that the Congress is entitled to do pursuant to the Constitution. So yes, it gives them the legal right.
AVLON: Yes. Exactly right. But think about how dysfunctional democracy is, where you have to pursue impeachment to get basic documents and information. That's a problem, people. And we're in a constitutional conflict that's careening toward a crisis.
CAMEROTA: All right. Jen, John, Joe, thank you all very much.
We have a quick programming note. Tonight, former FBI director James Comey joins Anderson Cooper for a town hall. It begins at 8 p.m. Eastern, only on CNN. He will answer lots of interesting questions. BERMAN: All right. A community gathering to remember a heroic
student shot and killed while trying to stop a school shooter. How classmates are remembering Kendrick Castillo. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:30:00]
