Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Sources: Trump Allies Tried to Intimidate Hutchinson; Millions Set to Travel on July 4th Weekend; Supreme Court to Hear Case with Major Implications for Voting Rights. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired July 01, 2022 - 06:00   ET

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

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to viewers here in the U.S. and around the world. It is Friday, July 1. I'm Brianna Keilar with John Berman.

[06:00:11]

And we're now learning that Cassidy Hutchinson told the House January 6th Committee that she was contacted by someone in Trump world attempting to influence her testimony. That is what three sources told CNN.

Hutchinson was one of the two witnesses who received threatening messages shown at Tuesday's hearings. Members of the committee suggested the two examples that they presented were only a fraction of the evidence they have related to possible witness intimidation.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And we have learned that former White House deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato met with the January 6th Committee twice earlier this year.

Ornato has come under scrutiny after Hutchinson testified that he told her about Trump lashing out in anger and lunging at a member of his Secret Service detail, demanding to be taken to the Capitol on January 6.

Now a Secret Service official who spoke on condition of anonymity told CNN Ornato denies saying that to Hutchinson. But it does seem there are some who question his credibility. Notably Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger who serves on the panel, observed of some Twitter posts, quote, "There seems to be a major thread here. Tony Ornato likes to lie."

Let's go first to CNN's Katelyn Polantz, live in our Washington bureau with this news about the allegations of witness tampering that Liz Cheney first surfaced. We now have more information about who may have been on the receiving end of some of that.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right, John. At the end of that bombshell hearing on Tuesday, Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney raised the specter of witness intimidation.

Her probe had asked their witnesses if anyone had tried to influence their testimony, and two witnesses said, Yes, they received calls from someone they knew. One of these people on the receiving end was Cassidy Hutchinson, as you said. And we are now able to report that confirms a Punchbowl News story.

Now, the committee has not said whom the calls came from, but the examples were both messages where unnamed callers told witnesses they should do the right thing, that people like Trump knew that they would be loyal. And that's the refrain in this. Loyalty.

Cheney did promise to revisit this as a committee, and we've really heard a lot from this congresswoman this week. She's defending what the committee is doing and revealing. Here is Liz Cheney speaking last night at the debate in her Republican primary in Wyoming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): We are, in fact, a nation of laws, and we are a nation of laws only if we defend our constitutional republic. And as I made clear last night, we have to put our oath to the Constitution above party. We are now embracing a cult of personality, and I won't -- I won't be part of that. And I will always stand for my oath and stand for the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: Separately, you mentioned this dispute over Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Remember, she testified she was told by Tony Ornato, who traveled with the president on January 6th, about Donald Trump lunging for the wheel in the presidential SUV and at a Secret Service agent, wanting to go to the Capitol.

We've learned now that Ornato also spoke to the committee twice, last in March, just like Hutchinson did behind closed doors, but his recollection was apparently different.

A Secret Service official told CNN that Ornato denies ever telling her that Trump grabbed at the steering wheel or put hands on an agent.

So now the committee has had to think through this dispute, who said what. Here's Representative Stephanie Murphy on NBC on Wednesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FL): Mr. Ornato did not have as clear of memories from this period of time as I would say Ms. Hutchinson did, if that's a fair assessment there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: So that's a member of the committee defending Hutchinson and the public testimony under oath that we have seen so far.

Of course, what's being disputed here is how physical drama played out in that SUV on January 6th and not the testimony that Trump desperately wanted to join his supporters at the Capitol. That appears to be holding up -- John.

BERMAN: All right. Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for that. Raises all kinds of questions.

KEILAR: Certainly does. All right. Let's bring in CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, to answer some of those questions here.

Talk to us about witness tampering, first off, because it's really tricky to prove. So what can the committee do here as they're raising this issue?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yes, so, Brianna, it's an interesting -- it's an interesting issue, because it's a crime that is very hard to prove and prosecute, but not that hard to investigate.

So on the prosecution side, 18 USC 1512 says it's -- makes it a crime to, essentially, corruptly persuade someone to alter their testimony or prevent them from giving testimony.

And that seems clear what's happened here, according to the renditions that we've heard from -- from Representative Cheney and others last week.

[06:05:00]

The problem is how do you prove that? You have to -- if you don't have a communication that was recorded in the form of a text or an email or something like that, it comes down to a he said/she said over what may have occurred over a phone line. And even if you have that, folks can, you know -- you always have this problem of proving criminal intent. So they are -- they can be tough cases to prove.

However, these folks knew who they were contacted by. Those cases are easy to investigate, because you can pretty easily put two agents or two investigators or two lawyers on the front doorstep of anyone who has alleged to have made that communication.

And simply making that contact is typically enough to make this sort of conduct stop, and that's what you want to happen here. Right? You want the committee to be able to move forward to talk to their witnesses, convince people to testify without the interference of third parties. So I would expect that that's what will happen.

BERMAN: It's such an interesting distinction, right: hard to prove, easy to investigate. The question then becomes worth it to investigate, Andy. Is it worth it for DOJ to get involved here?

MCCABE: Absolutely. My argument would be absolutely worth it to investigate, and if -- were I still working at the FBI, I'd be pressing hard to get involved in that case.

And the reasons, twofold. No. 1, this is -- absolutely goes to the sanctity of the congressional authority to conduct an investigation. You cannot let third parties get in the way of that authority or else you're undermining the entire system of congressional oversight and the rule of law. And secondly, as I mentioned, a -- a basic investigative effort is

usually enough to turn off that sort of interference, and it is absolutely worth doing.

KEILAR: Let's talk a little bit about Tony Ornato, who is the White House deputy chief of staff on January 6th. And the reason he matters is because, you know, he appears to be pushing back on some of this account from Cassidy Hutchinson about what she had heard relayed from him about what happened in the presidential vehicle.

And it's key about what Trump wanted to do at the time, wanting to join his supporters up on Capitol Hill.

Members have talked to him, Andy, but they've been frustrated by him, that he doesn't remember much. What -- you know, what do you think about Tony Ornato as a potential witness, as a potential credible or not credible witness?

MCCABE: Well, I think it's important that Mr. Ornato sit in front of the committee under oath and answer questions about this supposedly conflicting testimony.

He last testified in front of the committee, we heard, back in March. And so we don't know if he's been forced to confront, to answer to the details that Cassidy Hutchinson has given the committee likely in the period since March.

So there's a cleanup issue here and, you know, to bring that witness in, to have them testify and answer specific questions is a good thing.

The frustrating thing here is you may never get to the bottom of it, because people's recollections of a conversation that occurred between the two of those people -- so not what Ornato actually saw, but what he told or did not tell Cassidy Hutchinson -- that can vary over time. And it's possible that they remember that conversation differently.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much because we seem to be going further and further down this rabbit hole of how believable is Cassidy Hutchinson and in recollecting not an event that she saw, but a conversation she heard about it from someone else later.

The important thing here is what actually happened. And we know that this -- the tale of this -- this interaction in the limo is really just one of several pieces of evidence that indicate that the president was willing to and wanted deeply to lead the crowd to the Capitol, a crowd that he knew was armed on January 6th, and that's what we should be focusing on.

BERMAN: Yes. In and of itself, that episode doesn't necessarily carry legal significance, except for proving that Donald Trump wanted to go to the Capitol.

But what's of note to me, Andy, is how willing members of the committee seem to be to suggest that Tony Ornato may not be credible overall. You heard Stephanie Murphy there talk about his recollection being hazy. And you saw Adam Kinzinger's just flat-out tweets, suggesting that Tony Ornato may lie on occasion.

It makes you wonder whether or not they're trying to smoke it out to some extent.

MCCABE: It's possible, John, but it's also possible that -- look, we know that Cassidy Hutchinson was a very cooperative witness. You know, you can see, not just in the testimony we saw live last week, but in the video testimony she gave prior to that live testimony, she is clearly providing the full extent of her knowledge about each of the questions she's asked.

It's possible that Ornato was not a very compliant, cooperating witness. He may have hedged his answers. He may have appeared to have been overly restrictive about the things that he was saying or not trying to remember things particularly hard.

[06:10:12]

It's easy when under testimony, when under questioning, to say, "I don't remember" instead of actually, you know, really pushing yourself to kind of re-dredge these memories.

So they may have other complaints or concerns with Mr. Ornato that are beyond those that we know out in the press right nos.

BERMAN: Andrew McCabe, thanks so much for being with us this morning. Have a wonderful and safe holiday weekend.

MCCABE: Thanks. You, too.

BERMAN: So this weekend, the July 4th holiday, might be the biggest day for air travel since the beginning of the pandemic, but bad weather and airline staffing issues plaguing the industry with cancellations could make it just a holiday from hell.

Our aviation correspondent, Pete Muntean, joins us now from Reagan National Airport.

Pete, how do things look there this morning?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: John, this is the biggest test yet for the airlines as they recover from the depths of the pandemic.

The TSA tells us they screened 2.4 million people at airports across the country just yesterday. Just check Flight Aware. About 200 flight cancellations so far today, more than 400 yesterday. This continues to be a huge problem.

Airlines put some of the blame on the federal government. The federal government puts some of the blame back on the airlines.

So we took a really interesting behind-the-scenes look to see how both are working hand in hand to try to avoid these cancellations by the thousands.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MUNTEAN (voice-over): At its round-the-clock command center in Virginia, the Federal Aviation Administration is preparing for what could be the biggest air travel weekend in years.

The goal here: reroute flights around bad weather, overcrowded air space, even space launches, in hopes of avoiding flight cancellations that are plaguing airlines.

The latest federal data shows airlines have canceled 3.5 percent of all flights so far this year, a 42 percent increase over 2019 before the pandemic.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They rebooked us for a flight for tomorrow, and now we're just trying to figure out if we want to go for a hotel or just stay here at the airport.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was really panicking.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have to have patience.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bring snacks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is warning airlines that they must perform. Last weekend alone, airlines canceled 2,200 flights nationwide. The weekend before, there were 3,200 cancellations.

MUNTEAN: Secretary Buttigieg, what can be done to end these massive flight cancellations that keep happening?

PETE BUTTIGIEG, U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Well, I was especially concerned before after what we saw with the Memorial Day travel weekend. Look, we are counting on airlines to deliver for passengers and to be able to service the tickets that they sell.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have a good representation of the airlines industry here, right here at the command center on the floor with us.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Here, FAA workers manage the flow of flights alongside representatives from airlines and industry groups. Airlines say they are only partly to blame for cancellations and have called on the FAA to staff up on air traffic controllers. The agency insists it is shifting controllers to delay in cancellation hot spots.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We do not work in a vacuum, so we collaboratively make decisions and strategies together to help mitigate those impacts that are in the system.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Airline after airline has announced it is preemptively canceling summer flights. Delta Airlines is letting all customers change their flights free of charge, saying, "Operational challenges are expected this holiday weekend."

This week Delta pilots picketed at major hubs, saying they are overworked.

MUNTEAN: So who is really to blame when it comes to these massive cancellations?

BUTTIGIEG: Well, let's be very clear, the majority of delays and the majority of cancellations have not been caused by air traffic control staffing issues. Bottom line here is that the airlines that are selling these tickets need to have the crews and the staff to back up those sales.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): After passengers set a new pandemic era record the TSA thinks this weekend will be big. The question for travelers is will it be smooth?

MUNTEAN: Is staffing an issue for TSA, as well?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, staffing is still a challenge for -- I think for everybody, but for us it's not an issue that's going to impact wait times for travelers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MUNTEAN (on camera): On staffing, airlines say they are scrambling to hire, but it takes time, especially to train up pilots and flight attendants.

The big tips if you are traveling this weekend, try to leave early if you can. That avoids those afternoon thunderstorms. And book direct. The days of that hour-long layover, John, are probably over.

BERMAN: Yes. I'm looking behind you, there are people there, plenty of people there at 6:15 a.m. in Washington, D.C. All right. Pete, keep an eye on it for us, we will check back in with you.

President Biden calls for dropping filibuster rules to get abortion rights passed into law, but can he move two key senators in his own party who stand in the way?

[06:15:05]

KEILAR: And WNBA star Brittney Griner is on trial right now in Russia on drug charges, where practically all criminal trials end in conviction. Congressman Colin Allred will join us on the efforts to free her. On the efforts to free her.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY FALLON, HOST, NBC'S "THE TONIGHT SHOW": Justice Jackson made history as the first black woman on the Supreme Court and the first person to make people cheer for the Supreme Court in the past two weeks. STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, COMEDY CENTRAL'S "THE COLBERT REPORT":

Jackson's swearing in means that the Supreme Court for the first time will have four female justices among its nine members. That's pretty great. And in solidarity, Amy Coney Barrett bought them all matching outfits.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. All kinds of history being made at the Supreme Court. Yes, Ketanji Brown Jackson is now a justice. But these decisions that were made the last weeks change so much.

[06:20:14]

Pivotal rulings on abortion, guns, the separation of church and state and now the court says next term, which starts in the fall, they will take up a case with serious implication for elections, all federal elections.

Joining us now, CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin; and anchor of "EARLY START," attorney at law, and former justice correspondent, Laura Jarrett.

Jeffrey, I want to start looking ahead, next year. This elections case out of North Carolina is just huge. Explain it to us.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: You know, my son graduated from law school in May, and I told him he wasted his time studying constitutional law, because the Constitution is so different now than it was in May.

The voting case, the Constitution says that state legislatures make the rules for voting in each state. What the issue is in the -- in this case is whether state courts can review the decisions of state legislatures: whether they are fair, whether they comport with the state constitutions.

At least four members of the court have said state courts have no right to intervene. And so what that means in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, these extremely right-wing legislatures, with strictly gerrymandered seats, can make any sort of rules they want in legislatures without -- in their states -- without any sort of oversight from the courts, which would give them carte blanche to draw districts and maybe even simply declare the winners of state races.

It's an enormously important case for how elections are conducted all over the country.

KEILAR: Because explain, Jeffrey, how that could have come into play in 2020 and how it might come into play in 2024, depending on how they rule.

TOOBIN: For example, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has a very conservative, right-wing legislature, which was trying to help Donald Trump in the -- in the post-election period. But the court said, no, you have to follow the law. You can't just make up new rules as you go along to -- to help the candidate you like. The courts were a check, as they are, in our system.

If this independent legislature law -- that's the doctrine of law -- were in effect, the legislature could have done whatever it wanted, including declare Trump the winner, notwithstanding the fact that Biden won by tens of thousands of votes there.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN "EARLY START" ANCHOR: Can we also take a step back to just think about sort of where we are, I think, after this term and why the voting rights case is eyebrow raising, the fact that they took it up and sort of portends for what could happen next term?

It feels like there's been a sea change this term, because of course, there's now a super majority of conservatives on the court. But it's also, I think, a reflection of a project that was really decades in the making on a whole host of issues, whether it's church and state, whether it's abortion rights.

This was the ultimate long-game play by Republicans and the Federalist Society and, really, Mitch McConnell. I mean, what has happened on this court is largely due to a project, I think, that -- that he has wanted for quite a while and was willing to put up with quite a lot from the former president in return for being able to get those three justices on the Supreme Court, with repercussions for decades to come.

TOOBIN: And in the face of public opposition. Look at the big three cases of this term: abortion rights, ending Roe v. Wade; ending gun control under many, many circumstances; and yesterday's decision about --

JARRETT: Yes.

TOOBIN: -- making it almost impossible for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate climate change. All unpopular.

And people say, you know, well, what about the court's authority? Well, the court doesn't care. They're not running for office. They are there indefinitely.

BERMAN: And that last decision on the EPA also has implications much bigger than just the environment. It gets to how government agencies, a lot of these agencies that people have come to know over the last 50 years, how they do their jobs.

JARRETT: And the justices' conception of what agency power looks like in modern society, how it should be restricted. And unless Congress has explicitly delegated the authority to the EPA to regulate carbon emissions and get sort of closer to renewables, the justices are essentially saying, no dice.

And for all of the people who sort of would point to, I think, the chief justice's position on Roe or other things where there was kind of this narrative that the justice was -- the chief justice was there to sort of cabin them back and pull them back in ways, I mean, he has revealed himself in any number of cases as a staunch conservative, I think, in this term. And the EPA's case is one of those many examples.

[06:25:12]

TOOBIN: How does the -- how does the Education Department administer student loans? How does OSHA deal with COVID? How does the Securities and Exchange Commission enforce fraud regulations? All of that is implicated by the decision yesterday.

JARRETT: And the potential flight between Merrick Garland and states, which is going to come to a head any day now, about how to regulate medicated abortion.

BERMAN: Yes, totally. Unless the Congress explicitly says it, the Supreme Court is saying it isn't necessarily doable by these agencies. And Congress doesn't explicitly say anything anymore. They can't get anything said.

KEILAR: Yes. Now that it's in the hands of the highly-functional Congress, everything will be fine.

BERMAN: All right. Jeffrey, Laura, thank you both so much for being with us.

Signs of a growing resistance against Russian occupiers in Southern Ukraine. We have new CNN reporting next.

KEILAR: Plus at least 19 people dead, dozens more injured in overnight strikes in the Odessa region, one day after Russia left Snake Island.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)