Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Sources Say, Trump World Tried to Influence Hutchinson's Testimony; Americans Set to Hit the Road; Supreme Court Limits EPA's Ability to Regulate Power Plants. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired July 01, 2022 - 07:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. I'm Brianna Keilar alongside John Berman on this New Day.

What new reporting from The New York Times is revealing about possible witness pressure, possible witness intimidation in the January 6th investigation from former President Trump's team and allies.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And what's next for the EPA after a Supreme Court ruling limits its ability to fight climate change.

KEILAR: And it's set to be a busy and costly holiday weekend for July 4th travelers. Just how much will drivers have to pay at the pump?

BERMAN: Good morning to viewers here in the United States and all around the world, it is Friday, July 1st. I'm John Berman with Brianna Keilar.

Someone within the Trump orbit tried to influence the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. Three sources tell CNN that is what Hutchinson told the January 6th committee. She was one of the two witnesses who received threatening messages shown at this week's hearing.

Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney suggested that was only a fraction of the evidence they have related to what she called possible witness intimidation.

KEILAR: And The New York Times is reporting that Trump's political organization and his allies paid for or promised to cover the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called to testify in the January 6th investigation. This is raising more ethical and legal questions about witnesses being pressured and the possibility of Trump trying to influence testimony that has a direct bearing on him.

BERMAN: So, joining us now, Early Start Anchor, former Justice Correspondent Laura Jarrett, and Political Correspondent at The New York Times Mike Bender, Michael Bender, he is the author of, Frankly, We Did Win this Election, the Inside Story of How Trump Lost. Mike, great to have you with us. I'm going to start with you. You contributed to a story in The New York Times today which gets to something that we discussed here on this set yesterday, which is Cassidy Hutchinson and her legal representation. Let me read a quote from this article about how she ended up back in front of the committee with a new lawyer. The quote from your article, she did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump's former aides and paid for by his political action committee in hiring new counsel.

The part that this article which you attributed to lock down is paid for by a Trump-affiliated political action committee, explain that.

MICHAEL BENDER, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, what we've been told is that more than a dozen witnesses for this committee have had their legal representation paid for by Trump or some of his allies. Trump's committee has a campaign finance report coming out later this month. We will see in there for sure. But I've been told that anyone who is asked, any White House aides, any campaign aides who have asked Trump for help paying for legal bills have received that help, and that there will be a significant amount of that -- of those costs in the next campaign finance report.

That in and of itself is no big deal, it's not illegal to help someone pay their legal fees. It becomes problematic when people start getting steered towards certain attorneys, as we're told has happened, and in Ms. Hutchinson's case specifically when there is accusations that they're being leaned on to testify one way or the other.

We know that there's really no bigger political cudgel for Donald Trump than for a political candidate to be under investigation. We've seen that all the way going back to his meddling in the Ukraine affair and his pressure campaign on the Ukrainian president trying to open a political investigation into his -- into his rivals, and he is eager to do anything he can to escape the headlines that he's under investigation.

KEILAR: Alyssa Farah, who is a friend of Cassidy Hutchinson's, and was instrumental in helping her reveal more information to the committee, was telling Berman yesterday about how all of this kind of came to be. She used the word assigned, right? She was talking about, as she had seen it, that it was like Trump world was assigning attorneys to people.

[07:05:04]

But she also said sort of, you know, you need to check into that, but that was how she understood it to be. What did you find?

BENDER: Yes, I think these are ongoing questions that Trump and his allies are going to have to answer and as well as these witnesses. You know, again, there's nothing wrong in and of itself for getting legal fees paid and a lot of these are young staffers, like Cassidy Hutchinson, in their 20s, you know, who are being pulled into this just because they accepted jobs, did jobs in the White House. You know, I think there is some sympathy in Trump world for those kinds of -- for those kinds of people who can be wiped out financially because of investigations into former President Trump.

But we also know that Donald Trump is not one to come off his wallet very easily to help allies when they get into legal trouble, case one in that being Rudy Giuliani, who Trump has refused to pay legal bills related to his involvement in January 6th and, you know, dispute in the 2020 election.

BERMAN: Michael, before we bring in our in-house lawyer Laura Jarrett here, I just want to ask you one more time, if you -- or what reporting you have surrounding what you alluded to that these lawyers paid for by, you know, Trump political committees that they tried to steer or influence these clients in a certain direction.

BENDER: Well, we have been told that Trump's team -- they have recommended lawyers. I can't -- I don't have reporting that they have assigned lawyers, but certainly that there has been recommendations for legal representation.

BERMAN: All right. Laura?

LAURA JARRETT, CNN ANCHOR: We certainly know she switched lawyers for some reason, right? I mean, you heard Alyssa talk about sort of how she went about that and how Alyssa Farah actually contacted, I believe, Congresswoman Liz Cheney afterwards saying there I have more to tell and then we obviously know she has a different lawyer today.

The question is really one of divided loyalties, right? If you're having your lawyer paid for by a Trump super PAC and then also getting at least some communication from somebody -- we are still working on the reporting on this -- from somebody saying he wants you to do the right thing, he knows this is a lot for you and he's counting on you and he trusts you, it's the piecing of those, I think, all together coupled with the fact that now pieces of right-wing media are trashing her for her testimony. I think those three together raise a lot of questions about what has happened when it comes to Cassidy Hutchinson.

KEILAR: Where is this line between assigning versus recommending and paying for?

JARRETT: It's muddled. Yes, it's muddled. And so it's like you are going to have to see exactly what her understanding of the arrangement was, who organized that arrangement, what she was told about what she would or would not have to say.

I mean, Michael can attest to this in other cases of other witnesses, the lawyers are saying, we haven't been given any direction, whatsoever, it's been essentially hands off even though the legal bills are being paid for. Was that the situation when it came to Cassidy? We just don't yet know and need to have more reporting on that.

BERMAN: And to be clear, Michael, I think this is in your article, if not, it was somewhere else. I mean, young staffers involved or connected to cases or investigations like this often want their legal bills paid for going back to the Clinton investigations in the 1990s, right, where these people actually were angry that Clinton world didn't end up paying their legal bills.

BENDER: Yes, that's exactly right. And like I mentioned before, I mean, there is a good amount of sympathy among the people around Trump for these folks, folks who were recruited into some of these jobs, folks who were brought into some of these jobs and have some expectation that they will be protected and not have to bear the brunt and bear the cost of an investigation into their former boss.

KEILAR: Let's talk about Tony Ornato, one of our favorite topics today. Okay. So, Tony Ornato, former White House deputy chief of staff, he is now in a position sort of like a leadership administrative position in the Secret Service, that's his background. Very odd arrangement nonetheless, but that's where he is. And Cassidy Hutchinson tells this anecdote, but it's important about him revealing something to her and there are questions now about his credibility as he's pushing back on this assertion that she made about this story that she heard in the presidential vehicle.

JARRETT: Yes, he's pushing back on it. And if he really wants to push back on it, the best way to do that is to come testify under oath, which he has every ability to do and which the Secret Service has said that they were willing to make these witnesses testify and publicly be available. He's already, as I understand it, been interviewed twice.

[07:10:00]

This was obviously prior to the information that Cassidy revealed to the world on Tuesday. But it's worth noting while the perhaps most off the wall part that have story is the idea of the president of the United States lunging at a Secret Service agent, so desperate to cling to whatever was going on in his head that he lunged for the steering wheel, no one is pushing back on the idea that he knew that there were weapons there that day and that he wanted to go down to the Capitol that day knowing that there were people who were armed and that he wanted to get rid of the mags.

No one is pushing on any -- as far as I've seen, pushing back on those essential elements connecting all of this to the violence. They are pushing back on the issue of what happened in the car, which is noteworthy. And at some point if they both go on record under oath, then the public will have the ability to make the assessment of their credibility.

BERMAN: Mike, I want to give you the last word on Tony Ornato. Go ahead.

BENDER: Oh, yes, I was just going to jump in on that. I agree with everything Laura just said and would add that it does seem like something happened inside that suburban that day. And, you know, it's important, I think, for Tony Ornato to set the record straight under oath about what exactly happened, but I would also be interested to hear Tony be asked under oath if he told Cassidy a version of this story.

Tony is a Secret Service agent. He was put in a position of power inside the administration. He was looked up to by young staffers, like Cassidy and others, because of his background as an agent. And they put a lot of trust in what he said. So, I mean, it's tertiary to the broader point of what Trump or didn't do but I would be interested to hear him say whether or not he told Cassidy some version of what she testified to.

BERMAN: Well, we will see if he sits down for a third time. We know he's been in there twice already, but it's unclear how much this have one episode was covered to this point. Michael Bender, great to see you. Laura Jarrett, your final moment with us before five months of real work.

JARRETT: You know, something tells me I'm going to be up watching you, so I'm just a text away.

KEILAR: You text us, let us know how -- you know, what you're seeing.

JARRETT: Yes. Jarrett and Jarrett is still open for business. I will still be following all the twists and turns on New Day.

BERMAN: Laura Jarrett out on maternity leave as of right now. So, we're going to miss her terribly.

JARRETT: Thanks, guys.

BERMAN: Good luck.

KEILAR: And early congratulations, Laura. Thank you for being with us this morning.

JARRETT: Thanks, guys.

KEILAR: So, this morning, gasoline is averaging $4.84 a gallon nationally. Still, Americans are expected to hit the road in record numbers here this holiday weekend. And CNN's Leyla Santiago is live for us in Miami with more. It's expensive, Leyla, but it's not stopping people.

LEYLA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is expensive. Case in point, Brianna, take a look behind me, $4.99 at this gas station here in Miami. So, yes, busy, busy. In fact, according to AAA, they're expecting record-breaking numbers on the roads this holiday weekend. Let's break down those numbers to give you perspective. They are expecting 42 million people on the road, about 3.5 million people in those airports and about 2.5 million people that will be traveling for the holiday weekend through other means.

So, let's start at the airport where a lot of people are going to be experiencing some disruptions, certainly some headaches, everyone saying pack your patience. Because if you talk to the industry experts, they will tell you those staffing shortages that they're dealing with right now are really kind of the root cause of a lot of cancelations and delays.

Just yesterday, we saw, according to FlightAware, 471 already today about 200 cancelations that travelers are dealing with at the airport. And according to AAA, that alone could be why we're seeing or expecting to see those record number of travelers on the road, on I- 95, which we're seeing is very busy behind me.

And as we've seen at this gas station this morning, we're certainly seeing people who kind of pull up and you see that grumble, their facial expression as they're filling up their tank, but that's here in Florida. In California, I want you to hear from the drivers over there that are paying on average $6.27, perspective here, that's $1.43 more than the national average. Listen to what they have to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm very unhappy. I did actually pull in today because I knew it was going up tomorrow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's getting crazy. My car used to be $40 to fill up, now it's $69.45. I'm over it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will stay home these holidays, yes.

REPORTER: Did the gas prices play into that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I guess the entire economy play into that, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANTIAGO: So, yes, people are struggling with the idea of paying on average $4.89 for gas, but it is still not stopping some folks with those record numbers expected.

So, I will end with a bit of a tip, Brianna.

[07:15:00]

We asked AAA what the busiest times are. They point to yesterday. Yesterday was expected to be very busy and it was, and then they are also pointing to today, Friday, right as people are leaving work, that's when you should expect the busiest time of this holiday season. So, as you make your plans, definitely keep that in mind.

KEILAR: I think that one guy spoke for all of us, Leyla, when he said, I'm over it. I'm over it, too.

SANTIAGO: he did. He did. That means all of us, yes.

KEILAR: All of us. Leyla Santiago live for us in Miami, thank you.

The reaction this morning to the federal government being dealt a major blow in its efforts to combat climate change.

Plus, the Department of Justice making moves in its January 6th investigation, we will have a breakdown ahead.

BERMAN: And CNN speaks to the family of Emmett Till after a decades' old arrest warrant was just discovered in this case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It has been a tremendous amount of trauma. I still feel like the weight is on our shoulders. We found the new evidence and so we just want justice served.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

KEILAR: The Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia versus the EPA dealt a blow to the agency's ability to issue rules targeting carbon emissions at power plants. David Wallace-Wells writes in The New York Times, many of the headlines about the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling on West Virginia versus Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday have suggested an existential setback. For the time being at least the decision, functions chiefly to cement the status quo. The problem is the status quo is bad enough.

Joining me now is New York Times Opinion Writer and Columnist for New York Magazine David Wallace-Wells. He's also the author of The Uninhabitable Earth, Life After Warming.

That really says something, David, when you put it that way. You're basically saying this doesn't stop the EPA from doing anything because they're already not doing what needs to be done.

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS, WRITER, NEW YORK TIMES OPINION: Yes. What it does is it prevents them theoretically in the future from imposing some hypothetical standards on the power industry that could meaningfully move the grid away from fossil fuels to clean energy, but they are not doing that now, they didn't do that under the clean power plant because it never got enacted properly. And so what we're really doing is taking away some future tools not imposing a setback of the kind that the Dobbs decision did on reproductive rights last week.

BERMAN: What can the EPA do now under the new rules?

WALLANCE-WELLS: Well, they can continue to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, they just can't impose a system to -- that's designed to reduce emissions primarily. So, they can treat it as a pollutant, impose new regulations that respond to it as a pollutant but they can't design a nationwide system designed to reduce our emissions.

KEILAR: So, if you want there to be a nationwide system, it's up to Congress?

WALLANCE-WELLS: Yes, which is, you know, three months ago, you would have said if we want climate action now, Congress is going to be where the action is anyway, so this doesn't change that dynamic either. Unfortunately, as we're heading into the midterms, the chances for meaningful action there, I think, are pretty slim.

BERMAN: Right. This doesn't stop Congress from doing something, Congress stops Congress from doing something. What has Congress done in terms of fighting climate change over the last -- you pick the number of years.

WALLANCE-WELLS: History of humanity?

BERMAN: Yes.

WALLANCE-WELLS: Yes, far too little. And that's the unfortunate fact about where we are today as a country and as a world, we are so far behind that anything that restricts our ability in the future really imposes a major threat on the temperature targets that we are aiming for right now. We have so little time, we need to sort of throw everything at it that we can, and this is one less thing we can throw at it.

KEILAR: I mean, you know that -- look, I think as a country and as a world, we tend to not do things until we have to. And I think obviously the concern is we're not going to do something until it's too late. So, where are we with that and when are we hitting that line?

WALLANCE-WELLS: Well, you know, the IPCC, the U.N. body that sort of issues science and recommendations about policy, says that we need to cut our emissions in half as a planet by 2030 to give ourselves a decent chance of staying below this 1.5 degree threshold, which scientists of the world, activists of the world have embraced as the real target.

We are not going to do that. I mean, we're still going upward, a new peak right now. That means that we are doing more damage this year, 2022, than in any year in the entire history of humanity, we're going to hit a new peak next year, possibly the year after that. We are not going to get down to 50 percent by 2030, which means we're almost certain to blow past that goal.

In fact, the last IPCC report said that even those emissions trajectories that were designed to keep us below 1.5 degrees, even if we follow them, they now believe we're going to go past that threshold. They want to say we can then pull the temperature back down, but that's going to require a lot of complicating end of century stuff that we can't count on right now.

So, the targets that the world has embraced since the Paris Agreement I think are functionally now out of reach.

BERMAN: You say the U.S., very quickly, has good stuff in its favor in terms of fighting climate change if it wanted to.

WALLANCE-WELLS: Yes. We have a lot of solar capacity, we have a lot of wind, we have a lot of land, which means we can build that stuff. Theoretically, we should be in a really good position for renewable transition. Unfortunately, we are not making it nearly as fast as we could be.

BERMAN: David, thank you very much for being with us.

KEILAR: So, ahead, we're going to look at the Department of Justice's latest moves in its January 6th investigation, how they compare to what the January 6th committee has uncovered.

BERMAN: Detained WNBA Star Brittney Griner facing a judge in Moscow this morning. CNN is sitting down with her wife in an exclusive interview.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:20:00]

BERMAN: Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony this week might potentially increase the criminal exposure the former president, Donald Trump, faces in a Justice Department-January 6th investigation. What Justice Department January 6th investigation? Let's talk about that.

Joining me, CNN Senior Legal Analyst, former State and Federal Prosecutor Elie Honig. So, the Justice Department is investigating things surrounding January 6th and has charged some people, Elie?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, let's do a quick recap. We are a year-and-a-half after January 6. Now, we know that DOJ has charged over 800 individuals with various crimes relating to the Capitol riot. Here are some of the more memorable folks who they've charged. About 200 of these people have now been convicted, mostly by guilty plea, which is normal.

Now, in a few cases, we have to note, federal judges have called out DOJ for being too lenient in their sentencing and charging decisions. The chief judge down in D.C., federal judge, called DOJ's conduct schizophrenic, baffling, puzzling and peculiar, another federal judge down in D.C. in the case where prosecutors recommended home detention said, quote, there have to be consequences beyond sitting at home. Let me tell you, that's rare to see federal judges criticize prosecutors for being too lenient.

Now, the most serious charges we have seen so far had been for seditious conspiracy against leaders and members of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

[07:30:02]

Most of those charges are still spending. And, of course, the committee sent over four individuals recommended charges for.