Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump Tried Calling January 6th Witness; January 6th Rally Organizer Warned Mark Meadows of Potential Violence; At Least 44 Unaccounted for After Floods Devastate Virginia; Some Experts Say Recession Needed to Tame High Inflation. Aired 6-6:30a et

Aired July 14, 2022 - 06:00   ET

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


JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning to viewers here in the United States and all around the world. It is Thursday, July 14. I'm John Berman with Brianna Keilar.

[05:59:50]

And this morning, which pending January 6th witness did Donald Trump try to call? That's an allegation that has been referred to the Justice Department.

First on CNN, sources say Trump tried to call a member of the White House support staff who was in talks with the January 6th Committee. That's new. The exact identity, still unknown at this point. The witness did not pick up when Trump called.

Committee members say it raises concerns this was not someone Trump would routinely communicate with, and the attempted call came after Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: The alarmed witness contacted an attorney. January 6th Committee member Elaine Luria says the panel is taking this seriously.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): We take very seriously the safety of any witnesses, anyone who comes forward to the committee. And likewise, you know, their privacy in this case. Any speculation about who this person might have been and a lot of people trying to tie it together. The committee will just say that we want to protect this witness, but we also want to hold people accountable who have potentially broken the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. Here now, CNN's Katelyn Polantz and CNN legal analyst and former special counsel to House Democrats in the first Trump impeachment, Norm Eisen.

Katelyn, first to you. This reporting, White House staff support member. KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's

indeed right, John and Brianna. Right now, the House committee continues to make clear they're taking this really seriously. It's not Representative Luria who's been saying that since this information came out on Tuesday.

But the new information, the information that we know now, based on reporting from my colleagues, Ryan Nobles, Dana Bash, Annie Grayer, and Zach Cohen, is that Donald Trump tried to call a White House support staff member. So that would be a career employee, not a political appointee, not somebody that's, like, at the very upper echelon of the Trump White House, someone that would be a support member working in the White House or around the White House.

That call did not go through to the person, but it was concerning enough that the person passed it to their lawyer; and then their lawyer told the committee about it.

And some of the reasons why this is so concerning and so serious for the committee at this time is that this was not someone who was regularly in touch with Donald Trump, so it wasn't someone who would be likely to get outreach from him or knew him that well to be getting calls regularly.

This call also came after the testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, that very damaging testimony from the aide to the chief of staff, Mark Meadows, that happened a few weeks ago. And the person was in a position to corroborate some of what Hutchinson testified to under oath. That's according to one of our sources.

So right now, that is something the committee is taking very seriously. We don't know more about this, whether it could qualify as something like witness tampering. Obviously, the message wasn't actually made to the person if they didn't pick up, hear what Donald Trump had to say.

But this idea of possible witness tampering is something that the House Select Committee has raised before, including at that Cassidy Hutchinson hearing, raising this idea that people were calling her, asking her to be loyal.

So they're on the lookout for patterns right now, and the Justice Department has been told about this.

KEILAR: Norm, what questions does this raise for you?

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, for me, it raises the question of the pattern, because we've seen with Cassidy Hutchinson that there was this good cop/bad cop approach from Trump world.

Before the hearing, we now know, overtures to stay on the team and that she's being watched. And then after, when she broke with team Trump, vicious attacks from the former president, from those around him.

And that good cop/bad cop pattern is not new. It's something we saw in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation where Michael Cohen, for example, the same thing. Grooming messages beforehand and absolutely slammed afterwards.

When the most powerful individuals reach out to you, and make no mistake, no wonder this person was alarmed. A call from an ex- president? When that kind of a person raises out, with the megaphone and the allies to attack if you break with them, it sets up a pattern. And that raises very serious issues that are undoubtedly being investigated by the Department of Justice under the federal witness tampering statute.

BERMAN: Norm, this White House support staff member did not pick up the phone, did not hear whatever it was that the president -- former president was calling for. What's the relevance of that?

EISEN: Well, John, if this were a one-time isolated incident, the relevance would be you really don't have enough to make a case. But it's not a one-time incident. It's a recurring pattern.

Now, the Justice Department is going to need even more than what we already know about to make a case, but who knows what else is out there?

[06:05:06]

Some of this comes from the impunity, John, that the former president feels, because he did the same thing in the Mueller investigation, and because Bob Mueller wasn't forceful enough -- I worked on the impeachment. I was sitting ten feet away from him when he testified. And because Bill Barr spun that investigation, Donald Trump never faced consequences.

And that's why we continue to see this kind of behavior out of Trump world. It's not this isolated incident. It's a recurring pattern, and that needs to be taken very seriously by the Department of Justice.

KEILAR: To that point, Katelyn, with Bennie Thompson saying they're raising this to DOJ, are they pressuring DOJ to do something on this? What is -- what is your understanding of how far this move of referring this goes?

POLANTZ: Well, right now, I don't even know if we can call this a formal criminal referral in the way that that sometimes happens with a letter written by a member of Congress or a committee going to Justice. This is something that they're raising for the Justice Department.

And what we do know at this point in time is that the Justice Department is listening to what is happening in this House committee investigation, and they are doing their own investigation related to January 6th.

They're looking at all sorts of different things, including contact with people on the Trump campaign, related to the electors probe. There are other avenues that they are investigating on pressure. And so we don't know yet if this is going to merit opening an

investigation, if there is an investigation open into it at this time. But the Justice Department surely is on the lookout for information coming to them related to this.

And also I should point out, the Justice Department has investigated things like witness tampering before and successfully prosecuted it. Roger Stone, that was one of the charges that he was convicted on and then pardoned for by Donald Trump during the Russia investigation in the House; that he had tried to contact a witness in the House investigation and then lied to them.

And so this is an avenue that the Justice Department has been down before related to people around Donald Trump.

BERMAN: All right. Katelyn, Norm, thank you both very much.

KEILAR: So our next guest was a key player in the Stop the Steal movement and helped organize a series of rallies, including the rally held at the Ellipse on January 6th.

Dustin Stockton became disillusioned with Trump after the attack on the Capitol. In December, he met with the January 6th Committee, and according to the committee, Stockton raised concerns that the rally at the Ellipse could be dangerous ahead of time; and those concerns were escalated to Mark Meadows.

Dustin Stockton is with us now.

Dustin, thank you so much for being with us. You warned against the march to the Capitol, the potential for danger in that. Why and how high are you certain that that warning went?

DUSTIN STOCKTON, JANUARY 6TH RALLY ORGANIZER: Well, thank you for having me and goodnight from Las Vegas, I guess. Good morning to you guys on the East Coast.

Yes, so you have to give a little background. We'd actually held three rallies in D.C. after the election: one in November, one in December, and then the one in January.

The previous two had included a march from Freedom Plaza to the Supreme Court, which is about the same distance as from the Ellipse to the Capitol.

To do that, we had to be permitted. We had to provide water stations, resting stations, medics, marshals to guide the crowd. All of those things had to be in place and were not in place on January 6, and would have needed to be in place for it to be safe.

And same with when they got to the Capitol, the Supreme Court at the previous two rallies didn't have more security than the Capitol Hill did on January 6th. The difference was, is that professional organizers and professional security acted as a buffer in those instances to make sure the crowd never each got close to the Supreme Court police. And none of that was in place on January 6th, to our great chagrin. We

were assured beforehand, when we did escalate these concerns to not just Mark Meadows, but Katrina Pierson -- it was clear that she was echoing things that we had discussed with her in the testimony at the last hearing -- but other members of Trump family. For us it was an all hands on deck.

The people that were being talked about leading this rally at the Capitol had been some of the most extreme voices. They'd been using the most violent revolutionary rhetoric. And we were trying to tamp down that -- that kind of anger, knowing that the most likely outcome on January 6 was that Congress was going to go through the ceremonial process and certify the votes.

[06:10:18]

KEILAR: But, Dustin, you learned during this hearing Ali Alexander, others, were expecting for Trump to call for an impromptu but actually planned march to the Capitol, right? It was to kind of appear impromptu, but actually, it was planned all along for Trump to call for it. What did you think when you found that out?

STOCKTON: I mean, I wasn't -- at this point, I've learned so much in retrospect and looking back at what happened. It wasn't necessarily surprising.

It was nice, however, to -- to see that that information kind of backed up what we've been telling. I've listened to your last segment, and it's interesting, because right after January 6, like in the immediate aftermath, we knew this kind of violent attack wasn't something that we were just going to be able to ignore, that it was consequential and serious; and we were going to have to address it.

We immediately started working to put -- a group of us immediately started working to put together a press conference, where we could answer every question. And we were denied by the Trump campaign and the Trump White House. They -- they told us not to talk to the press, not to go out and answer questions.

And so what we're seeing is kind of a continuation of that. We're seeing the same problem over again, where we need transparency as a country over this issue, or we're never going to get past it, because it was serious. It was violent, and it was a problem. And frankly, the American people and all peaceful protesters who are in Washington, D.C., that day deserve transparency.

And unfortunately, there are people -- and at the time, we were somewhat baffled like why we wouldn't be able to. And it's become clear that the reason they didn't want people talking to the press is they had something to hide.

KEILAR: Dustin, I want to ask you, because you were involved with that private effort to build part of the border wall, the build the wall effort that Steve Bannon was -- you know, there was alleged fraudulent activity he received a pardon for. He now wants to testify before the committee. What do you think about that? STOCKTON: Well, it's -- it's interesting. I've known Steve for a long

time. I was the co-founder of we build the wall, which he was the head of our advisory board.

His decision initially to not comply with the subpoena was difficult for those of us who were in a different position. Thankfully, my counsel, Josh Nass, told me that there was no way I was going to do it, that -- that this was a legal process, and that the best thing we could possibly do is comply and comply fully. It's unfortunate that he --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: But is he operating in good faith -- is he operating in good faith, in your opinion, wanting to testify now?

STOCKTON: He -- it's obvious by the timing that his hand has been forced at this point. Knowing Steve, he absolutely doesn't want to testify. He especially doesn't want to go through the same private testimony and sworn deposition that all the rest of us had to go through, but his hand has been forced.

He dragged it out legally as long as he could, but it became clear that the process was legal.

The committee -- and to the committee's credit, they've done a really fair job distinguishing -- from my perspective, I was very apprehensive and distrusting before the hearing started. But I think they've done a fair job of getting to the truth and dividing between the -- the protest and rally that was protected by the First Amendment, and the -- the unacceptable violence that happened at the Capitol. And I appreciate that from the committee.

Steve does not share those beliefs. Steve -- I can tell you from personal experience, Steve sees this as a battle and a war and them simply as attack dogs against the right. And I can understand where his thinking comes from on that, but it hasn't played out that way. And frankly the -- we need to move past this, and only transparency can get it done.

[06:15:07]

KEILAR: Dustin, we appreciate you being with us. Thank you so much.

STOCKTON: Thank you for having me.

BERMAN: New this morning, 44 people still unaccounted for after devastating floods hit Western Virginia. At least 100 homes washed away as homeowners watched in disbelief.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOMINICK FRAGOSO, BUCHANAN COUNTY RESIDENT: One of our neighbor's driveways completely collapsed. It fell down the mountain, down the creek. The roads, if you walk up there, they're completely destroyed. Some of them snapped; some slid across other roads. DEANA KIMBROUGH, BUCHANAN COUNTY RESIDENT: This community right here

is pulling together, we're all treating each one as family, you know, and we were saying no families left behind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. CNN's Nick Valencia is live in Oakwood, Virginia, outside of a reunification center.

Nick, 44 still unaccounted for. That's a high number. I do understand, at least last I checked, no reported deaths.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, no reported deaths, John. And good morning.

I just got off the phone with the sheriff's office, and they say that number still stands this morning at 44 missing. They said rescue crews were out in those hard-hit areas overnight but were unsuccessful in making contact with any of those that were reported missing.

We're out in front of a reunification center, where we understand some of those families displaced by the severe weather that tore through here Tuesday evening into Wednesday morning have been staying and then later reuniting with family members.

But the good news in all of this is that the death toll officially stands at zero, giving those family members and loved ones some hope that sheriffs and rescue crews just haven't been able to make contact with those missing just yet.

We were trying to get closer to the hard-hit area, but this morning, sheriff's office asked us to stay here until the light came up; because some of the roads are just still unnavigable, hit really hard by landslides.

And look guys, Tuesday evening into Wednesday, it was a mess here. There were a series of storms that trained their ire, that were trained here on Buchanan County and partially stalled over Buchanan County. Rainfall was about 4 to 6 inches.

About 100 homes were damaged. And this morning, there are still about 10 percent of this very, very tiny county that is still without power. Many still holding out hope that their loved ones are still alive, because the death toll is zero.

But as I mentioned, the sheriff's office this morning saying the crews are actively working. Still, though, no signs of life.

The governor here has declared a state of emergency to try to shore up resources to help those crews that are still looking for signs of life -- John.

BERMAN: All right. Nick Valencia, keep us posted, because 44 unaccounted for still at this point --

VALENCIA: You bet. BERMAN: -- is a very concerning number. Appreciate it.

VALENCIA: Yes.

BERMAN: So gas prices drop again, but you're going to need the extra money. Wait until you hear what a plate of breakfast will cost you this morning.

And new polling shows signs that Republicans are building a multiracial working-class base.

KEILAR: And just a short time from now, President Biden giving a press conference in Jerusalem as his approval ratings hit new lows. CNN is live with special coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:22:11]

BERMAN: All right. New this morning: for the 29th straight day, gas prices are down. The national average now at $4.61 a gallon. That's about 40 cents cheaper than it was a month ago.

A big drop that is not reflected in the huge inflation number just reported, 9.1 percent year over year. You're going to need that extra savings from the gas, though.

Grocery prices increased 12.2 percent over the past 12 months. In that period, nearly every individual item got more expensive. People getting breakfast cereal and butter, they've been hit hard. Eggs up 31 percent, year to year; milk, 16 percent.

Now one trend line that is good for breakfast: bacon prices actually down nearly 2 percent month to month.

KEILAR: That all looks delicious if you can afford it, I will say. So joining us now to talk more about this, CNN business correspondent Rahel Solomon; and business journalist Mark Stewart.

You know, one way to slow all of this down is a recession, but no one wants a recession, so can you slow it down without one?

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, I think history doesn't provide a lot of optimism in terms of that. I mean, there are some questions about whether the Fed has effectively pulled this off three times or one time. I mean, it is very rare to be able to raise rates the way they need to and to cool demand the way they need to without triggering a recession.

So it was already challenging to begin with, and we got the report yesterday showing that inflation is proving to be quite sticky, broad- based, not abating. It makes their job even harder. We're going to hear from the Fed in about two weeks.

BERMAN: One of the questions that I'm sort of obsessed with, Brianna phrased it no one wants a recession, which is true in a way. But, Mark, there are economists and maybe people who work at the Fed who think, but may not articulate, that a recession would be better than this persistent inflation. Can you explain in English to me why that is?

MARK STEWART, BUSINESS JOURNALIST: So let's step away from the economic sphere of things. Suppose you spill some red wine on your nice dress shirt.

BERMAN: Again.

STEWART: Again. You're going to try everything to try to get rid of it. You're going to try baking soda. You're going to try detergent. You're going to try club soda. Hopefully, you will get it out -- it may not be entirely, but you'll be able to do that just enough so you don't have to go to Macy's and buy a brand-new shirt.

This is what the Fed and other economic advisers are trying to figure out right now: how to slow things down to just enough that we don't see the economy decline. That's the definition of a recession, when the economy shrinks. And it is tricky, and this is unprecedented; but right now it's about balancing act.

SOLOMON: And we should say the reason why the Fed and Chairman Powell have said that they think they can do it is because we have a very strong labor market, guys. We talked about this on Friday when we got the last jobs report. We're still seeing really strong gains.

[06:25:12]

And so the reason why Powell has said he thinks that they can pull it off is because we're coming from a place of strength. Consumers still have quite a bit in terms of savings and checking. The question is, how long can that last with prices like this?

KEILAR: I could be clearer: normal people don't like the idea of a recession. Right? I don't include economists, no offense to economists.

I just think when people hear the word "recession" at home, they worry. They obviously do not like inflation, but they certainly want to have the job, and they want to have the money to combat that. So as they're looking at this possibility of the idea of a recession, perhaps, being the medicine, I mean, what do you -- what do you say to them?

STEWART: In a way it's kind of like if your computer freezes up. Do you hit reset, hope that when you turn it back on, everything is back, you're in for the best kind of scenario?

The challenge in all of this is that, if we do get into a recession, in worst-case scenario, people really will hurt. One area where economists and even corporations -- we've heard from CEOs talk about the fact they may have to cut their labor force. They may have to inhibit raises. So it would be very tangible.

SOLOMON: The question is what type of recession are we looking at? Right? I mean, you see it now in bank notes a lot. Are we talking about sort of a garden variety type of recession? Are we talking about a mild recession? Are we talking about a long recession?

I mean, the hope is that, even if we do see a recession, which to your point, no one wants to see, certainly not anyone at home, hopefully, it is one where the joblessness is minimized, that it's not massive joblessness, that the pain is sort of minimized.

And the hope is that if the Fed can sort of frontload these interest rate hikes, sort of be aggressive from the front and, hopefully, it sort of reduces the -- the length of the pain and the severity of the pain.

But it's -- it's really a tough position to be in. Do you do it hard and fast at the front; or do you sort of let it -- do you let it sort of linger and, hopefully, it you know, results in less pain?

STEWART: And the shortest recession in history was at the beginning of the pandemic, February through April of 2020. So the fact that we have all of those strong fundamentals, it's somewhat encouraging.

KEILAR: Yes. It's a scary word, but we have to be talking about it. Rahel, Mark, thank you so much.

A new poll suggesting that one political party is trending white collar and the other towards a coalition of multiracial and working- class voters. Which is which, next.

BERMAN: Plus, surveillance video of the failed law enforcement response to the massacre in Uvalde sparking a new wave of anger. Did group-think play a role? That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:30:00]