Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

CNN Reports, Trump Considers Releasing Video of FBI's Mar-a- Lago Search; White House Says, Updated COVID Boosters May Be Available in Three Weeks; More Election Deniers Winning GOP Primaries Across U.S. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired August 18, 2022 - 07:00   ET

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

[07:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: So, just to be clear here, this is not the same surveillance video that was subpoenaed by investigators. That surveillance video reportedly showed activity around boxes of classified documents that so alarmed law enforcement, they moved forward with securing that search warrant.

Gabby Orr joins us now with the latest on this. Gabby?

GABBY ORR, CNN REPORTER: Brianna, we're learning that former President Donald Trump is being urged by some of his allies to release the CCTV surveillance footage from the day that the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Now, some of his allies have argued that releasing this footage could give him a leg up in a Republican primary. We're told that some have even discussed including it in campaign-style ads. They feel that this would offer Trump's supporters a visual that would assist his claims that he's been facing political persecution, showing, you know, FBI agents descending on Mar-a-Lago.

But others have told us that this is not a good idea, that this could backfire and that, in the first place, the Trump team and the former president himself were actually asked to turn those security cameras off when this search occurred and refused to do so.

I want to read to you what one person close to former President Trump told us when we asked, do you think that this is a good idea? Should he release these tapes? Here is what that person said. Quote, it's one thing to read a bunch of numbers on an inventory list, it's another to see law enforcement agents actually carrying a dozen-plus boxes out of President Trump's home knowing they probably contain sensitive documents. I don't see how that helps him.

So, again, this has drawn mixed reactions inside the former president's orbit with some aides saying it's a good idea, release the footage, get it out there. Among them, Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist to President Trump. Others saying we should hold back. Maybe continue to tease this but don't ever actually release the footage, Brianna. KEILAR: Yes. Look, it depends on where you're looking at this from. For the people who think that he's guilty of hoarding this information, then, yes, they see it's bad, but if you're Donald Trump's supporters who say, hey, maybe this was planted by the FBI, a bunch of boxes might not look so bad to you so we could be seeing this cut both ways.

Gabby, thank you for that report.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, joining us now is David Schoen. He was a lawyer for former President Trump during his second impeachment trial and Schoen is now representing Steve Bannon in his contempt of Congress case. Counselor, thank you so much for being with us this morning.

You've got experience representing Donald Trump, so, I'm curious, have you been approached to work on this case, the classified documents case?

DAVID SCHOEN, TRUMP'S DEFENSE LAWYER DURING SECOND IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Well, I don't want to go into too many details, but I was approached a couple months ago about being a liaison with the Justice Department. It wasn't for me, it doesn't suit my skill set. I wasn't particularly interested in that.

But, you know, I certainly know Evan Corcoran quite well and he was hired to be my local counsel in the Bannon case. So I got to know him through that. I didn't know him beforehand, but he strikes me as a guy who is honest as the day is long, and I'm sure he's been very diligent with this. So, we'll how it plays out.

BERMAN: So, a couple months ago. That's interesting. So, this is something that they've been dealing with in a serious way for at least a few months, it sounds like what you're saying.

SCHOEN: I think that's right. I mean, the issue has been out there in the media that the Justice Department was looking into this and so on, so I'm sure they took it seriously, it just wasn't for me.

BERMAN: Why not?

SCHOEN: It's not my -- not my skill set to sift through boxes and sort of liaison with the Justice Department. I'm hired generally when a case is going to trial or appeal to argue the case and to cross- examine witnesses. So, that's my skill set at least.

BERMAN: Evan Corcoran is someone who has worked with you in the Steve Bannon case. He is someone you recommended you think he's a good attorney. The Washington Post published a story that suggested that Donald Trump is having a hard time finding enough or the right lawyers to represent him here. Is that something you see as happening in this case?

SCHOEN: I hope not, and I wouldn't think so. Let me say from my experience. I come from a very different background, 37 years civil rights lawyer, criminal defense lawyer, I represent the ACLU in all of their litigation in Alabama for 20 years. I was approached out of the blue on this I think this. I considered it a great honor to represent Donald Trump.

And I saw at the time media pieces saying he was having a hard time getting lawyers. I had some of the greatest lawyers in the country willing to help me prepare for the impeachment. But there are some people who at that time had been around President Trump, giving advice and vetting lawyers and wanting to go insinuate themselves into the situation who I think gave bad advice. And so in this case, they nixed some of these people because they hadn't been vetted by them and so on, sort of making themselves too self-important.

So, I think it's a great honor for anyone to represent President Trump, any former president or president of the United States, the issues are fascinating in the case and that's my take on it. I think anyone would be honored, quite frankly.

BERMAN: Is he an easy guy to work for?

SCHOEN: He's been incredibly gracious to me in every opportunity we have ever spoken.

[07:05:00]

I've read the reports in the media. And, again, I didn't know any of these folks before I got involved. Every time I've spoken to him, he's been incredibly gracious and complementary and I very much appreciate that.

BERMAN: Let me ask you about some of the specific issues at hand today, for instance. This afternoon, there will be an argument before a judge in Florida about whether to release the affidavit that argued for the search warrant of the Mar-a-Lago residence.

Now, Donald Trump has publicly said he wants to release -- you and I both know that's different than having your lawyers argue before a judge that it should be released. What would your legal advice be to Donald Trump on releasing the affidavit, Dave?

SCHOEN: None of us really knows the underlying facts. I think, though that Donald Trump has been very clear in saying he wants transparency here. I think speaking for the American people to the extent I can as an American citizen, I want to know what's in there. We've got a history here, unfortunately, a bit of a checkered history between the Mueller investigation and the FISA warrants and all of that business. I think the country depends on information. We want to know what's in there.

BERMAN: What would the risks be for a possible defendant? What would the risks be for Donald Trump in making this public be?

SCHOEN: Well, the risks would be that information -- negative information comes in, but that's going to have to come in one way or another one day. And I think you're better off testing it now. Again, information is the key. That's your business, you know, to do very well. I think when it's out there, then we'll hear both sides of the argument and some of the facts, alleged facts in the affidavit can be challenged publicly with people who know the underlying facts. That's what's so important, I think.

Rumor doesn't help anyone and the country is very divided now. Everybody needs to know what happened, I think.

BERMAN: Now, let me ask you this, we have reporting, I think you just heard it from our CNN Reporter Gabby Orr who said some people are arguing for Donald Trump to release the surveillance footage of the FBI searching Mar-a-Lago. That's a political decision right there with actually no legal implications, really, because it's Trump's to release if he wants to. Would you suggest he also release the surveillance footage that had been subpoenaed by the FBI that there are reports that investigators were alarmed by what they saw? Why not release that footage?

SCHOEN: Well, again, you know, I'm in favor of full disclosure of everything, but there are always issues regarding privilege and other factors. I'm certainly not aware of enough to be able to say to you today this should be released or that should be released. I can only tell you my general view is information is important. And if it's public -- if it's information that's of public interest, it should be made publicly exposed, in my view.

BERMAN: You say you've represented all kinds of clients, worked for the ACLU in Alabama. I'm sure you've represented all kinds of clients. As a legal matter, is there any difference in the standing between, you know, Citizen Joe and a former president of the United States? Do they have the same rights and privileges?

SCHOEN: Yes, I think there are a number of factors that are important. I don't know if you saw. Alan Dershowitz wrote a piece in The Wall Street Journal this week about whataboutism, people sort of mock it and all that. But I think the key -- and this was part of his article, the key is when we have the attorney general saying this reflects the equal application of the law, same thing he said in the Bannon case, it really doesn't. We haven't treated everyone similarly situated the same.

I think that especially when it comes to a public figure, like the president of the United States or former president of the United States, there are a number of factors that have to be considered. People get upset when they say, oh, there could be a revolution, there could be a civil war and so on. You have to take into account public sentiment.

Right now, there is -- half of the nation doesn't trust the government, our government. We have to get past that. We have to -- again, this is, I think, a function of transparency to some degree, but there have been some very bad moves. You have in the Justice Department now number two in charge who is an Andrew Wiseman accolade, as Lisa Monaco, people don't know what's driving the forces that are going on.

I can tell you in the Bannon case, they said it was an equal application of the law, it absolutely was not.

BERMAN: Well, let me just say this. As you well know, there was a judge in Florida who did have to sign off on this application for a search warrant and did find that there was probable cause to search this residence. I guess the specific question I'm asking you is does a former president have any greater right than you do to hang on to documents that are marked classified or top secret or sensitive compartmented information?

SCHOEN: Well, first of all, he has greater rights to access to those documents originally than the average person. He's also in a position to analyze whether documents are classified and in a position through the proper procedures to declassify them, so that's different from --

BERMAN: He has no right to declassify them as a former president, correct?

SCHOEN: That's correct. That's correct.

BERMAN: And in terms of access, accessing them, he has a perfectly good right to access them if they are in possession of the proper authorities, which would be the National Archives, correct?

SCHOEN: I think that's right.

Now, remember, under all of these statutes that apply there is a mens rea element, either knowingly, intentionally or willfully depending --

[07:10:05]

BERMAN: I'm so glad you brought that up, because The New York Times reports that in discussions about the former documents, and this came out in the reporting of Pat Cipollone, former White House counsel, and Pat Philbin, his deputy, talking to investigators as part of this investigation.

The former president had been asked to return some of these documents. He had been pushed to return some of these documents by his representatives. And the former president repeated the resisted entreaties from his advisers. He said, quote, it's not theirs, it's mine. Several advisers say Mr. Trump told them. It's not theirs, it's mine. By definition does that not suggest he knew he had these?

SCHOEN: It may suggest he knew he had certain documents, it doesn't mean he had a guilty state of mind. To be perfectly clear, I don't believe Donald Trump thought he did anything wrong with any of these documents at any time.

Now, was he naive? Did other people pack up documents? Did he get bad advice? I don't know. I don't think we know enough about those facts. I don't believe for a second Donald Trump intentionally, knowingly, willfully would have done anything wrong with any of these documents. That's my personal view.

And, by the way, Maggie Haberman is a friend of mine and I'm sure she did an excellent job reporting, but that's my view. BERMAN: Again, doesn't think he did anything wrong is different than knowing he had the documents and had been told he wasn't supposed to have had them, correct?

SCHOEN: I hear -- yes. So with respect to the documents at issue in that piece, you just -- you just, you know, showed the excerpt from, it would seem as to those documents, they were talking about documents, he knew he had certain documents. But I'm always wary when see excerpts. I don't know the full conversation.

BERMAN: I understand. If he had been told, if he -- and you said Maggie Haberman is a friend and a great reporter.

SCHOEN: Right.

BERMAN: Let's -- and she's not -- she's just telling us what the reporting is there.

SCHOEN: Of course.

BERMAN: But if Donald Trump admitted he knew he had the documents, which that statement seems to suggest and had he been told it was wrong to have them, does that not create the mental state which could provide for some culpability?

SCHOEN: No, that the advice that he was wrong to have had them could be mistaken advice, and it still really doesn't go directly to Donald Trump. Someone else reporting what they understood Donald Trump to have said with respect to documents, there are all kinds of issues in there. What documents are we talking about? Did he have some documents in mind that the other person didn't have in mind? Was the advice proper that he got and so on.

Again, I say I don't believe he intentionally, knowingly, willfully would have done anything wrong with any documents. I know him and that's my candid take on it.

BERMAN: David Schoen, thank you for sharing your views with us this morning. Always nice to see.

SCHOEN: You thank you very much. Same.

KEILAR: So, in just a few weeks the newly updated COVID boosters should be available for Americans 12 years of age and older. That is the word from White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha. This updated shot will specifically target the highly contagious omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.

Let's talk about this with the director of Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr. Paul Offit. He is also a member of the FDA's Vaccine Advisory Committee. Sir, it's great to have you this morning.

This timeline, it's pretty quick. Is this realistic?

DR. PAUL OFFIT, MEMBER, FDA VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Well, again, I think we, the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee, were presented data on a bivalent vaccine on June 28th. Now, at that time, the bivalent vaccines presented by Moderna and Pfizer had the omicron variant. So, in other words, it was BA.1, not the BA.4, BA.5.

But those data were pretty underwhelming. I think that if we're going to launch this program in September or October using a bivalent vaccine containing BA.4, BA.5, we're going to have to see data in people showing that you have an immune response that is dramatically better than what we saw at the end of June before we do that. I think the American public is owed that.

KEILAR: So, it's not really that much better at fighting COVID symptoms than the non-omicron version?

OFFIT: So, what we saw was what we saw that if you got a boost with the bivalent vaccine containing omicron BA.1 and compare that to getting a boost with the ancestral strain, you had a 1.75 fold increase in neutralizing antibodies, which, while statistically significant, is unlikely to be clinically significant.

Back in December of 2020 when we reviewed Moderna and Pfizer's vaccine, the Moderna had a two-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies as compared to the Pfizer vaccine, but that didn't work out to be better protection against severe disease because they both protected well against severe disease. We need to see better data than what we've within been seeing.

KEILAR: I mean, that's a big deal because you have people who have actually -- they are relatively healthy and they're vaccinated and boosted and they are in a good place, so they have decided I'm going to wait until I get this omicron-specific shot. You say what to them?

[07:15:00]

OFFIT: Well, I would say if you are recommended to receive a booster, you shouldn't wait. You should get your booster now. And you should also, I think, wait to see whether or not there are clear data that this is going to be better.

I mean, it certainly should be better. BA.4, BA.5 are the circulating strains. We know that starting with omicron and now these omicron subvariants, these strains are immune evasive for protection against mild illness. You are better protected against mild illness if you presumably get a BA.4, BA.5 vaccine. But, again, you need to prove it before you launch that kind of program and right now we're waiting for that proof.

KEILAR: So, how do you make sure you're in good shape, just anyone, whether it is someone who is pretty healthy or someone who does have underlying considerations, some underlying conditions? What do you say to them?

OFFIT: The goal of the vaccine is to protect against severe disease. As of right now, all the evidence is that three doses of vaccine will protect you against severe disease. But there are those high risk groups who likely will benefit from an additional dose. And by that, I mean the elderly people who have -- are immune compromised, people who have the kind of health problems, like severe lung disease, severe heart disease that put them at high risk of this virus. So those, yes, but I think otherwise healthy people less than 50, you're good.

BERMAN: So, Doctor, you know, I think the reference point for many people may be the flu shot, you get a new one every year ideally that's different from the year before. What's the actual timeline, do you think, for getting a booster, a newly formulated booster that is going to be significantly better than the last one?

OFFIT: Right. So, remember you get a flu vaccine every year, because even if you've been naturally infected or vaccinated the year before, you still might not be protected against severe disease. That is not true yet for this virus. I mean, for SARS-Cov-2, it looks like you continue to be protected against severe disease, especially if you're a healthy young person.

In terms of the timeline, usually, the FDA Vaccine Advisory Committee picks strains in March for a vaccine that rolls out in September. So, that's a six-month production cycle. But, again, the flu vaccine isn't made the same way it's the mRNA vaccines, which can be made more quickly.

KEILAR: That's a very good point.

I want to ask you about monkeypox since I have you here. There has been this new case reported in a man whose primary risk factor was close nonsexual contact at a crowded outdoor event. What are you taking from that?

OFFIT: That this vaccine -- I'm sorry, that monkeypox is spread by skin to skin contact. I don't think people should take away from this that this virus is in any way transmitted in a manner similar to, say, SARS-Cov-2, which is respiratory threat, this is skin to skin contact. It's not that contagious. And although we do have 12,000 or so plus cases of monkeypox now in the United States, it's not easily transmitted. It is transmitted primarily by men who have sex with men, primarily also those who have many sexual partners.

So, I think, you know, pediatric cases, for example, are rare. When you see pediatric cases, usually it's in a child who is in a home with someone who has monkeypox who has come to contact either skin to skin or shared, say, blankets, towels.

KEILAR: Dr. Offit, thank you so much, very interesting perspective this morning. We thank you.

OFFIT: Thank you.

KEILAR: So, more than -- more 2020 election deniers are winning key primary races. Who they are and the critical roles that they're vying for?

BERMAN: And Republican heavy weights starting to carve out factions in the Republican Party. We are joined by some preeminent conservatives. KEILAR: Yes, preeminent.

BERMAN: And ahead, we are going to speak to the woman who survived the deadly lightning strike near the White House.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:20:00]

KEILAR: The 2022 primaries are well under way and there is a major trend in the Republican primaries that can't be ignored. So far, there are 11 election deniers who have won Republican nominations for secretary of state races including in three key swing states. So, that's noteworthy, obviously, because the secretary of state helps to oversee the election. In addition to that, 21 of the 36 Republican nominees for governor, they are election deniers.

Joining us is CNN fact checker extraordinary Daniel Dale. So, Daniel, you have got a lot of people who were paying attention to the Wyoming primary because of Liz Cheney. You've been looking into the Republican nominee for secretary of state there, Chuck Gray, and his position on the 2020 election. Tell us about him.

DANIEL DALE, CNN REPORTER: Chuck Gray falsely says the 2020 election was the fraudulent election. He falsely says that Joe Biden's victory was, quote, illegitimate. He told CNN last year that he, quote, absolutely believes that Donald Trump was the real winner of the election.

Brianna, this would be absolutely extraordinary in literally any other secretary of state election year in American history. These are the people, as you said, who run elections.

But this year, Gray joins a pretty long list. You have people like Mark Finchem, the Republican nominee in Arizona, who is longtime far- right conspiracy theorist, who not only says he would have certified Joe Biden's victory in 2020 but is still fighting today to decertify that victory, which is impossible.

You have people like Jim Marchant of Nevada, who is so deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole, that he says Nevada has not elected anybody at all since 2006. He says they've all been installed by the deep state cabal. Of course, that's baseless.

There are nominees like Kristina Karamo, the Republican endorsee in Michigan who falsely says that Donald Trump won that state, he actually lost by more than 150,000 votes.

So, I think this is a troubling trend for people who care about American democracy.

BERMAN: So, Daniel, governors actually also play a key role in the federal election process. What about people running for those offices.

DALE: Yes. So, I found that more than half of the Republican nominees for governor have either denied or questioned or tried to overturn the 2020 election results. So, we have aggressive deniers, like Doug Mastriano of Pennsylvania, in Michigan, the nominee, Tudor Dixon, says that Trump won Michigan, just like Karamo.

[07:25:01]

In Arizona, you could potentially have a situation where the elections are run by, again, Mark Finchem and then Gubernatorial Nominee Kari Lake, who is so aggressive in calling the election, quote, stolen and corrupt, that she said during the primary that it was disgusting and sickening that her top rival wouldn't say the same. She's proposing the imprisonment of Arizona's top election official who happens to be running against her for governor and also journalists she claims have falsely spread lies about the election. So, she is pretty extreme but, again, pretty common in this year's midterms.

KEILAR: And, Daniel, in addition to this more overt brand of election deniers, the aggressive ones, as you put it, you also have written about this more subtle sect of GOP candidates who have questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Tell us about them.

DALE: Yes. So, we talk a lot about like the Kari Lakes and the Mark Finchems, but we have people like Alabama Republican Secretary of State Nominee Wes Allen, who doesn't go around like spreading conspiracy theories but he supported the 2020 lawsuit led by the state of Texas that sought to overturn Biden's victories in four states.

We have people like New York Gubernatorial Nominee Congressman Lee Zeldin, who refused to support the certification of Biden's victories in Congress. He objected to the results in Pennsylvania and Arizona. Then we have people like Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who just will not answer when he's asked, do you think the election was legitimate? Do you think it was rigged? He basically doesn't say anything and he pivots to other topics.

So, I included those people on the list as well because I think if you are refusing to affirm the legitimacy of a free and fair election, then you are part of this issue as well.

KEILAR: Yes, it's a really interesting issue. Kari Lake beat someone in that category, so it also tells you which do voters prefer.

Daniel Dale, thank you.

DALE: Thank you.

BERMAN: So, how would the rise of these election deniers change the dynamic inside the Republican Party? With us now, Margaret Hoover, Scott Jennings, Alice Stewart and Noah Rothman. Noah is the author of the new book, the Rise of the New Puritans, Fighting Back Against Progressive's War on Fun. I have a copy in my hand right now, and we're going to ask about the book in a little bit.

I'm not as interested in the election denier discussion as I am right now in the overall discussion about the search of Mar-a-Lago and how we are seeing different ways that Republicans are arguing against it. You had Mike Pence out yesterday, very specifically saying defund the FBI is a bad idea, right? Then you also have people attacking the FBI. So, how do you see the split in these groups, Scott?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think, ultimately, the short-term cotton candy of reflexively saying, defund the FBI, is going to not wear well for the people who say it. I think the correct political position for a Republican is you can question whether this was a necessary thing but we are a law and order party, we support the police and that has been a pillar, you know, of the Republican Party and you don't want to give that opening away. So, I think Pence actually has it right there.

However, I'm just going to tell you, there is a strain of Republicans who absolutely believe that there are elements within the FBI, the Department of Justice who are out to get Donald Trump at all costs, and that's what's causing people to take that position, but it's not -- this is not the correct position for the party, in my opinion.

KEILAR: And also, I mean, couple that with -- and that's, I think, very important because there are many, many personnel in the DOJ and the FBI who are so fearful right now, and understandably so, but couple that with the very high profile denying by many in the GOP of recognition for Metropolitan D.C. police officers, for Capitol Hill police officers around January 6th. Is this a bigger problem?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We are the party of law and order have always been so and backing the blue has really been a mainstay for the Republican Party. And for this transition to happen, I think, is quite disturbing. Look, we need to back the blue. We need to support the DOJ and the FBI. We also need to support Supreme Court justices and make sure that they are safe in doing their job as well.

And the key here is -- let's just take a step back. A lot of these Republicans who are determined to not see any reason for this raid at Mar-a-Lago need to take a step back, because I'm quite concerned that some of the information that they have uncovered, I'm concerned about what we may find out to come. So, instead of just taking a blanket statement that this DOJ raid was unwarranted and Donald Trump is the subject of unwarranted prosecution, you need to take a step back and look.

The problem with this is that many Republicans who are ready to turn their back on Donald Trump because they see the difficulty he has posed on the party, this has made him a more sympathetic person and Republicans who were ready to say, Donald Trump, I'm done with you, they are looking at him as someone that they now want to support. And he has essentially become a martyr because of what is happening with this.

[07:30:00]

BERMAN: So, Noah, take a step back even further than that. You are not so sure that the lame metaphor is the right metaphor here.