tv New Day With Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota CNN April 13, 2018 4:00am-5:00am PDT
drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me? comey likens his interactions with the president to flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the mob. >> he has a vendetta against him. >> he said the president does not respect the law. he's abusing his power. >> the president's attorneys pulling back on discussions for him to meet with robert mueller. >> rod rosenstein has not done his job. he has not supervised mueller. this is an absurdity. >> it feels as though he is living out a scene in "mean girls." >> folks, we will see what happens. >> he has the authority. >> i think strikes are probably
imminent. we are in complete chaos. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo and alisyn camerota. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to your "new day". fired fbi director james comey blasting president trump in his new tell-all book. comey portrays the president as, quote, unethical and untethered to the truth. he compares mr. trump to a mafia boss who demands loyalty. >> comey's account is as much about revenge as it is telling his side of the story. and having the fbi disprove one of the most salacious details in the dossier. how is the president going to respond to this comey book and will it change the president's disposition towards the mueller investigation? >> there's so much to discuss. we have all sorts of experts. let's bring in cnn analyst david gregory and phil mudd, senior
intelligence adviser. great to see both of you. okay. let's sew. where should we start? >> dramatic readings. >> well, you know, chris and i do like that. but this one is serious, so i'm not going to do a dramatic reading. lying is a way of life. this is how james comey sees how the modus operandi of president trump. they lose the ability to distinguish between what's true and what's not. this surround themselves with other liars. perks a it creates a culture which becomes an entire way of life. what jumps out at you in this book? >> we have to stop the madness in all of this. the president is going to start tweeting. people will come out talking about all the mistakes jim comey made. and he made many with regard to the clinton e-mail investigation, getting into
unprecedented waters with how he handled that. the bottom line is what has been demonstrated is we have a president openly con temp sho e shouse. he is threatening to fire the assistant attorney general. criticized his attorney general for recusing himself. he is suggesting an fbi raid on on his lawyer's office when approved by a judge and justice department was an attack on america. these are dangerous things. and supporters of the president need to get their heads on right and understand where. if president had hillary clinton had engaged in this kind of action for the justice department and the fbi she would have been impeached months ago.
>> that's a spot-on analysis of the political implications. what are you still looking for in the rest of the book? >> pretty straightforward lens. every fact that is relevant has already been discussed with robert mueller. i separated out two pieces. the piece that includes the personal observations of the former fbi director about things like the size of the president's hands. i don't know why we care. with the more significant stories about the president's engagement during, up to and after the firing of james comey. again, those conversations have been between comey and the investigators. the other conversations that mueller has had that say everything comey said was true. and then the follow-on conversation, does that mean the president did something illegal. i'm curious how much confirmation mueller got.
>> david, do you think we have it? >> we're waiting on a clip. >> in the meantime, because you raised hillary clinton, david gregory, it's interesting to hear james comey spelling out at least more explicitly what his rationale was for deciding to go public. there might be a new treasure trove of details on aberdeen's laptop. they turned out not to be. it is entirely possible that making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared
closer or if donald trump were ahead in all polls. but i don't know. >> he did not fire the fbi director because he was defending hillary clinton's honor. let's put that aside and focus on legitimate criticism of jim comey. i think the explanations are ridiculous. jim comey was trying to manage his media profile and the politics of the fbi because he was getting so much pressure, especially after how they handled the petraeus investigation, former general and head of the cia trying to protect the fbi from criticism from republicans. so he did what you never do, if you don't charge someone, you don't talk. unthe fortunately there was a weak attorney general at the time, loretta lynch, who was half in, half out of this investigation which made couply's job harder. all of this was handled extremely poorly and he that's his legacy.
and he was fired because he was too close on the russia investigation for president trump's like. >> thank you, david. it shines a light on something. the first one is he did something, we have never seen before. it was initially bad for hillary clinton. that's going to play out in other areas of the book. talking about the former attorney general loretta lynch. i learned things about her, but they are still classified right now. here's abc sound on it. >> this is going to be james comey in his own words for the first time talking about some of these stories. >> a dramatic pause sometimes is more interesting than the sound itself. answer that for me.
the burden of comey when talking about these people, he has done things that are controversial. he has to give proof for why it is okay. as david said, it may fall flat. >> i think you're right. it is not whether he is honorable or not. i judge the facts in the book are correct. the problem is the character of james comey. we saw it in the comments about hillary clinton. sometimes he views himself as america's high school principal. look, we're not here because he can judge what he thinks is right or wrong in terms of the ethical or moral behavior. he is the chief law enforcement officer in the united states and we're interested about what he determined in terms of illegal activity that might have led to illegal activity. so this sermon tphaoeuzing about loretta lynch, his hand wringing about hillary clinton i think is
going to detract from what is a powerful message, what went on in his interaction with the president of the united states. >> listen, his factual observations are also wed now with his take, his impressions. and so here's this example where he does use the analogy of a mob boss. that's how he interpreted the way the trump organization was run. >> as a former mob investigator. >> as a career prosecutor, nobody investigator. it is apt and vivid. flash backs to my earlier career against the mob. the silent circle of assent. the boss in complete control. the loyalty oathsment the us versus them worldview. the lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth. david, how do you hear that?
>> i think one of the striking facts we have heard from the book, in some of these briefings, neither president-elect trump or advisers ask about the ongoing threat against our country and against our democratic systems and institutions. that is very troubling. i think the president, doesn't view is the presidency as bigger than himself. his attorney general has a lot of detractors. people would say he views it as bigger than himself and his politics. that is what's missing and that's really what comes through. they say the media is unfair. this investigation is unfair. they have to pull back and say a president who so often doesn't tell the truth or who is attacking institutions, uses
hyperbole, saying the fbi is using a hit or attack on the country, is undermining what serve not just him but the entire country. that's dangerous and should not be tolerated. >> what do you think this book is supposed to do, can do, might do for what really matters about this. this is not written 20 years later. even clapper's book, looking at his 50-year career. we're in the midst of a probe. what are the expectations in. >> one, on the comey side, this is a picture that will be completedly director mueller. we all have our outside perceptions. this is the beginning of confirmation from the inside that what we perceive is actually accurate. i think one of the more significant pieces, though, is the president and his circle, 40% of americans who say look at the judgments in this book. this confirms there are deep state people who don't like the
president and from within government want to take him down. i think the many statements will confirm to people, including the president, there are people out to get him within the government. >> okay. next topic, david, president trump announced he will pardon scooter libby. what's this about? >> you know, as has been suggested, scooter libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. he was not pardoned by president bush. dick cheney weighed in he said it was equivalent to leaving a man on the battle field. president bush was mad about it. but my point is that president bush did not like being put in that position and was not willing to pardon him. maybe this is trump saying this is awe guy who was caught up in obstruction of justice.
legitimate part of that investigation and wants to make a point as he is looked at for obstruction of justice. it could still become part of a report that is sent to congress if that's the finding. >> phil, five seconds. were those mutterings something you want to say. >> no. i'm sorry. someone was speaking to me in my ear and i thought it was you. >> how dare they! thank you very much. >> we know some of what jim comey is saying in the book. we know even more about what he is saying in his own words. this morning we hear from the fired fbi director in his first interview. there are excerpts. you can hear them next. ♪ ♪ this is what getting your car serviced at lincoln looks like. complementary pickup and delivery servicing now comes with every new lincoln.
i won. giving you, the luxury of time. that's the lincoln way. sometimes you need an expert. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here. where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink.
at&t doesn't. we offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g wireless network backup. at&t, no way. we offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. at&t, not so much. we give you 75 mbps for $59.95. that's more speed than at&t's comparable bundle, for less. call today. all right. breaking news. for the first time we are hearing from fired fbi director jim comey in a new interview about his book. he tells what he told president trump days before being sworn in. listen to this. >> president trump's first question was to confirm that it had no impact on the election. and then the conversation, to my
surprise, moved into a pr conversation about how the trump team would position this and what they could say about this. they actually started talking about drafting a press release with us still siting there. and the reason it was so striking to me is that's just not done. the intelligence community does intelligence. the white house does pr and spin. >> he said he was struck by what they didn't ask. >> very much. no one to, my recollection asked, so what's coming next from the russians? how might we stop it? what's the future look like? it was all what can we say about what they did and how it effects the election we just had. >> the former director of the cia and ns. general, no one accused political operatives around donald trump of being too savvy and asking the right questions.
when you hear jim comey repwoupbt thire pwoupbt count this what stands out to you? >> other intelligence veterans in the room, their accounts. and what you've got is a president and team around the president whose lens for considering these kinds of things is is frankly self. it is the trump brand they are concerned about rather than the larger strategic interest to the united states. is and i might add, the statement that the russians have no impact on the election, that jim clapper, jim comey said we don't have evidence of that, that actually made it through the press release that the trump team issued later that afternoon. >> let me play another clip for you. now, again, some of this stuff is a little tawdry. it will be interesting on what mattered to comey and what mattered to the president in
comey's estimation. >> he said something that distracted me. if there's a 1% chance my wife thinks that's true, that's terrible. and i remember thinking, how could your wife think there is a 1% chance you were with prostitutes in moscow. i'm a flawed human being but there is literally zero chance my wife would think that's true. what kind of marriage and what kind of man does your wife think there is a 99% chance you didn't do that. i said, sir, i -- when he said i may order you to investigate it. i said, sir is, that's up to you. it is very difficult to prove something didn't happen. >> did you believe his denial? >> i never thought these words would come out of my mouth. but i don't know whether
prostitutes being on each other in moscow in 2013, it's possible, but i don't know. >> all right. what's your take on that? >> wow. so, number one, the president is treating the fbi the way he treated other people in the trump corporation that they are responsible only to him and will do his will rather than have a responsibility to a broader institutional, constitutional framework. and you saw director comey push back on that. chris, there is another reality here. jim points out two or three things that are really important. the frequent distance between the president and the truth, this obsession with personal as owe on posed to constitutional loyalty. and this obsession with self, the trump brand, rather than the interest of the united states. those are really important questions. i'm hopeful that the other things in director comey's book, like what you just saw, don't distract from the focus on that
message that we become wrapped in some other messages that jim is saying or we focus on the messenger rather than the important message. >> fair point. just by way of observation. if you don't think when president trump hearings jim comey say it might be possible that those things happened with him in russia, that's all he needs to hear to go full counterattack on on jim comey. we know that. no matter who it is. no matter what station the person, man or woman, occupies. you say something like that about donald trump, you have a fight on your hands. now, in terms of what his station will mean within this book, isn't he a little handcuffed? he can't expose what information he knew because it is classified, confidential, ongoing investigation, which i think makes it more damage to go lynch. when you don't know the basis of his observation, it fuels a lot of speculation, which i'm sure is happening as we speak. he can't really back up a lot of things here in terms on of what
he knows and what he thinks about it, right? >> right. i've lived that life. that is my own personal experience. i have to have what i write cleared by cia as well. this is to express what you need to express but live within the regime with which you have to live. let me second is what you just said. i think that was very unfair to the former attorney general to put that cloud up there and simply say but i can't talk about it. she can't even respond to that because there's no specificity with what it is is he's talking about. >> is it unfair for him to say that about the president saying that kind of salacious detail is possible when he doesn't have any proof that it happened? >> again, i think it subtracts from the importance of the core messages he's trying to communicate. and, chris, look, he doesn't have to convince you or me or perhaps many folks who are listening to us about the problems we think we have with the president. i think he needs to address that
30% to 40% of the country who believe the concerns are not warranted. when he mixes in this, i think he dilutes his message and undercuts his legitimacy as messenger. >> what do you think of the chances that it can move the needle in terms of changing how they think about the russia investigation or the trump presidency? >> i've not read the whole book. i have read excerpts. it will be a national rorschach test. people will believe the beliefs they brought to the inquiry in the first place. >> do i have a second? can i ask you something, general. paul ryan just said the president of the united states does not need to go to congress to bomb syria. that the existing aumf is enough. i don't understand that. it could be true i guess. but it could be not true. do you think going into syria with whatever the plan is requires consent, debate, and
authorization from congress? >> i don't think so. chris, keep in mind i'm a creature of the executive branch. i have an expansive view of executive authority. the president might be able to do it under his commander in chief authorities. >> in what general, please? >> he is the commander in chief. the constitution gives him great room to maneuver here. the threat is to u.s. forces in the theater. if these chemical weapons may not be used against them as well. look, i think there is gentle n legitimacy there. it is insane not to consult with congress. >> i appreciate your perspective on this, general. it matters that we have the right process in place with these kinds of decisions. everybody is making it sound like you can bomb in syria and go home and not worry about what happens next. you know better than anybody that's not true. >> chris, that's the big question. where is the big strategy? >> thank you, general.
be well. >> will the u.s. and the international community launch those air strikes as part of a big strategy against assad and syria after the suspected chemical attack? a live report from syria. what's happening on the ground there, next. stphaof so let's promote our spring travel deal on choicehotels.com like this. earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring. allergies. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
this is the story of green mountain coffee roasters dark magic told in the time it takes to brew your cup. first, we head to vermont. and go to our coffee shop. and meet dave. hey. why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good, he asks? let me show you. let's go. so we climb. hike. see a bear. woah. reach the top. dave says dark magic is a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own. but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters packed with goodness.
. so what is the united states going to do in terms of responding to this suspected attack in syria? there's confusion. why? the president tweeted to russia, here come the bombs. they're coming. then he says,ing well, i didn't mean they're coming right now. they're coming soon. they may not come at all. now we understand the brains in the room trying to figure this out, they haven't come to a decision in terms of what to do. but some of president trump's international allies are preparing to join the u.s. in any military action. nick paton walsh is with us. you are in the best and worse places to be. we have seen some of the possiblie ismplications could b. a lot were surprised to hear you
report that u.s. forces on the ground and russian proxy forces on the ground have come under conflict already. >> absolutely. that is one of the major concerns about any potential escalation. the secretary is of defense mentioned. i'm none the wiser where we go in the next 24 # hours. what is clear is we have a complicated 24 hours ahead of us. on saturday, u.n. chemical weapons investigators start their work trying to find out what was used in douma and damascus to kill 40 people. the u.s., uk, france saying increasingly they have proof they believe this may be a chemical agent. there is serious evidence that come weapons were used there. you could possibly carry it out
before you get on the ground. you you have a matter of hours. and you have you know security counsel discussing this 11:00 the window for action isght. quite clearly donald trump hasn't made his mind up or is certainly wavering. this has led many to be concerned about what exactly will be left to find in this supposed crime scene. they have just come forward that he believes possibly a foreign special service has been involved in staging this attack. we're into a minefield into terms of the blame game. how does the u.s. and allies match its stern decision about retaliation with a timetable it has right now. alisyn? >> nick, you have spelled out all the complications. thank you so much for your reporting. joining us to discuss this is
chris murphy, member of the senate foreign relations committee. thank you very much for being here. you were asking him in this interesting exchange and whether or not he believes that the president has unilateral authority to use the military force in syria. let me play this for our viewers. >> you said you believe that the president has the authority to strike syrian forces. what is the -- what statutory authorization do you have draw to come to this conclusion? >> senator, i believe that the president has that authority. he certainly has it under article 2 of the institution. >> war powers refers to an attack on the united states. there's been no attack on the united states from the syrian regime, correct? >> senator, that's correct. >> and no imminent threat on the united states from the syrian
regime. >> senator, i'm trying to be very careful. i believe that's correct. >> he agreed with your points. what did you take away from his answers? >> kraeurblly it says you need permission to take action overseas unless there is an attack in the united states or imminent attack. they admitted what we all know, there has been no attack against the united states and no threat of imminent attack. you need congressional authorization. president obama recognized that. he came to congress for congressional authorization prior to taking strikes. he didn't get it. he didn't take the strikes. my worry is if president trump continues to take military action without any authorization or debate in congress, there is potentially no limit to his unilateral military power overseas. why couldn't he take a massive strike against north korea preemptively setting off a wore on the korean peninsula without
congressional approval. there is a dangerous precedent that continues to be set if the president doesn't many to congress, notwithstanding the merits of a strike. >> did you feel the same way exactly a year ago when the president launched the tomahawk missiles at the syrian air base that got a lot of positive reaction because people felt that it somehow did forestall or delay anything that assad could do in terms of launching another chemical attack. >> i did oppose it. and in fact, i on oppose the proposed military strike that obama brought before congress during his administration. so i have been consistent in my belief that, a, i needs prior authorization from congress. and, b, there is no evidence that these military strikes are having a deterrent effect on assad. in fact, that strike last year did not prompt assad to decide not to use chemical weapons. he used them again. >> maybe it stalled him.
i understand that it's not a comprehensive strategy. but maybe it stopped it for some time period. >> i don't see any evidence of that. and there's also no evidence that it stopped any of his conventional military activity it suggests all they did was add chaos to the battle field and give him, iran, and russia even more reason to double down. listen, you have to think about what the other side is going to do when you launch strikes. you suggest maybe it prevents them from launching future strikes. but there is plenty of military analysis. it suggests that it leads to a process of escalation, which is in fact, i think what has happened in the last year. if that's the consequence of strikes taken out this weekend, that's not good for anybody, the united states or the people of syria. >> look, in terms of whether or not the president has the unilaterally thorlt, it seems to be open to interpretation. we just had general michael hayden on. he had been at the head of the
i think this gets congress out of the business of declaring war against the american public out of the business of having a debate on war if just because there are weapons next to u.s. troops that could be used against them, the president doesn't have to come to congress. i don't think that's what our founding fathers were imagining. >> do you believe mike pompeo will be the next secretary of state? >> alisyn, i think it's going to be a close vote. senator paul doesn't look like he will support him. i didn't see director pompeo winning over democratic votes is yesterday when he refused to condemn the president's attacks on robert mueller's
investigation, when he wouldn't answer these questions about the president's authorization to launch military strikes. stay tuned. i think it will be a very close vote. i haven't made up my mind. i wasn't given much confidence by what i heard yesterday. >> that's interesting. given that you seem inclined to disagree with his world view about syria, why are you considering voting for him? >> well, so i don't know that i'm considering voting for him. i would say i'm leaning against. but i will say this. i think mike pompeo understands the power of the state department. he has a reputation as a hawk. i actually do believe he is going to restore morale to that department. he may try to push out the boundaries of diplomatic power in some places. i'm going to think about his testimony. i think in some ways he is better than tillerson. in some ways he will give worse counsel to the president. >> senator murphy, we appreciate you giving us perspective.
we appreciate you being here. >> thanks a lot at&t begins hits defense in court. the first witness said the merger will be good for consumers. next. anyone can get you ready, holiday inn express gets you the readiest. because ready gives a pep talk. showtime! but the readiest gives a pep rally. i cleared my inbox! holiday inn express, be the readiest.
if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. at&t calling its first witness to the stand as it tries to argue against the justice department's case to stop the
acquisition of time warner of course the parent of cnn. live in washington with more. what do we expect? >> so, chris, the last two days have been pivotal in this case. what we had were two duelling economists, one from the government and one from at&t. these are expert economists from the top two universities both of whom have worked in the government. ironically, the administration's economist worked under obama and at&t's worked under bush. they came from two different sides. they said he created a model that showed at&t owning time warn her, cnn, hbo would cause consumer prices to go up and be anti competitive. at&t said that is not the case. he claimed that the government was using a model that was theoretical. he wasn't using real world data like long-term contracts or the fact that the industry is completely changing. the fact that we can get tv shows on netflix and things like that. and so these two days were so
pivotal because if the information being presented to the judge, the only person to decide this case, he has to take all of that information in and make his decision, along with all the other witnesses. these two are providing the real data here that the judge has to use. >> all right. thank you very much. and of course you don't have to put on a defense. but in a case like this so sophisticated, you will see a case from both sides. fired fbi director jim comey speaking out for the first time. could he be in legal jeopardy for talking about these sensitive subjects. that's next. termites. we're on the move. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. terminix. defenders of home. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.
ythen you turn 40 ande everything goes. tell me about it. you know, it's made me think, i'm closer to my retirement days than i am my college days. hm. i'm thinking... will i have enough? should i change something? well, you're asking the right questions. i just want to know, am i gonna be okay? i know people who specialize in "am i going to be okay." i like that. you may need glasses though. yeah. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade. you need our most gentle recipe. new oat delicacy by whole blends. a paraben-free, caring formula. blended with oat milk and rice cream extracts. gentle on scalp with intensive moisture for hair.
breaking news, fired fbi director jim comey speaking out for the first time in a new interview. the president talking to abc news about the most salacious details in the russia dossier. >> says he may want me to investigate it to prove that it didn't happen and then he says something that distracted me because he said if there's even a 1% chance my wife thinks that's true, that's terrible.
and i remember thinking, how could your wife think there's a 1% chance you were with prostitutes peeing on each other in moscow? i'm a flawed human being, but there's literally zero chance my wife would think that's true. so what kind of wife would think what kind of man there's only a 99% chance he wouldn't do that. when he started talking about i may order you to investigate that. i said, sir, that's up to you but you'd want to be careful about that because it might create a narrative we were investigating you personally. second, it's very difficult to prove something didn't happen. >> did you believe his denial? >> honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but i don't know if the president of the united states was with prostitutes peeing in moscow in 2013. it's possible but i don't know. >> now, for all of the potential light that could be generated by this book, that statement right there is going to generate a lot of heat and almost guarantees a
response from the president of the united states. let's discuss. cnn contributor larry noble served as general counsel of the campaign legal center and cnn legal analyst michael zelden. first of all, either of you disagree with me that that is the piece of sound that will trigger the president >> i think it probably is. >> larry, let me start with you, what do you think of jim comey saying something like that. former director of the fbi saying that kind of event is possible although he doesn't offer any proof why he thinks that? >> i haven't read the book yet but from the parts i have seen in the press, he seems to get into a number of subjective views of things. you know, it's interesting, i think people may like it. i'm not sure really what that proves. so, again, it's his cross light on what's going on, but from a legal standpoint, i'm not sure how much weight that carries. >> well, it's not about what it carries legally, it's about what it's going to mean to the
dialogue and how he's perceived. michael, your take? >> frankly, i didn't like that conversation at all. i don't know why it's relevant to anything. the only thing that struck me of interest to it was the question of whether or not the president asked him about the possibility of investigating that and comey saying back to him maybe you should think about that. that's the only thing. >> why? >> because the other stuff is just -- >> why did that interest you? >> why did it interest me? because we have conversations that follow that where the president is sort of demanding that other people push back against the media that there are stories out there that aren't true about him. i am not under investigation. this seems to be the beginning of that formulation of an idea that he's going to ask people to be pushing back in the media against stories that are derogatory about him. and that begins this narrative of did he engage in obstructive behavior going forward. >> larry, everybody will look at this book through the lens of
what they're interested in. what are you looking for? >> what i'm going to be looking for are the various legal aspects of it, of what president trump may have done that's illegal. what other people around him may have done. i think michael is right, what you see is the beginning of part of a scenario of him pushing back on any criticism and that is going to -- i think that is relevant to the questions of whether or not he knew that people were being paid off not to speak, whether there were nondisclosure agreements. he's obviously incredibly sensitive about any personal criticism or any personal information. in the stormy daniels' nondisclosure agreement, there's a sentence that i found fascinating which says that the parties agree that they have spent a lot of time and effort to hide the president's personal business and business from the public and from the media. and i think that's a narrative that goes throughout all of this. so here's something where there was a report. there was nothing to back the report at that time about what the president may have done in
moscow. and yet he is very focused on that. and i think as michael pointed out, that focus continues through everything he does and that's where the legal jeopardy may come in in the future so i'm looking at the book for those type of things. >> just to be clear, michael, if this book makes clear once and for all that the president is almost exclusively concerned with his own perception and his own personal politics, none of that is illegal, but it could shed a light in terms of why he was asking for other things to happen when that comes to paying people to be quiet or any type of ndas or any type of movemen of ne what would trigger a line o legal concern? >> well, it's motive a intent. what is it that he did, what is it that he asked other people to do, for what purpose, and were there any acts that were undertaken that constitute illegal campaign contributions, wire fraud, bank fraud, extortion, threats. it's all of that stuff. there isn't evidence that we can point to yet that says he did
anything along those lines or michael cohen did anything along those lines or the media organizations that work with michael cohen did anything along the lines, but as an investigator, it's that string that you begin to follow to see where it takes you. >> how can comey satisfy any of that in this book? wouldn't it be almost by definition part of an ongoing investigation that he's not supposed to talk about, larry? >> yeah, there is that problem. but some of the things that we're now concerned about, such as the nondisclosure agreement, such as the payments, potential payments to keep people quiet, are part of an investigation and comey may be able to give at least some color to that. again, may be able to give examples of things in this book that lead you to believe that it's more plausible than not that he was so concerned about how he looked, with the perception of him and these type of things that he was willing to go out there and ask people to be quiet and pay them to be quiet. he was willing to demand
nondisclosure agreements. i don't think comey will talk about those specifically, but again you're looking for things to give you an idea of whether this seems plausible. >> so chris, what you have in a sense is robert mueller and his team are being deathly silent. we don't know anything from them. there's no leaks coming out of that organization. jim comey -- >> slow leaks. not big leaks. >> i don't know there there are any coming out of mueller. but in any event, comey was the one who in march started this investigation. so when he speaks about it, we are getting in some sense the first insider's view. he was only there from march to may, but we're getting an insider's view of the state of mind of the president and the reaction of that state of mind by the investigator. so he's sort of tipping his hand at least about how he was hearing this evidence and how that might impact how he would carry out the investigation were he in charge. now mueller has that investigation and we'll see whether he feels the same way that comey does about those
subjective evaluations that larry has been talking about. >> reporting about the president's intentions to pardon scooter libby. larry, relevant? >> yes. you know, i think all of this is relevant to how he views the role of the president in terms of trying to let people go, how he views the loyalty of government officials. i think it may reflect that he thinks that scooter libby was loyal, was trying to defend his president, and, therefore, he should be let go. but i don't think it's relevant to anything -- any legal liability -- >> the timing? >> he has the right to do it. >> the timing, michael? >> again, it's probative of the president's state of mind. there's sort of like a ghost of christmas future here. scooter libby, remember, was convicted of perjury, false statements, obstruction of justice, in the leak of valerie plame's identity. so a leak investigation about a war that he campaigned he was against, and the defenders of
scooter libby say that scooter libby really was loyal to vice president cheney and took the fall for him. so you've got all of these things coming together, loyalty, lying, obstructing behavior. again, it's not legally probative of anything other than what does the president think about loyalty and obstruction and lying and what will that portend in the future with respect to pardons or other things. >> this is going to be underreported because of the comey book and what's going on with syria. people can look at that different ways. i'm bringing it up because it's quite the coinky dink. but there's no health concern for scooter libby, nothing has happened to him on the inside, nothing has changed in the status of his case. so to do this now seems curious. >> you know, look, you could say that it's a message to those around him that he is willing to pardon people, that he does
think that loyalty, no pun intended, trumps other things and that if you do get into trouble, yes, i have the ability and the power, and he does, to pardon you. but i fear sometimes i may be reading a little too much into it. but i think other things he's done reflects that. he thinks if he puts loyalty above almost anything else, i think quotes from the comey book reflect that, so this may just be part of that. i think you're right that it's not going to get a lot of publicity. again, it's perfectly legal for him to do it. >> right. >> but it may be a sign of how he looks at these things. >> michael, final word. gotta go. >> is his audience a person of one, paul manafort? >> gentlemen, thank you very much. there will be much more to discuss. we are following a lot of news. it's friday the 13th. did you know that? let's get after it. good morning. welcome to your new day. it is friday, april 13th, like i said, 8:00 in the east.
we begin with breaking news. fired fbi director jim comey speaking out for the first time. there's a new interview and comey is opening up about president trump, their first meeting in trump tower, his surprise. you know, the president-elect did not seem concerned about russia's election meddling except to the extent that it might jade perspective on him. comey also talks about the president's fixation with having the fbi disprove one of the most salacious details in the russia dossier. and in an eyebrow-raising moment, comey says he is not sure he believes the president's denials on the same. >> comey's new tell-all book slammed donald trump's presidential leadership. comey blasts president trump as unethical and untethered to the truth. he compares the president to a mafia boss who demands loyalty. comey's account is seen