tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN February 28, 2019 4:00am-5:01am PST
thanks for our international watching for your cnn talk is next. and for our u.s. viewers, we have more on the u.s./north korean summit. new day continues right now. >> we thought it wasn't a good thing to be signing anything. >> president trump and kim jong-un wrapd wrappped up their sum mout mitt without any agreement. >> i think he should get some credit to being willing to walk away here. >> he lied a lot. having a fake hearing like that in the middle of this very important summit is really a terrible thing. >> do you believe that the president committed a crime while in office? >> it appears that he did. >> how long did you work in the white house? >> i never worked in the white house. >> that's the point, isn't it, mr. cohen? >> this is new day with alisyn camerota and john berman. all right. good morning, everyone. we do have some breaking news. welcome to your new day. we begin with breaking news because a lot has happened overnight. if you're just waking up, president trump is now on his way back to the u.s. early and
empty handed. after nuclear talks with kim jong-un ended abruptly with no agreement. the president and secretary of state mike pompeo insist that real progress was made, but mr. trump says that talks broke down when north korea insisted that all sanctions be lifted. president trump says, quote, sometimes you just have to walk away rernd quo away, end quote, and he says that's what he did. >> president trump weighed in on michael cohen's testimony on capitol hill. the president called michael cohen a liar and he blasted democrats for holding the hearing at all while the president was meeting with the leader of north korea. in hours of that dramatic testimony, cohen described the president's role in the hush money payoffs to former adult porn actress stormy daniels. i want to begin with michelle who's live in vietnam with the details of how this fell apart overnight. michelle. >> reporter: hi, john. one day ago it seemed like to
have come out here and done all of this surely both sides were right at the point to walk away with something, right in the only question seemed what's it going to be? well now we know the surprise ending to this very trumpian cliff hanger is nothing. this is proof that president trump's insistence on this top-down approach to this extremely complicated decades-long problem is not going to necessarily work out the way he expects. they could not even agree on the very definition of denuclearization. couldn't even finish the summit and have lunch together. the president traveled 8,000 miles and comes away empty handed. a vietnam summit with kim jong-un quickly turned south leaving the president with no distraction from michael cohen's damaging testimony. >> they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety. and we couldn't do that.
it was a very productive two days, but sometimes you have to walk. >> i wish we could have gotten a little bit further, but i'm very -- i'm optimistic. >> reporter: there were good signs early. kim jong-un keeping denuclearization on the table. >> translator: if i'm not willing to do that i won't be here right now. >> reporter: but after many pleasantries on camera, talks in private did not lead to any break-through. a working lunch and signing ceremony that had been on the schedule never happened. an abrupt end to talks overnight with the white house saying no agreement was reached at this time. but the respective teams look forward to meeting in the future. the president did make one stunning headline letting kim off the hook for the death of american hostage otto warmbier. >> those prisons are rough. they're rough places. he tells me that he didn't know about it and i will take him at his word. >> reporter: the summit itself largely overshadowed by testimony back home. >> i know what mr. trump is.
he is a racist. he is a con man. and he is a cheat. >> reporter: explosive allegations by trump's long-time lawyer and fixer michael cohen. the president responding this morning slamming the democrats for holding the hearing while he was here at the summit. >> it was pretty shameful. he lied a lot, but it was very interesting because he didn't lie about one thing. he said no collusion with the russian hoax. >> reporter: cohen's testimony upstaged any kind of progress the self-described deal maker hoped to gain in his second summit with the north korean leader. the u.s. was hoping for more concrete steps from pyongyang towards a deal that's verifiable and enforceable. only time will tell now whether the future holds more of this. >> rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself. >> reporter: or this. >> i'd much rather do it right than do it fast. >> reporter: so, yes, trump did walk away from what could have been a bad deal and, no, he
didn't give up anything as many thought he did after the last summit when he canceled joint military exercises with south korea. but that's a very low bar for something positive to come out of this. but at least the president says that both sides will keep on talking and he says north korea has promised not to conduct anymore missile or nuclear tests. alisyn. >> okay, michelle, thank you very much for setting the table for us. no pun intended. joining us now from vietnam we have jim sciutto, name chief national security correspondent. and, jim, what i'm referring to is because the table was set for the luncheon and because reporters were waiting for the signing ceremony, clearly at least on the u.s. side something went wrong. i mean, the fact that they ended this abruptly. i'm just wondering if you can give us the backstory of how it unraveled. >> reporter: well, the president made clear that the deciding issue here was that north korea insisted on the lifting of all u.s. economic sanctions on north korea in exchange for giving up
just one nuclear facility of many there. and that was not good enough for the u.s. and, listen, we are nowent -- we've entered a spin zone here. the president said he walked away but it was a friendly walk away from the table. you have the south koreans, you'll probably hear from north korea soon, you have china, all saying, well, the talks were constructive, we look forward to the next opportunity. but the fact is the president flew across the planet to the other side of the world for a second time in less than a year to meet face-to-face with the north korean leader and left with no discernible agreement. and also, and this is important, no clear path as to how they bring the two sides closer together. because if north korea is sticking to a maximalist position, the lifting of all sanctions and the u.s. is still demanding the complete denuclearization of north korea, which north korea is not offering, the question then remains how do they get closer? bring those two positions
closer? and for the president who put a lot on the line here, put his, you know, touted his personal relationship as definitive, this is a second time he's walked away without that personal relationship bearing fruit in these important negotiations. and it's hard to see that as anything but a setback for this president have some and in terms of your question of how to bring these two closer, we may have the answer for you. this is just crossing now our reporting is that president donald trump has just asked south korean president moon jae-in to play a role in mediating dialogue between kim jong-un and him. this was during 25-minute phone call. so he's asked him to intervene. that's interesting. i mean, i think that's very interesting because obviously president trump who prides himself on having such a warm relationship with kim jong-un and being a deal maker is saying that he needs some help from south korea's president. >> it is. he is. but let's be frank here. south korea would have to be part of any agreement between the north and the u.s.
and it's been something of a question mark as to why south korea was not more involved. i mean, you had south korea releasing a statement after the collapse of these talks saying that they were perplexed. they clearly had not been kept abreast of things. and a similar results at the last summit in singapore when the president summarily suspended u.s./south korea military exercises apparently without consulting south korea. so now perhaps somewhat belatedly bringing south korea into a more central role here should have already been the case, you can argue. but, it also shows the president who might be acknowledging that he needs help. that the personal relationship, the art of the deal not enough to get the two sides close and to get to the u.s. to where it wants to be. >> jim, i just want to touch on what michelle ka sins decide reported and that is the otto warmbier episode where president trump was asked if he confronted kim jong-un. and he said he believes that kim jong-un didn't know anything
about what happened to otto warmbier where he was killed, obviously, or at least to a vegetative state in custody. and i'm just wondering if that's plausible. >> listen, an american kid, a 20 something was taken hostage by north korea, sent home brain dead where he soon after died. north korea is a serial abuser of human rights. it kills dissidents at home and abroad in numerous ways and for a u.s. president with the death of an american, a young american, to not hold the north korean leader accountable is remarkable. this is not the first time this president has done that. today he said takes kim's word, takes him at his word that he's not responsible. he said in hell sink i can that he takes vladimir putin's word that russia did not interfere in the election despite u.s. intelligence assessments, you know, the opposite of that. with the murder, the brutal
murder of jamal khashoggi, the journalist, the president again over the assessment of the u.s. intelligence commit community in secretary said he takes mbs's word. this is a pattern with this president. it's a disturbing pattern with this president that has received democratic and republican outrage and it was a remarkable moment today to watch. >> jim sciutto, thank you very much for all of the reporting from hanoi for us. >> thank you. all right. other big news this morning, the reverbrations from this claim, donald trump was involved with claims while being president of the united states. so if you missed the dramatic seven hours of testimony from michael cohen yesterday, first of all, shame on you. secondly, that was the major takeaway. cohen says the president was involved in crimes including while in office. also, cohen said there are investigations going on, we may not even know about. >> is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding donald trump that we haven't yet discussed
today? >> yes. and, again, those are part of the investigation that's currently being looked at by the southern district of new york. >> all right. joining us, nia-malika henderson, david gregory, ellie, a former prosecutor and jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, i don't want to losesilose sight of the big picture. >> he had corroboration, the check. we're going to have to decide as a country whether that matters or not. i mean, i doubt the polls will shift. but, you know, michael cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violation, a criminal campaign finance violation involving the payments to stormy daniels. and he said i did it entirely at the insurance stagatiinstigatio
donald trump, i kept him posted every step of the way and he paid me back. there is one of the 11 checks he said he got. one of the other checks was signed by alan weisselberg, the cfo of the organization and donald trump junior. there's plenty of ground to continue this investigation, notably by asking weisselberg and donald trump jr. about this whole affair. but, and of course what's so significant about this check is that it's dated august, 2017, when donald trump was president. that's now out there in the world and the country's going to have to decide whether it cares or not, whether he should be prosecuted or not, and i think that's a very big deal. >> david gregory, your big takeaway from the seven hours. >> i think that cohen played into the partisan divide about trump. i think his statement that was so compelling was also incredibly personal. he really seemed intent on hurting president trump.
you saw his own wounds in his life. and so he played into the partisanship. there were a lot of gratuitous attacks on the president that i think is a danger for democrats because i think it detracts from some the notable things he said about ongoing investigations. but i think there's no question that the earthquake-nature of this testimony, the president'stismer, tpresident's fixer, the guy who donald trump kept so close for a decade is turning on him in such dramatic fashion i think kicks up the impeachment machine dramatically on the left. and we have to see cohen as perhaps the opening public act of whatever the special conspirator going to d prosecutor is going to do. you don't have to take cohen's word for this. the corroboration of the check and other aspects of his testimony could be corroborated could be much fuller in time
with the special prosecutor. >> some. i think what's so interesting about what he did yesterday was raise the possibility and point to evidence of crimes that are outside the realm of robert mueller. they're part of the southern district of new york's investigation. they're part of the new york attorney general's investigation. now we learn there's an investigation from washington, d.c. as well. michael cohen opened the door to this world that will continue beyond next week or the week after when the mueller report comes out, including, including putting a lot of pressure i think on democrats in the house of representatives about what they will do. if we have the sound from elijah cummings about crimes being committed, i want to play that because i think this is important. >> do you believe that the president committed a crime while in office? >> based on what -- looking at the checks and listening to mr. cohen, it appears that he did. >> so, nia, the question is what are you going to do about it? >> i think that's a big
question. and it's certainly going to be asked by a lot of sort of grassroots progressive democrats what are the democrats in the house going to do? are they going to move forward with impeachment hearings? all that we've heard from nancy pelosi and the leadership has essentially let this process play out. they feel like at this point even if something comes up with the house it will be blocked by the senate because it's controlled by the gop. you saw yesterday a real wall, protect wall that the republicans were forming around this president not necessarily defending him but certainly tearing down cohen. so this idea of impeachment i think will be float aid round a floated around and it has been from a few democrats in congress and certainly a few of the new folks in congress. but the dwlad this is something th idea that this is something that will happen and happen quickly is unlikely. but yo you did see hem lay the groundwork for other places to
look. the sdny investigations that are going on, aoc tried to get at this idea of whether or not there was tax fraud, wether or not there was insurance fraud, whether or not donald trump was deflating his assets. and you had michael cohen being forthcoming about where congress should look going forward, listing names of people they should call up. at some point aoc asked about where is this treasure he trove of information that david pecker at some point had that donald trump and michael cohen were so worried about and does that still exist in you have heard him say that he wasn't sure so lots of further groundwork was laid and we'll see where democrats go on it. >> the stuff that came out in open court does sound like as nia was saying, tax fraud, bank fraud, the deutsche bank stuff, michael cohen is presenting bank statements that have not previously been seen. defrauding a charity, the trump foundation where michael cohen testified did this sketchy straw
donor thing where he built the charity of money to buy a portrait of the president. campaign finance violations. so is the president in more legal jeopardy today than was on tuesday? >> absolutely yes, alisyn. but one of the big takeaways for me from yesterday is how many new avenues have opened schnupp how many doo up? and there needs to be specific follow-up? i would becity to the the onary prosecutor of the day on representative ocasio-cortez because i thought she did a great job of asking strategic follow-up questions on the bank frooud fraud issue that you mentioned? who else was involved? what other documents? who else should we be speaking to? i have a whole listed of things that i would offer that up need to be followed up on. one other example, the testimony about the wikileaks conversation that cohen said he overheard. that's hugely important if it can be corroborated. i'd get that phone record. did roger stone make a phone call around the time that cohen
described in july, 2016? i talked to the secretary people identified as roana graff, she apparently was there and put the call through. there's a lot of follow-up that needs to be done and a lot of new doors have been opened. >> go ahead, jeremy. >> the one example which will give us a good signal of what the house of representatives is going to do or not to do, alan weisselberg. his name was mentioned over and over again as someone who knew about all of these shady financial transactions, the current cfo of the trump organization. what is the house of representatives, the oversight committee going to do? are they going to interview him? they going to subpoena him? are they going to give him immunity if he takes the fifth? that's a very specific question that will really give us a good signal of where this investigation is going or not going. >> david. >> well, i just want to put on the political hat here for a second, because all of this discussion about what could be weighty legal issues in terms of
where the investigation could go beyond mueller could also play to president trump's strength. i mean, you know, i said yesterday that michael cohen had serious credibility problems but he was utterly believable. but on some of these matters he doesn't actually give you much with regard to the russia investigation. so when the president stands up and says, well, there's nothing on russia collusion, this image of democrats going down these new avenues could also strengthen the president politically because they look like they're looking everywhere for possible misconduct by the president for some grounds for impeachment. i do think that all of the behavior on the part of republicans, which was established here, is just being about going after cohen and not defending trump. >> right. >> still had an audience, a very important audience out there for folks who think this is overkill. >> let's raise that question. why did any of the republicans on that committee make any effort at all to defend actions of president trump? we'll discuss that and much more
about this testimony next. >> thank you guys, much more coming up. i think you just said that. >> i think they're back. >> okay. liberty mutual accident forgiveness means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
♪ ♪ this simple banana peel represents a bold idea: a way to create energy from household trash. it not only saves about 80% in carbon emissions... it helps reduce landfill waste. that's why bp is partnering with a california company: fulcrum bioenergy. to turn garbage into jet fuel. because we can't let any good ideas go to waste. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing.
republican lawmakers did not seem to be buying what michael cohen was saying and they came up with their own motivation for why michael cohen might have turned against president trump. listen to this. >> how long did you work in the white house? >> i never worked in the white house. >> that's the point, isn't it, mr. cohen? >> no, sir. >> yes, it. >> no, it's not, sir. >> you wanted to work in the white house. >> no, sir. >> you didn't get brought to the dance. >> sir, i was extremely proud to be personal attorney to the president of the united states of america. i did not want to go to the white house. >> all right. we're back with nia-malika henderson, david gregory, ellie and jeffrey. knee are- nia, there's lots of talk about that he did want to go to the white house. that was just a strange sort of uncomfortable exchange to watch. why didn't michael cohen say, yes, i was very interested in that but that has nothing to do
with why i'm coming clean now? >> yeah, i mean, that was interesting. at some point he clearly did want to go to the white house, all the reporting shows that he was maybe lobbying for the chief of staff. but it also seems likely that at some point he realized that he could make much more money outside of the white house, right, if he's able to sell access. and in some ways it seems like that's exactly what he did, he was going to have a much, you know, beneficial financially beneficial life outside the white house. that seems to be maybe something that he realized. he did mention this idea that at some point he had a memo that he gave to the white house basically explaining why he should stay outside of the white house. i don't know if that actually exists. again, he was, you know, under a lot of pressure there to tell the truth so i emergency that there imagine that there is some sort of memo. but you did have the republicans saying he was a spurned exemployee and that was the motivation for this.
really the motivation was law enforcement coming down and raiding his offices and seizing documents and computers and all sorts of things. but that's certainly a republican talking point that he's like anti mccabe, jim comb all of the jim comey. >> and everyone is saying that he was a liar and has lied before, that was agreed to by everybody. what was so notable to me, jeffrey, was that i don't remember a single republican saying the president is not a liar. no one defended the president. the republicans didn't say, no, no, the president didn't do this, the president didn't commit campaign finance violations, he didn't break the law. >> well, the republicans obviously had a group strategy which was to trash michael cohen but not to defend any of the individual charges that he made. i mean, you did not hear one republican say, well of course the president didn't commit campaign finance violations,
obstruction of justice, bank fraud, insurance fraud. no one even addressed that. and it is just indicative of, you know, i always quote former speaker john boehner, there's no more republican party, there's only the trump party now that they -- they follow whatever trump's line is. and the line of the day was attack michael cohen but don't engage on the substance of any of these charges. that's what every single one of them did. >> but is it possible there's no defense to them? is that an admission that they have nothing to say on it? >> i don't think necessarily there is no defense. i think, you know, there is a defense on all of these charges. but, the line of the day was, we're just going to attack michael cohen and not engage on the charges because they are difficult to defend, though i think not impossible. >> but there was ironic yesterday that they spent all of this time, jim jordan with his jacket off the whole time,
attacking his credibility saying you couldn't believe him, that he was a liar, and yet michael cohen in numerous instances said some things that were very helpful to president trump. completely dismissing some of the stories out there whether he had taken a trip to prague to confer with the russian officials. questions about a tape with -- with allegations between the president and his wife on an elevator and on and on and on. there, w some there were some of these areas that were dismissed. and even on the idea that he had his suspicions about russia collusion, you know, it was pretty thin, a pretty weak case overhearing donald trump jr. saying something to his father that later on he thought could be that trump tower meeting with the lawyer to get dirt on hillary clinton. so in all of these ways they were knocking him down and yet he was doing some things that were helpful to the president's
case. >> ellie, there was one moment that i don't think has gotten enough attention, and i thought it was very sort of notable and it was in his closing -- in michael cohen's closing statement where he said what he fears for the country where he said what he -- why he's motivated to speak out and what he most fears. listen to this. >> yeah. >> given my experience working for mr. trump, i fear that if he loses the election in 2020 that there will never be a peaceful transition of power. >> i consider that a big headline. from what he knows about how donald trump likes power and likes winning, that he fears what would happen if donald trump were to lose in 2020. >> yeah, it's certainly alarming even the prospect of that. it's speculation, of course, but as you said, michael cohen knows donald trump very well. and i think it was so interesting further to david's point to see the members of the committee grappling with the question of what do we do with
the travelness uthfulness of th who's an admitted liar? what we saw playing out was something you see all the time playing out where trials with witnesses testify. typically what they say is the cooperate toy gave y cooperator gave you everything he knows whether it was good for the defendant or bad for the defendant, take it all, some's good, some's bad that's how reality works. and what defense lawyers say is here's who you do. if it was good for my guy then it's true. if it's bad for my guy reject it as a lie. i was happy to let that go to a jury and say use your common sense, which one makes more sense. >> thank you all very much to help us getly to a riveting hearing. there was also this heated conversation between congresswoman rashida tlaib and mark meadows. and so she -- i mean, it all got very emotional, to be honest. at some points there was some crying. so we're going to ask her about all of that next. i'm a little bit country.
and i'm a little bit rock 'n' roll. i'm a little bit of memphis and nashville. with a little bit of motown in my soul. i don't know if it's good or bad. but i know i love it so. with a little bit of country. and a little bit of rock 'n' roll. the all new chevy silverado. it's a little bit country, and it's a little bit rock 'n' roll. ♪ ways to lose stubborn belly fat: metal vibration therapy. ( ♪ ) (glass breaking) (gasp) not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment. (music blaring) for your chance to win a free treatment. uh, well, this will be the kitchen.
and we'd like to put a fire pit out there, there was also this heated why haven't you started building? well, tyler's off to college... and mom's getting older... and eventually we would like to retire. yeah, it's a lot. but td ameritrade can help you build a plan for today and tomorrow. great. can you help us pour the foundation too? i think you want a house near the lake, not in it. come with a goal. leave with a plan. td ameritrade. ♪
the healthcare provider-patient it's like nothing else. the trump-pence administration just issued a gag rule which would prohibit healthcare providers across the country from referring patients for abortion, a move the american medical association said would "dangerously interfere with the patient-physician relationship."
more questions. this time it will be behind closed doors. in his public testimony yesterday, cohen alleged that president trump committed various crimes while in office. >> based on what you know now, based on what we know now, is that individual one used his money, business and platform 10 to rich him self, his brand, and in the process directed you, mr. cohen, to commit multiple felonies and you covered it up, correct? >> that's correct. >> you called it protecting his brand, correct? >> and him as well. >> mr. cohen, with this, do you think the president of the united states is making decisions in the best interest of the american people? >> no, i don't. >> all right. joining us now is democratic congresswoman rashida tlaib. she was one of the lawmakers questioning michael cohen that you saw yesterday. thank you so much for being here. there were so many interesting exchanges yesterday.
you were in the center of some of them. but what did you learn yesterday from michael cohen's testimony? >> i think many of us learned that the criminal conduct and activity that we all know of president trump continued on into the oval office. i think at one point i was taken aback hearing about the continued payback of the bribery to ms. daniels. i think saying that it was delayed because it has to go through white house mailing process i think alone just the depth of how much of that criminal scheme that was started by mr. cohen with individual one and how that continued on to -- with him while he's in the oval office. >> we have a copy, of course, of that check that he brought as evidence, the $35,000 payment that happened on august 1st of 2017. was that the headline to you? was that the big block buster that there's actual evidence of this payment? >> no. just the fact that mr. cohen who worked for individual one for
the president of the united states for the last 10 years and who had already admitted all this criminal conduct is going to be sentenced, the fact that this was the personal lawyer for this sitting president, the fact that he was the so-called go fix it guy from threatening people from the way they, you know, were able to con the american people out of taxes that should be paid, how they devalued property, all of those schemes alone just tells you just the character of this current president. but for me, and i've been saying this from day one, impeaching this president of the united states needs to be about the fact that he hasn't divested in his domestic or foreign businesses. when he's sitting in the oval office he knows this is just a temporary gig and this is a gig that when it's up he wants to make sure that he's continuing to make profits. so he's running the tromp organization, him and his family members while in the white house putting us second. that is a dangerous precedent. it is against the u.s.
constitution emol umeant clause, it's something that i think sets a precedent if we don't push back against a future ceo want tock president of the united states and saying you cannot, you cannot take the oath of office for the most powerful position in the world without completely dividing yourself, divesting yourself from your personal, private businesses, it is really dangerous precedent. and that's why right now it's not about the character of this president but also his actions currently in office. >> and son congresswoman, you were also at the center of this rather prolonged emotional exchange between you and congressman mark meadows and chairman eli gentleman cummings after mark meadows had held up this woman who has worked for donald trump as what i believe you said was a prop. she didn't speak. and you felt that it was a racist act. so let me just play this moment. >> just to make a note, mr. chairman, just because someone has a person of color, a black person working for them does not
mean they aren't racist. and it is insensitive that some would even say it's -- the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee is alone racist in itself. donald trump is setting . >> mr. chairman i ask that her words be taken down. >> donald trump is setting the precedent. i reclaim my time. >> mr. chairman. >> donald trump is saying the precedent that the highest office. >> mr. chairman the rules are clear. >> cover up and hold on to business assets to break campaign finance laws and constitutional clauses. >> so how do you feel about off of this today? do you still today believe that congressman mark meadows engaged in a racist act? >> i believe in that moment as a person of color and not only myself too, i think three other of my colleagues had mentioned how insensitive that act was. i think all of us, i mean, even folks at home kind of gasped when that actually happened.
i think if we want to talk about race in this country, that was not the way do it. >> we are being told that lynn patton, the woman who was held up by mark meadows without speaking then has just spoken on a morning show. so let's both listen to that. >> racist. then being put up there as a quote unquote prop. >> she's speak out about it kand tell you from her instagram, yesterday she says -- let me see where i want to get into this. rather than those on the house oversight committee to placed for creed aens on the self-confessed perjurier, than a black woman who rose up the ranks of a real estate spoke before 2,500 people in and now oversees the hud company in the country, this is not a prop.
what do you want to say to her? >> it was no disrespect to her at all. i think she should be commented for her extreme leadership, for her work in the hud organization. the administration. but i think for many of us if we want to talk about race in this country, want to talk about some of the actions by this president as a muslim-american in this country, i know what he said about muslims. i have seen what he said about latinos and african-americans. but even if closed doors and what i think mr. cohen was trying to express to all of us, that was not the way i think my colleagues should have been able to debate that issue whether or not to even disagree with mr. cohen. i think there was a better waive doing th way of doing that. >> there were people at home that felt that that was tone deaf and insensitive of congressman mark meadows. you were not alone in that feeling and so why did you apps to him? >> i want folks to know this is probably the most diverse class. this is the largest incoming class since watergate. and we look differently and many
of us didn't run to be first of anything, but think we ran because we wanted congress to not only look differently, but also speak differently and feel differently. and for me, again, as a person in the member of that committee i did not feel that i should be silent about the fact that how that made me feel as an equal member to mr. meadows and many of my colleagues on other side of the aisle. at that moment it was important for me to speak truth to power. it was important for me to speak out against that action that i thought was very hurtful and very painful for many of us sitting in that committee room. >> so do you regret apologizing to congressman meadows. >> norrie apologized if i made him feel like a racist. i was at that moment as a person and a mother. thises is a teachable home. i eyesed that moment to say just fyi, that was not way do it and it was not all about kaug mr. meadows a racist. if i wanted to everybody knows i'm pretty direct i would have done that. but that was not my intention. it was my intention to educate,
to share. what i was feeling at that moment, just like when he was feeling at that moment of what his reaction was to the comments from mr. cohen, i'm really, you know, wanting to focus to discuss race in this country in a way that can be really thoughtful and constructive. not in a way that's very dramatic and, again, no disrespect to her, but just to having her stand there saying nothing and saying, look, he's not a racist. again, i was still taken aback and still to this day was like, that was not the way do it. >> i mean, look, i think this is a teachable moment and i think that we are all having these sensitive what used to be taboo conversations about race. >> right. >> and that's why i'm interested in whether or not you can separate a racist statement or a racist act from the person. and case in point, in 2012, you know, congressman mark meadows engaged in the birtherism talk where he doubted that president
obama was born here. let me just remind our viewers of what he said back then. >> well, it's good to be here with you today. i thank you so much for allowing me just a few minutes to talk with you and share a few things that, you know, it's interesting when the more we find out, the more we realize how wrong the direction we're going. what we're going to do is take back our country. 2012 is the time that we're going to send mr. obama home to kenya or wherever it is. we're going to do that. >> does seeing that change how you feel about him? >> look, i'm there because i think people of color have been
really missing in congress. there are so many incredible, incredible leadership -- john lewis, elijah cummings, barbara lee and so many people of color right now in congress that are using this opportunity of being in that space and teaching our colleagues. i think the right way of talking
about race in this country. and so just to go back, i think congress -- congressman meadows understood where i was coming from, he knew what my intention was at the end, and that's why he decided to take, you know, i think his objections back. and, again, somebody sitting in that room, i didn't feel like it was something to be silent about. i think i needed to express my frustration and also the hurt that i think a lot of us felt at the moment that that action of having her stand up like that in a committee hearing. >> but just to be clear, you still today feel that he is not racist? >> look, i feel like the act was. and that's up to the american people to decide whether or not he is. >>
congresswoman rashida tlaib, we appreciate you having this conversation with us on new day. thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. >> john. we have a lot of developments this morning. the north korea summit falling apart at the last minute, plus the followout from the michael cohen testimony. we'll be right back.
and have professional monitoring backing you up with xfinity home. demo in an xfinity store. call, or go online today. one of the notable things about yesterday's seven hours with michael cohen on capitol hill is chris christie pointed out, quote, there hasn't been one republican yet who tried to defend the president on the substance. i think that's something that should be concerning to the white house. cohen isn't a credible witness but he has corroboration on certain things. where is the defense of the president? rick santorum, cnn political commentator, thanks for being with us. why no defense of the president? >> that was a mistake. taking the approach of
villifying cohen was not the right approach. in fact, michael cohen said things that benefitted the president yesterday which the president even noted. when you villify him and say he has no credibility that undermines part of what was positive out of the hearing. i think there are a lot of things you could have gone after in particular, particularly the campaign finance side. that's an incredibly flimsy charge. >> it's not a charge. it was a crime. a convicted crime. >> i'm not talking about the crime he pled to. i'm saying what michael cohen attempted to implicate the president in something that, in my opinion, is not a crime, number one, and number two, the evidence he put forward, in my mind, again, if it's not a crime there is no evidence to support it. >> first of all, michael cohen pleaded guilty to a crime of making an illegal donation which was the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels. the southern district in their
charging documents saying he was directed to do so by the president of the united states. that is a crime. >> i just fundamentally disagree with that. >> with me or with the southern district? >> look, there's a crime on the books of not reporting a continue buying -- >> this isn't reporting. this is a $130,000 contribution, an illegal contribution. $130,000, snarenators is a lot e than $2700. >> the contribution isn't illegal. not reporting the contribution is illegal. >> no. >> donald trump can pay anybody he wants -- >> michael cohen made the donation which made it illegal. it wasn't from donald trump. it was from michael cohen. he was directed to make the donation according to michael cohen and the southern district. also illegal according to the charging documents was the way they tried to hide the donation which gets to this. >> but --
>> senator, let me ask. do you dispute this check was written in august of 2017? >> we don't know -- there is nothing on the check that says why it wasn't written. doesn't say i wrote this to pay michael cohen to pay stormy daniels. there's nothing in that check. >> you're absolutely right about that, although rudy giuliani did tell us, and i believe rudy giuliani as you do on almost all things, senator. rudy giuliani told us the president reimbursed michael cohen for the payments and isn't it fair to assume the copy of this check is a copy of the reimbursement? >> that's fine, but it makes the point that donald trump, quote, paying indirectly, but paying someone not to tell their story, number one, is not illegal under campaign finance law. what is illegal is -- what they are saying is illegal is not reporting it. the john edwards case says it is not illegal. >> that's not true.
you are just misstating the facts here. the edwards case didn't say it was not legal. edwards was charged for breaking campaign finance. it was different. he was acquitted on a charge. it was a hung jury on several others. one of the differences there is the payoffs began a lot before the campaign. in this case the payment was made immediately before the election. you have donald trump's voice on tape talking about the payments. it's different. >> the violation here, say whatever you want, but the violation here is making a payment -- donald trump making a payment or instructing someone to make a payment which he reimburses them to someone is not a violation of campaign law, if you report it. if you report that contribution it is not -- that's a permissible payment. here's the interesting thing. the payment took place a few days before the election. under campaign finance law it
would not have been required to have been reported until after the election. the idea that the payment was made to protect him from campaign only, well, all he had to do was admit it and report it after the election. no one would have known. >> we'll take it up again, i promise. the southern district of new york has a different version of the law than you do. >> prosecutors are aggressive inning looking at campaign finance -- >> it's not just prosecutors. >> most campaign finance laws, if you break them you get a fine. if that. so the idea that this is an impeachable offense is absurd. >> okay. what you are saying is you're okay with the president -- he didn't break enough of the law or the law isn't so big he should be impeached? >> i don't think the law is clear. the case brings it into question. it is a reporting requirement. >> senator, we'll take it up another time. it is not a reporting requirement. it was an illegal donation
because of the amount and who made it and the conspiracy to cover it up. i want to talk about north korea. i know you have been watching it closely. >> yeah. >> the president walked away with no deal. people were nervous he would accept a bad deal. >> me, yeah. >> he walked away with no deal. there's that. there was a moment in the news conference i need your take on. the president seemed to provide cover for kim jong-un when it came to the death of otto warmbier who was in prison and died. >> i believe something bad happened to him. i don't think the top leadership knew about it. he felt badly about it. he knew the case very well. but he knew it later. got a lot of people. big country. >> an american died because of the treatment he received in north korea and the president just provided cover for the
leader of the country. >> this is the conundrum of donald trump for many of us who like his policies and don't like a lot of things he does and says. what he did in hanoi was the right thing to do. he walked away from a bad deal. hopefully he saw it as a learning experience that the north koreans can't and shouldn't be trusted. not to criticize him for the summit, but the fact he walked away to me is a wonderful moment in his presidency. but this is rep rehensible what he just did. he gave cover, as you said, to a leader who knew very well what was going on with otto warmbier. i don't understand why the president does this. i am disappointed he did it, to say the least. >> thanks for being with us. we'll talk campaign finance over coffee some time. >> i look forward to it. m a tru, sometimes i'm gone for, like, three weeks at a time. even if i'm 3,000 miles away, i'm connected with my boys. just pull on over, see my son's game,
and i'm having a ball. (vo) there when it matters. get $300 off our best phones. only on verizon. jerry♪eastbound and down.ound loaded up and truckin'♪ ♪we gonna do what they say can't be done♪ ♪we've got a long way to go ♪and a short time to get there.♪ ♪i'm eastbound, just watch ole bandit run♪ whatever party you've got going in the back, we've got the business up front. means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance.
>> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >> welcome to your "new day." we begin with breaking news. president trump is on a plane on his way back from his second summit with north korean leader kim jong-un and he's coming back with nothing. the meeting was cancelled midway through. he walked away, cutting the meeting short. president trump said talks fell through after the north said the united states should lift all sanctions. he said he and kim jong-un don't see eye to eye on what denuclearization entails. >> he has a certain vision. it is not exactly our vision, but it's closer than it was a year ago. eventually i think we'll