Return to Transcripts main page
NEW DAY
President Trump Says He Will Review Case Of Soldier Charged With Murder; CNN Reality Check: Why Separating Families Was The Point All Along; CBS Board Denies Les Moonves $120 Million Severance; Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn To Be Sentenced. Aired 7:30- 8a ET
Aired December 18, 2018 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:31:25] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: The president says he will review the case of a Special Forces soldier charged with murder by the Army.
Last week, Army Major Matt Golsteyn was charged in a 2010 killing of a suspected Taliban bomb maker in Afghanistan. This was part of the battle in Helmand Province. Major Golsteyn is now accused of premeditated murder.
Joining me now, the father and mother of Major Golsteyn, Jerry and Nancy Golsteyn. Thank you both so much for being with us. I know this must be an incredibly difficult time for both of you.
JERRY GOLSTEYN, FATHER OF ARMY MAJOR MATT GOLSTEYN: Thank you.
BERMAN: So --
NANCY GOLSTEYN, MOTHER OF ARMY MAJOR MATT GOLSTEYN: Thank you. Thank you for having us.
BERMAN: So, Major Golsteyn -- your son, Matt, first admitted to this killing in 2011. The killing took place in 2010. In 2011, he admitted it to the CIA as part of a CIA job interview.
When did you both first learn of it?
N. GOLSTEYN: We both learned about it probably shortly after he'd been in Washington when the command called him in and told him that he was under investigation. He came right to us about it.
BERMAN: What was your reaction?
N. GOLSTEYN: Well, we had watched our son, from young, be a great leader and a great example to his men and to his family. And it was shocking to us that -- we were sure that he had done everything right. He told us very little about the details at the time. But we always remained confident and very frustrated that the Army was taking this action.
BERMAN: So, after 2011, when he talked to the CIA, there was an investigation. But then, the investigation seemed to subside.
Fast-forward to 2016 when your son does an interview with Fox News and Brett Baier and they have this interaction -- watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRETT BAIER, ANCHOR, FOX NEWS: "Did you kill the Taliban bomb maker?
MAJOR MATT GOLSTEYN, U.S. ARMY, ACCUSED WAR CRIMINAL: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So it was after your son admitted it on T.V. that he killed the bomb maker that the military began to investigate again and is now prosecuting.
Does your son regret doing that interview?
J. GOLSTEYN: Absolutely not. He has given the same information from day one. There has been no attempt on his part to say he did not do that.
In the boarding -- when he was boarded by the military, he had the same information that was out there. They had the CIA report and the conclusion was he followed protocol and he was found not guilty of any action -- any dishonorable action by that nature.
So nothing has really changed and that's what makes it kind of a surprise that we're going around this road again because the information has already been looked at and decided upon.
N. GOLSTEYN: Well, we -- you know, he went through a lot of things that are just now coming out. Having his Silver Star taken from him and being denied the Distinguished Service Cross. Being removed from Special Forces taking -- having his tab taken away with no due process.
Jerry and I sat through those six days of grueling Army board of inquiry. We watched men testify, weeping about his saving of lives -- not only American but Afghan lives.
We saw his military -- his Marine code -- chain of command -- not the Army chain of command, but the Marine chain of command defend him during the board.
[07:35:01] We watched NATO legal experts say he committed no war crime. And we also saw a CID lead detective exposed to being a liar, bringing lies to Matt's chain of command about evidence.
So this was a long process before the Fox interview.
BERMAN: And you've seen a lot more of the case than we have. Obviously, we knew about it from the reporting.
And one of the issues being raised -- and Matt Waltz (sic), who was just elected to Congress in Florida, who was a former Green Beret commander -- he asked the question was this bomb maker actually in custody when he was killed because there might be a legal distinction there. If he was in custody, then he would be protected by the Geneva Convention.
You're both nodding your head no. You don't believe he was in custody?
M. GOLSTEYN: No. He -- they had released him. He was no longer a detainee.
BERMAN: And then, Matt (sic) -- Michael Waltz, the congressman-elect, also notes in his mind one of the issues here is that our country is putting our servicemen and women in a possible situation because they don't necessarily know the distinction. We're capturing Taliban all the time and don't know where to put them.
What's your reaction to that?
J. GOLSTEYN: I think that's 100 percent correct. I think many of the situations that you are putting our soldiers in, you're giving them the authority to conduct a war.
War is not something that you can just sit down and figure out and do it overnight, and just make all these decisions. These are decisions that have to be made quickly to save the lives of their own soldiers, plus the Afghan people. It's my understanding that one of the main reasons we were over there is to protect the Afghan people, as well.
So, you know, to sit here and second guess everything these folks are doing when decisions have to be made immediately -- and that's what the Army has trained them to do over the years --
BERMAN: So there are obvious --
J. GOLSTEYN: -- to make these decisions in very stressful situations.
BERMAN: There are, obviously, international implications here.
A provincial council member in Afghanistan responding to all of this this week says, "For a strong country, there should be a strong code of law and order. If you break that code it means you have no faith in justice and then the people of Afghanistan will doubt you when you ask people to adhere to principles of justice and human rights."
N. GOLSTEYN: But, Matt broke no code. That was proven in the board of inquiry.
Everyone that has testified for him has said that he is honorable and has never committed any crime. And he was working within the rules of engagement when this incident occurred and the Afghans interviewed at the time all testified to that.
BERMAN: So, as you know -- well know, the president has now weighed in on this after watching, I think, a piece about this on T.V. He says he is reviewing the case now. There are some who have noted that the president making that public statement could create an unlawful command influence and gum up the works in this case.
What's your reaction to hearing from him?
J. GOLSTEYN: As far as I'm concerned, I don't know what the implications might be as far as the law is concerned. But he is the commander in chief. If he feels that action is not being taken in the proper way as he learns more about this situation, we are in favor of him doing whatever he feels is necessary. So we would encourage his involvement.
It's more than just math. There are a number of people, as you have mentioned, because of the rules of engagement during that time that have put people in precarious situations and some of them are paying the price who are in prison right now.
N. GOLSTEYN: And there's also an Article 37 that gives the president the lawful right to intervene in this kind of situation.
BERMAN: Jerry and Nancy Golsteyn, thank you very much for being with us, helping us understand this case more. We know this has to be a difficult time for you and your family. We do appreciate it.
J. GOLSTEYN: Thank you very much.
N. GOLSTEYN: We very much appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, John.
BERMAN: Alisyn --
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Well, the picture of her running away from tear gas with her children became an iconic image of the border crisis. So whatever became of this family? We have a big update, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:43:13] CAMEROTA: The TSA is dialing back its controversial 'Quiet Skies' program. The program is a passenger monitoring operation that tracks American travelers who are not on terror watch lists. Marshals will still follow and monitor persons of interest, but if a traveler does nothing notable on the flight, agents will no longer send in what's called an after-action report.
BERMAN: All right, an extremely close call caught on video. A toddler here -- you can see him there on the street -- wandering into the middle of a busy California road with a ball.
What's going to happen? Oh, just in the nick of time, rescued by former officer Darryl Pang who spotted the unsupervised child and ran out and got him before something awful happened there. He motioned for others to stop. Obviously, you see what happened.
An adult finally showed up to get the child after he was safe in Pang's arms.
CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh, my heart's pounding. Good for him. Thank goodness he was in the right place at the right time.
BERMAN: Just the bad news. I mean, kids don't know. Three-year-olds don't know. The ball goes in the road, they're going after it.
CAMEROTA: I remember -- I remember having to deal with that with twins.
BERMAN: Or 11-year-olds --
CAMEROTA: That's true.
BERMAN: -- run out to the road following the ball.
CAMEROTA: Well, thank goodness we're past that time.
But now, we have a big update for you because you'll remember this Honduran mother of five. She was seen in this photograph running from tear gas. This is the photo that went viral.
And here's the update. She was granted entry into the U.S. last night. The group "Families Belong Together" tells CNN the woman's five children were also allowed into the country late Monday night at a port of entry along the U.S-Mexico border. All six have filed the paperwork seeking asylum.
BERMAN: It's interesting.
CAMEROTA: Very interesting.
[07:45:00] BERMAN: And there is a process there.
CAMEROTA: Absolutely.
BERMAN: All right, but not every migrant at the southern border has been so lucky, particularly the youngest among them, including thousands intentionally separated from their families. Why were they separated in the first place?
Senior political analyst John Avlon has the reality check -- John.
JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, that's rights, guys.
Kids spending Christmas in federal custody. That's the reality for about 140 of the nearly 3,000 migrant kids separated from their families by the Trump administration. Now to put that in perspective, it's about seven kindergarten classes full of children.
Now, this family separation policy -- the toddlers held behind barbwire, sometimes even representing themselves in immigration court -- is not, surprisingly, wildly unpopular. So much so that President Trump has bemoaned the separations and also, not surprisingly, blamed it all on Democrats.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: OK, that's just not true. No law mandates the separation of children from their parents. And the Obama administration's policy was to detain migrant families together or release them.
So when Trump said that he hates the children being taken away it's a bit odd because his own administration officials keep calling for it. This was true from the earliest days of the administration. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLIZTER, CNN ANCHOR, "THE SITUATION ROOM WITH WOLF BLITZER": Are Department of Homeland Security personnel going to separate the children from their moms and dads?
JOHN KELLY, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, FORMER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I am considering exactly that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: Now, bear in mind this isn't because Trump likes breaking tiny little hearts, but because they see painful separations as a powerful deterrent.
Here's former attorney general Jeff Sessions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF SESSIONS, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: If you are smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you and that child will be separated from you. If you don't want your child to be separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: And even President Trump eventually admitted that it's, essentially, a deterrent policy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have people trying to come in like never before. If they feel there will be separation they don't come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: So, that's intentional.
And then this past Sunday, after the death of a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl, Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller saw the tragedy as something else.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: One of the great tragedies that is going on in our country today is the loopholes in our immigration laws and the deficiencies in our immigration laws, and the left-wing activist judicial rulings that incentivize the most vulnerable populations to come to our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AVLON: Incentivize? It should be clear by now that family separations are a feature, not a bug, of the tragic outgrowth of a proudly zero tolerance immigration policy.
And if you don't believe me, take Donald Trump's word for it in this Sunday morning tweet. Quote, "If you don't separate, far more people will come." Trump translation, these kids are acceptable collateral damage.
Now, keep in mind the president occupies an office FDR once called primarily a place of moral leadership. And if he cared to stop the suffering, President Trump could implement a new policy -- or better yet, lead Congress in passing comprehensive immigration reform.
And here's the kicker. Whatever you think of Trump's border strategies they evidentially aren't working well. Apprehensions at the southern border are a good indicator of how many people trying to get into this country illegally have ballooned under Trump -- 70 percent higher this November than the previous year.
And that's your reality check.
BERMAN: You know, John, it's such an interesting history reminder there because the separations -- many people look at that and say it's offensive in and of itself.
But you'll remember that it was the denial by the Trump administration that they had chosen to do so that so inflamed the passions when it was so clear, when we heard from Jeff Sessions and in retrospect we see the documents and others, that was exactly the intention all along. Just own it.
AVLON: One hundred percent, but they knew it was unpopular. They knew it was indefensible on some level. And then occasionally, it would slip and the real purpose came through. It's always intentionally been a separation policy.
CAMEROTA: John Avlon, thank you very much for laying all of that out for us.
All right, so it's a $120 million decision. Former CBS head Les Moonves fired with cause. We have the details that cost him all of that cash, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [07:53:05] CAMEROTA: Ousted CBS chief Les Moonves --
BERMAN: You're snacking. You didn't finish in time -- you didn't finish in time. The break was four minutes long and you couldn't finish your snack in time.
CAMEROTA: And it's peanut butter.
BERMAN: You couldn't finish in time.
CAMEROTA: But how bad is it to eat peanut butter --
BERMAN: You did not finish.
CAMEROTA: -- on television? That should be a rule somewhere. They didn't teach me that --
BERMAN: You missed it. I've never seen you miss the deadline before.
CAMEROTA: -- in college.
BERMAN: All right, take a sip. I'll read your intro.
CAMEROTA: Thank you.
BERMAN: All right. What does it say?
CAMEROTA: Ousted CBS chief.
BERMAN: Ousted CBS chief Les Moonves will not receive his $120 million severance payment. The decision comes in response to a pair of "New Yorker" articles early this year where at least 12 women accused Moonves of sexual misconduct or harassment.
CAMEROTA: OK, I'm ready. Let's discuss. Thank you very much. You're a good partner.
Let's discuss with CNN chief media correspondent Brian Stelter and CNN media analyst Bill Carter. Great to have both of you here.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT, CNN ANCHOR, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Thanks.
CAMEROTA: So, not a surprise, I don't think, Brian, that he -- I mean, how could they have paid him his $120 million severance?
By the way, it's hard to feel sorry for Les Moonves. He made $650 million so I'm not sure that just depriving him of his $120 million severance -- it's probably cold comfort for the women who say that he victimized them and ruined their careers.
STELTER: In fact, Gloria Allred, who represents several of the accusers, says let's have a conversation instead about compensating the victims. Enough with paying these executives tens of millions of dollars. Look, I think CEO salaries are out of whack more generally, but with Moonves, he was owed -- according to his contract -- $140 million if they had kicked him out for no good reason. If they had just decided we're going to replace you tomorrow with no good release. But obviously, the board had many good reasons to fire him and that's why they concluded they have all the reason in the world to deny him the money.
The question now is whether he's going to sue or go to arbitration or do something stupid to try to get the money. I think if he's smart, any P.R. person would tell him just stay away.
BILL CARTER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: How could he possibly now decide to go and be more exposed -- no pun intended -- publicly if he goes and takes this to some sort of legal dispute? I think his reputation is already severely ruined. Why would you want to pursue this? I think any sane lawyer is going to tell him not to do this.
[07:55:11] Even though -- I know Leslie -- I've known him for 25 years -- a tough guy. And if any guy would say I'm going to fight this, it's him.
But, you know, maybe he should listen to the people like his wife, who would probably not want this exposed either.
BERMAN: And I've got to say, I -- when this news broke, I was -- my first reaction was really? He might still get paid? It was never an issue because the words "for cause" I don't think have ever been so loaded.
CARTER: Exactly, and the -- and the board was already under intense scrutiny because they showed no oversight over this guy all this time. You know, they have an obligation to make sure the company's being run correctly.
And look at all the other things that have happened at CBS in the interim. I mean, you know, they were really facing serious questions about their own oversight.
STELTER: But I do think it's revealing that at the end of the day, why did the CBS board decide that they weren't going to pay him this amount of money -- it was actually more the cover-up --
CARTER: Yes.
STELTER: -- than the alleged crimes. And I feel awkward saying that because what was alleged was really awful. He was alleged to have harassed and assaulted numerous women over the span of more than 20 years.
CARTER: And in the polling which really --
STELTER: But it was really the cover-up.
CAMEROTA: OK. There was some -- there were -- there were accusations of sex on demand -- CARTER: Oh, and --
CAMEROTA: -- and people had to come to his office.
CARTER: And, you know, there was an incident with a doctor at UCLA. It was just crazy behavior -- pathological behavior.
STELTER: But it was toward the end here when he was under scrutiny in "The New Yorker" when he allegedly tried to get a job for a woman at CBS in order to keep her quiet. It was that kind of cover-up behavior.
CARTER: Yes.
STELTER: According to "The New York Times," he was supposed to turn in his iPad. He turned in his son's iPad --
CARTER: Yes.
STELTER: -- in order to hide embarrassing and incriminating text messages.
It was that kind of behavior toward the end that, according to the CBS board, led them to have reason to fire him.
CARTER: Yes.
STELTER: So it's revealing that it was that kind of attempt to cover his tracks that may have ultimately denied --
CARTER: I think it's the safest thing for them is that gets them out of the question of whether he denies it. He's been denying that this was -- he says it's consensual. All these episodes were --
BERMAN: Yes.
CARTER: Although he didn't deny that they happened and they certainly fit the definition -- my definition of moral turpitude -- what he was doing.
So I -- but I think you're right. The cover-up gave them the clearance to just say that's the end.
BERMAN: Let's just read the statement from the attorney for Les Moonves.
"The conclusions of the CBS board were foreordained and are without merit. Consistent with the pattern of leaks that have permeated this process, the press was informed of these baseless conclusions before Mr. Moonves, further damaging his name, reputation, career, and legacy. Mr. Moonves vehemently denies any non-consensual sexual relations and cooperated extensively and fully with investigators."
That last sentence at the end --
CARTER: Yes, it -- to me, he was admitting a lot of the behavior and just saying well, you know, the women went along with this, I think which is just amazing that you could play that.
CAMEROTA: And not their stories. I mean, obviously --
CARTER: And their stories --
CAMEROTA: -- they had very graphic stories of them not going along.
CARTER: Exactly, that they didn't go along. They forced to those behaviors.
STELTER: And that speaks to power. That speaks to power -- not just in Hollywood or the media world, but at the tops of big companies or big powerful places that there has been for way too long this feeling that men can get away with it and that the women aren't going to speak up about it.
CARTER: Yes.
STELTER: And finally, in 2018, that seems to be changing.
CARTER: Yes.
STELTER: But, you know, a lot of these accounts were from the 80s or in the 90s. It took a long time for these women to feel comfortable or able to come forward or believe that they would be taken seriously.
CARTER: Well, we think -- we have -- we have to give credit to the #MeToo movement. Women are coming forward.
This guy is the biggest figure I think to fall. I mean, this guy was a giant in the media industry.
STELTER: Well, the first Fortune 500 CEO --
CARTER: Yes.
STELTER: -- to lose a job as a result of this. Maybe not the least but definitely, the first, and that's revealing.
By the way, $20 million of his severance did go to charities -- nonprofits -- to combat sexual harassment. But that other $120 million -- again, does that support the victims in some way? We don't know what happens to that money.
BERMAN: Brian Stelter, Bill Carter, thanks so much for being with us.
CAMEROTA: Thank you, guys.
BERMAN: Michael Flynn will be sentenced just hours from now for lying to the FBI. The president came out with a new statement this morning for this man pleading guilty to a felony. He wished him luck.
NEW DAY continues, now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They took a general that they said didn't lie and they convinced him he did lie, and he made some kind of a deal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bottom line is clear. He pled guilty to lying to the FBI, period.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would be surprised if he got any jail time at all.
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They're a joke. What they did to Gen. Flynn should result in discipline.
JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, FBI: Republican members of this body have to have the courage to stand up and speak the truth.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: The Russian disinformation campaign is continuing to echo the Trump White House and its attack on Mueller.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're never going to have the democratic free and open process if we don't stop this now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.
CAMEROTA: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Tuesday, December 18th, 8:00 in the east.
Three hours from now, former national security adviser Michael Flynn will stand before a federal judge in Washington, D.C. and be sentenced for lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign's transition. President Trump just wished him good luck on Twitter.
These are curious times.
