Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Heat Flash Detected In Midair; No Evidence Of Missile Strike On Plane; Schiff On Risks Of U.S. Troops In Syria; Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff; Fighting Over Syria; The White House Race. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired November 03, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 8:00 p.m. in Cairo, 2:00 a.m. Wednesday in Beijing. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We start with the breaking news on the mysterious crash of a Russian passenger jet with 224 people on board. We're getting the first reports of evidence from the flight voice recorder. Investigators heard an uncharacteristic noise right before the plane was lost. We're going to get more on that in just a moment.

Also today, we're hearing about new information captured by a U.S. military satellite. It captured evidence of a mid-air heat flash from the plane. Let's bring in our Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr. What does this mean, Barbara? What are they -- the experts say this heat flash potentially means?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, this satellite flying over Sinai saw, essentially, a heat signature. What we're talking about is a hot spot that's very different than the natural heat in background environment. So, this is associated with the aircraft. It happened where the aircraft was flying. And it happened -- they saw this signature of heat flash in midair. So, it's not when the plane hit the ground. They saw the heat midair. This suggests that this catastrophic event certainly did occur while the plane was in flight.

So, item one, no indication of a missile launch. That data would be available. There's no data that shows a missile launch. This mid-air event, what could have caused it? There's really only two options out there. Either some catastrophic failure of the aircraft due to some mechanical issue, engine, fuel lines. We know there was a problem with the tail in the past. Did the plane simply fall apart? Maybe. This is what all of the data from the black box is, when they are recovered, when they are analyzed should begin to show.

But the other option, clearly, is that there was some sort of other type of catastrophic event in the passenger -- in the passenger compartment, in the cargo hold, somewhere not associated, perhaps, with an equipment failure due to lack of maintenance or something like that.

Let's be blunt. The U.S. government is looking at the prospect that potentially there was a bomb on this plane. Nothing is decided. Nothing is certain. There has been no conclusion. But it is fair to say that the U.S. government is looking through U.S. intelligence sources, the U.S. military All of this highly technical data, does any of it suggest that, perhaps, there was a bomb on board the plane? And if there was, the key question, of course, Wolf, is who did it? The U.S. will want to find that out very quickly -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. Thanks very much.

Let's get some more on this crash investigation. There are other new developments unfolding as we speak. Pete Goelz is joining us. He's our CNN Aviation Analyst, a former NTSB managing director. Also joining us, our Counterterrorism Analyst Phil Mudd, a former CIA counterterrorism official.

Peter, let's talk about this flight data recorder. The cockpit voice recorder first reports, as you know, about what was found on the recorders, talk about this uncharacteristic noise, non-standard emergencies. What does that say to you who -- as someone who has done a lot of these kinds of investigations?

PETER GOELZ, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, it could be as simple as there were sounds of the plane coming apart. And if that's the case, perhaps the sound of an explosion, perhaps the sound of something else. But there was -- there was not enough time to discuss it, not enough time to send out an emergency call.

My guess is it is a very short segment of noise. And if the investigators are skilled, they'll be able to trace in what direction that noise was coming from, and perhaps even identify whether it was a high order explosion or something less, like a tearing sound.

BLITZER: Evidence, Phil, from U.S. intelligence is pointing all of us away from a possibility of a surface to air missile or a shoulder- fired missile, for that matter. They're looking at something, some sort of blast inside the plane, as we've been reporting, mechanical problems, sabotage, a bomb. That's much more likely, right?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I think it is. The likelihood -- just within the past 24 hours, that this was a missile appears, to me, to be declining. The fact that a satellite saw a heat flash doesn't mean a missile was fired. To my -- in my judgment, that's probably just the airplane exploding in midair. These are satellites designed to pick up what we call thermal signatures, big incidents of heat.

[13:05:04] There's a lot of stuff that has to be going on now, Wolf, though, to figure out if there was something inside the plane. The first thing I'd be looking at is the flight manifest. The second I'd be looking at is whether there's any chatter on the ISIS wires. That is whether ISIS individuals are talking about it. It is odd to me if this were that the only claim is that of a relatively small group out of the Sinai.

And, finally, you've got to start looking at things like conversations with baggage handlers or the on-ground personnel where the plane left the ground. You want to know what they saw, what they said.

BLITZER: I've checked, you know, Phil, with the Israelis because they're right on the border. If we put a map up showing where this crash occurred, it's not that far from Israel. And they have a very good anti-missile system, as you know, that iron dome. They can -- the patriot air defense missiles. They can detect if there's a surface to air missile or a shoulder-fired missile. They haven't seen anything along those lines from Sinai.

So, it's looking increasingly like it certainly wasn't some sort of shoulder-fired or surface to air missile, something inside that plane.

Peter, the debris that was scattered over a wide area, they're going to be looking at all that debris to see if there's any residue there that could be telling.

GOELZ: Absolutely. I mean, the satellite images, it's not surprising that they have that. When TWA crashed off of Long Island in 1996, we had an image from a U.S. government satellite that picked it up.

But the wreckage that is most important in this investigation is the first wreckage off the plane. And that would be the wreckage that is some two or three miles from the main body of the plane. Stuff that comes off first will tell you where the accident or the incident began and what sort of incident it was. They can say whether it was a high order explosion or whether it was more fatigue related. Metallurgists can do that. But that's the critical wreckage, first off.

BLITZER: Phil, as you know, U.S. carriers, European carriers, Asian carriers, I think most of them are avoiding flying over Sinai right now. It's out of an abundance of caution if, in fact, it was some sort of incident over Sinai, a terror incident. I take it you agree that's smart right now, even though, potentially, it could cost more, in terms of fuel?

MUDD: I agree, that's smart, for a simple reason, Wolf. Look, there's a difference between what I can say after 30 years of experience in this and speculating on the fact that if there were no sensors that picked up a missile going up, if there's no one who saw a plume, that I think the likelihood that this was a missile or something exterior is near zero.

But there's -- the difference between what I speculate and what I know is significant. If I'm an aircraft carrier, if I'm somebody traveling over this area, my question isn't what a counterterrorism expert thinks, it's what they know. And we don't know what happened here yet. So, if I were them, I'd be doing the same thing. I'd be avoiding the area.

BLITZER: All right, guys, thanks very much. Phil Mudd, Peter Goelz, we're going to continue to --

MUDD: Thank you.

BLITZER: -- stay on top of this story. The head of the U.S. intelligence -- the National Intelligence Agency

says that he hasn't yet -- he's not yet ready to rule out terror in this particular explosion, this crash. California Congressman Adam Schiff is joining us now from Capitol Hill. He's the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us. What are you hearing about this crash?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, you know, I -- wolf, I was in the Sinai just a few months ago, and, obviously, we have seen a real escalation of the violence there. But the likelihood that I think this plane was shot down from the ground is probably remote. It's not impossible but given its altitude, it's probably remote.

I think it's more likely there was a problem on the aircraft, whether that was a structural problem with an aircraft that had problems in the past or whether that was a device planted, we don't know. And I think it'll still take some time to tell.

BLITZER: If it were, though, some sort of surface to air missile or a shoulder-fired missile, either the U.S. or the Israelis, who are really close nearby, not far from Sinai, they would be able to detect -- to detect that, right?

SCHIFF: You know, I think we would have a pretty good chance -- I'm not sure that it would be infallible, but we'd have a pretty good chance of seeing something like that happen or one of our allies would see something like that happening. But, again, I -- you know, I think that the likelihood that ISIS would have the kind of manpads (ph) necessary to reach an altitude like that I think is still improbable. But, at this point, I don't think our intelligence agencies are ready to rule anything out.

BLITZER: As you know, in recent years, Sinai has become really, really destructive, not just ISIS establishing a foothold there but other terror groups as well. So, when you say ISIS might not have the ability to launch this strike, other terror groups, whether Al Qaeda affiliate or Al Qaeda related, potentially, they can't be ruled out, could they?

SCHIFF: Well, that's certainly possible, Wolf. But I -- again, I think very improbable for any of these irradical isthmus (ph) groups in the region to be able to take down an aircraft at that kind of altitude.

[13:10:09] But you're absolutely right, it's become a real cesspool, in terms of militant activity and violence in the Sinai. You know, a lot of this is in the wake of the crackdown by the Egyptian government on the Muslim brotherhood which, I think, provided a lot of fuel for these terrorist organizations to really ramp up their operations.

So, increasingly, seeing a lot of problems there. We've had an active participation in the region, in the Sinai as a result of the peace accord with Egypt where we and others, European allies, to try to help monitor the peace along the border between Israel and Egypt. But now, given the violence, we've had to curtail a lot of the -- that participation.

BLITZER: All right, Congressman, don't go away. We have more to discuss. I want your take on what's going on in Syria right now with the U.S. beginning to deploy ground forces. At least about 50 U.S. special operations' forces in Syria right now. What's going on on that front, standby, the U.S. military involvement in that war.

Plus, on politics, President Obama mocks the Republicans presidential candidates for their complaints about the upcoming presidential debates. We'll have more details on what's going on on that front as well.

[13:11:25]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:27] BLITZER: There is some confusion coming out of Russia today on the government's stance on the Syrian president, Bashar al Assad. A foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow says keeping Assad in power wasn't necessarily a matter of principle for Russia, but quickly tried to clear that up -- that statement up, saying it's up to the Syrian people to decide Bashar al Assad's fate.

Let's bring in our -- the Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California, our guest this hour. He's the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

As you know there were talks last week, multilateral talks, with all sorts of countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, dealing with the future. Syria -- or Russia now calling for more talks next week in Moscow, bringing Syrian officials in there as well. Is there some sort of diplomatic end to this that you could see, congressman, that would remove Bashar al Assad from power despite the objections of Russia and Iran?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE CMTE.: Well, that's certainly the hope because I think as a practical matter, until Assad is gone, this civil war is going to churn on. There are just so many millions of Syrians who are never going to live under Bashar al Assad again. So I think his removal is necessary to end this and necessary to put an end to ISIS. I don't think Russia is ready yet. I don't think Iran is ready yet. But we're already a month into this Russian military intervention and we're not seeing a dramatic change on the battlefield yet. And I think the longer you see Russia and its resources being sucked in, and the same with Iran. The more they may start to look with favor on a transition away from Assad, but I don't think we're there yet.

BLITZER: We're hearing that U.S. and Russian aircraft successfully carried out what's being described as a communications test today to make sure that they avoid each other in these kinds of air strikes and accidentally don't knock off one of their respective aircraft. What can you tell us about this?

SCHIFF: Well, this is certainly in our interest and in the Russian's interest. We don't want to have a direct confrontation. It's already having this proxy confrontation in Syria. But to have an American plane shot down or a Russian one, or to have a plane hit by a cruise missile because we have no idea what the Russians are doing, that would set off potentially a very dangerous chain of events. So I think the communication is certainly an improvement from the beginning of the Russian military involvement where basically they gave us about an hour's notice and said, we're just going to do what we're going to do. We are still not prepared to completely de-conflict because we're not about to tell the Russians where the moderate opposition are because that turns out to be target number one for the Russian air force. But, nonetheless, I think the de-confliction is improving.

BLITZER: The president, as you know, last week authorized the deployment of fewer than 50 special operations forces on the ground in Syria. So does that really change this mission? Is it too little too late. What's your assessment?

SCHIFF: Well, my assessment is that the administration needs to do something because the battlefield now has been static for a long period of time. Certainly static in Iraq. And apart from the -- the small gains the Russians have made, pretty static in Syria as well. You know there's a -- I think a realistic question about how much 50 special operators can do even among the most capable operators in the world. They will certainly make the Kurdish forces and the air forces in the region more effective and to the degree they engage in more operations like we saw targeted against Abu Sayyaf to gain intelligence. It will also make the effort more effective. But it's unlikely, I think, in and of itself to move the needle very much. So we do have to keep an eye out to whether this is part of a continuing escalation. But I think the administration is responding both to the Russian assertiveness, as well as to the static nature of the battlefield.

BLITZER: And I just want to be precise. You agree -- you believe that the president should come to Congress and seek formal congressional authorization for this new phase in the war against ISIS?

SCHIFF: Well, absolutely. And I should say, not just for this new phase, but certainly the addition of these special operators makes it more imperative than ever because we're going to now have more pilots and more people in harm's way. But this is something Congress should have taken up over a year ago when this conflict began and our military participation began. I don't think it's supported by the two pre-existing authorizations to use force. The one against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and the other in the wake of 9/11. And I think the administration is on very tenuous legal ground in relying on that as the basis for this and the -- the war that's been going on for the last year.

[13:20:04] BLITZER: Congressman Adam Schiff, thanks for joining us.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is speaking out today about his campaigning, delivering a special message to his rivals. We'll have details when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: "Crippled America." That's the name of the latest book written by the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The book has been released today. To help promote it, Donald Trump held a news conference, which, of course, led to many questions about the state of the race for the White House. Trump had no shortage of answers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I predict that I'm going to win the Hispanic vote.

(INAUDIBLE)

TRUMP: I think I'm going to win the Hispanic vote. I predict -- yes, I think I'm going to get the nomination and I will win the White House. I think beating Hillary Clinton is going to be easy because her record is so bad.

[13:25:11] Do I think that it's time for some of the other Republicans in the race that are registering zero -- in a couple of cases they have zero with an arrow pointing left, which I assume is a mistake because that's less than zero. I assume that's not happening. Do I think it's time to have some of the other Republican candidates drop out? Yes. There are too many people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Donald Trump speaking his mind, launching new attacks on some of his rivals, as well as you just heard the Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Let's bring in our guests, Republican strategist Mercedes Schlapp and Angela Rye, she's a political strategist, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Ladies, thanks very much for joining us.

Mercedes, you heard him predict flatly, he will win the Hispanic vote. You've done a lot of outreach to the Hispanic community. What do you think?

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think it's going to be an uphill battle for Donald Trump. Unfavorables among Hispanics are over 70 percent. And I know he touts that Hispanics support -- Republican Hispanics support him in Nevada, but when you're looking at different states like Florida, Virginia, I mean these Hispanics are not necessarily aligned with Donald Trump. His immigration rhetoric has been very strong. And, again, I -- he will -- he's going to need to do a lot of what I would call nation building or community building to the Hispanic community to try to win that vote.

BLITZER: Well, there are two Republican Hispanic candidates, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

SCHLAPP: And I would say Governor Jeb Bush is a de facto Hispanic as well. So he --

BLITZER: Because his wife is Hispanic.

SCHLAPP: And he speaks the language, perfectly understands the Hispanic community. I mean he's done incredible outreach in Florida. So he's another one of these candidates that is able to reach out to that community.

BLITZER: I want to play a clip. This is Donald Trump speaking about the debates and sort of making fun of his Republican counter -- oh, excuse me, this is President Obama speaking about the debates, making fun of the Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Have you noticed that every one of these candidates say, you know, Obama's weak. He's, you know, people -- Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin -- he's going to straighten out. Just looking at him, I'm going to -- he's going to be -- and then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators. I mean, let me tell you, if you can't handle -- if you can't handle those guys, you know, then I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That's a pretty effective line he just had.

ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Fantastic.

BLITZER: He's making fun of the Republicans. You know, it's not as if he always wanted to do debates that were hosted by Republicans. He didn't want to do a debate with Fox News Channel when he was running for president of the United States back in 2007/2008. So he's got his own little history there as well.

RYE: Sure. And I think they have the opportunity to decline this debate before it happened. And the fact that they spent most of the time talking about the questions being unfair, I think some of them were a little tough, but they should be able to handle that because when you do go in to negotiate with other foreign leaders, it's not always going to be a fair debate -- debate criteria that you negotiate ahead of time.

SCHLAPP: But, Angela, it's very clear that "The Washington Post," "The Huffington Post," I mean on all sides of the media, they all basically said the same thing, the biggest losers in the debate were CNBC moderators with their very weak questions that were personal attacks --

RYE: I think the biggest loser in the debate was Reince, because he's got some cleaning up to do now.

SCHLAPP: Well --

RYE: Yes, on behalf of the party. Absolutely. And then the second biggest loser was the channel --

SCHLAPP: This is a business channel --

BLITZER: She's talking about Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

SCHLAPP: Right.

RYE: I'm sorry. The second was Jeb Bush.

BLITZER: But, you know, Reince Priebus, to his credit, he was trying to make sure that the Republicans didn't go through 23 debates like they did four years ago.

RYE: That's true. They (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: Which he thought hurt Mitt Romney when all was said and done.

SCHLAPP: Right. But when you think about CNBC, we think about it as a business channel.

RYE: Of course.

SCHLAPP: We thought we would have talked about the economy, trade, health care, which is one-sixth of our economy. None of those topics were touched on. And so I do believe when you look at the response, CNBC clearly was being criticized by the media on all sides.

RYE: But you can understand the president's point though.

SCHLAPP: And -- and to this (INAUDIBLE) -- no, but the -- but here's the deal. The Democrats have -- have basically blown off Fox News. And you know Bret Baier, you know Chris Wallace --

RYE: For good reason.

SCHLAPP: They gave a very -- I think a very fair debate for the Democrats.

BLITZER: Well, in that first Republican debate, they asked some very tough questions as well.

RYE: They -- they did.

BLITZER: Megyn Kelly -- Donald Trump didn't like those questions --

RYE: Sure.

BLITZER: That were asked of him in that first -- in that first debate.

Let's talk briefly about Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. This new Monmouth University poll in just out. She's now ahead in New Hampshire against Bernie Sanders. Back in September, she was behind 49/41 percent. Now she's ahead 48/45 percent. That's within the margin of error but she's -- she's doing a lot better in New Hampshire now than she did then. [13:30:11] And take a look among women.