Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Calls CIA's Russia Hacking Report Ridiculous; Discussing Trump's Cabinet Picks; Exxon Mobil CEO Top Contender; Tillerson's Ties to Russia; Clinton Camp Backs Electoral College Briefing. Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired December 12, 2016 - 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 Aleppo, Syria, 9:00 p.m. in Moscow. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

The transition and questions about Russia top the hour. President- elect Donald Trump using the word, ridiculous, as his opinion on CIA reports that Russia's hacking was intended to influence the U.S. presidential election.

He also tweeted this morning, and I'm quoting now, can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and we tried to play the Russia CIA card? It would be called conspiracy theory.

But a group of prominent senators from both sides of the aisle want to know much more. John McCain and Lindsey Graham on the Republican side. Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed for Democrats.

The lawmakers say the prospect of Russian interference should, quote, "alarm every American." The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, spoke about it this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: It defies belief that somehow Republicans in the Senate are reluctant to either review Russian tactics or ignore them.

So, last, let me say that I have the highest confidence in the intelligence community and especially the central intelligence agencies. The CIA is filled with selfless patriots, many of whom anonymously risk their lives for the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The House speaker, Paul Ryan, just tweeted, and I'm quoting him, "Our intelligence committee has been working diligently on cyber threats to the U.S. This important work will continue and has my support."

We'll have much more on all of this in just a moment.

The president-elect continues his victory tour, by the way, this week. They'll be in Wisconsin tomorrow, Hershey, Pennsylvania on Thursday, Orlando, Florida on Friday. He'll wrap up the tour in Mobile, Alabama on Saturday.

Also this week, we're expecting a choice for the biggest cabinet position that hasn't yet been filled. We're talking about the secretary of state. The name at the top of the list, at least right now, is Rex Tillerson. He's CEO of ExxonMobil. But the Trump team is emphasizing that the final decision has not yet been made.

Joining us now from the Trump Tower in New York City is Ryan Nobles. Ryan is watching all of this for us. So, what are you hearing from the Trump team about Tillerson? And do we have any idea when that announcement, secretary of state, will be made?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the expectation here at Trump Tower is that that nomination is going to be made sometime this week. We don't expect it to come today. But on a transition conference call today with reporters, officials said that they do expect it sometime in the next couple of days.

And all signs are pointing towards ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, as that pick. That pick won't come without some controversy. Some leading Republicans concerned about Tillerson's ties to Russia in his role as that ExxonMobil CEO. And among them, Marco Rubio and John McCain.

So, that could be a tough confirmation battle, if that's who Trump ends up going with. And as I said, we should find that out here in the next couple of days.

We are learning more, though, about how this transition is shaping up, in terms of some key appointments. And one of the positions we're watching closely is the high-profile position of press secretary.

And Kellyanne Conway who was, of course, the campaign manager of the Trump campaign, she told Hugh Hewitt today in a radio interview that she's politely declined that role as press secretary.

Conway, of course, someone who has the ear of President-elect Trump. She's, obviously, one of his most high-profile surrogates. But it looks, Wolf, as though she won't be in that role as press secretary, once Trump is inaugurated here in the next couple weeks -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Ryan, who else is the president-elect meeting with today?

NOBLES: Well, it's a busy day here at Trump Tower for sure. We've already seen Carly Fiorina come through who was, of course, a former presidential candidate. Someone who battled with Donald Trump during the campaign. She was here.

Also expected today, West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, who is, of course, a Democrat. He was once thought of as someone Trump might tap for a cabinet post. He said this week that he's not interested in a job with the Trump team.

Also, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. She is a very powerful Republican congresswoman from Washington. She is a potential interior secretary.

Also Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas. He, potentially. could be tapped as the next energy secretary. And of course, Wolf, you remember when -- during his short-lived run for president he suggested abolishing the energy committee.

So, a very interesting group of people here at Trump Tower today to meet with the president-elect.

BLITZER: We'll watch it every step of the way. Ryan, thank you.

The president-elect and his transition team are taking aim at the CIA. They're disputing intelligence reports on Russian hacking and the role Russia wanted to play in the U.S. election.

Let's bring in our Justice Correspondent Evan Perez. Evan, both the CIA and the FBI, they have now weighed in on this, not publicly, not officially but through background conversations with reporters like you.

What's the main difference you're hearing between the conclusion of the FBI versus the conclusion of the CIA?

[13:05:02] EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this is a difference of nuance, really. I think one of the things that's happening is that the CIA took a look at what it -- what it had, including some new information from some of his sources.

And it briefed lawmakers in the last couple of weeks and said, essentially, that it was leaning in the direction that what Russia was trying to do was trying to help get Donald Trump elected as president.

Now, the FBI's not really ready to go that far. They are still looking at a variety of different motivations that they view might have prompted the Russian intelligence agencies to do this.

I think part of the issue for the FBI is that they are looking at it not as -- not just as intelligence but also, potentially, to try to bring a prosecutable case against whoever might have carried this out, Wolf. And that's one of the things -- one of the differences that you see between what the CIA does and what the FBI.

I think we should note, however, Wolf, that they are in agreement on this one fact which is that they know, they believe that there is enough evidence that the Russians did carry out these hacks of the DNC and tried to embarrass Democrats by releasing those e-mails through WikiLeaks.

BLITZER: What are you hearing, Evan, because you've been doing a lot of reporting on this -- on these reports that Russians also got into, let's say the Republican National Committee's computers, their system or at least elements close to the RNC? What are you hearing about that?

PEREZ: It's been a persistent story, Wolf. We've been following this for months, as you pointed out. This weekend "The New York Times" reported that they did -- that the Russians did manage to get into the RNC. Our information, from talking to FBI sources and other officials who have been briefed on this, is that they did not directly breach the RNC. And the RNC disputes "The New York Times" report, by the way.

What we -- what we have learned is that the FBI did find that there was a third-party entity, some type of organization, that is affiliated or related to Republicans and that had some access to RNC data. That entity was broken into, was hacked as well as some pundits and some other conservative organizations. And I think that might be why there's some confusion about this.

Again, we've been following this several months. And so far, the FBI has not found that there was a direct breach of the RNC -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, the issue came up when I interviewed Mike McCall, the Chairman of the House --

PEREZ: Absolutely.

BLITZER: -- Homeland Security Committee back in September. And on the program, he initially said that he had information that the Republican National Committee systems were, in fact, hacked by the Russians, just like the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, was hacked.

But after the program, he issued a statement saying, I misspoke by asserting that the RNC was hacked. What I had intended to say was that in addition to the DNC hack, Republican political operatives have also been hacked.

So, he stepped back from the assertion there because the Republican, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, they are flatly denying there --

PEREZ: They're flatly denied, correct.

BLITZER: -- systems were hacked.

And so, those denials, based on everything you're hearing, are accurate -- technically accurate. Is that right?

PEREZ: Technically accurate. That is right, Wolf. That is right that they did not directly breach the RNC.

Now, obviously, we haven't seen any substantial revelations from the RNC. And you would think, at this point, that maybe we would have seen something. There was some embarrassing information out there to be put out. That's what the Russians seem to be trying to do is to disrupt the Democratic system in this country.

BLITZER: Because the argument is that they're only releasing information embarrassing to the Democrats. And, as a result of that, they're concluding they are trying to help Donald Trump as opposed to Hillary Clinton. That's the argument but it's all circumstantial. PEREZ: Absolutely, it's all circumstantial. And, look, I think you

and I can see what -- from what everything that has been said, certainly in Moscow, that they did favor Donald Trump. They would have preferred a Donald Trump presidency but they certainly didn't expect him to be elected.

And they certainly did not know, it appears, at least, according to the what the FBI found so far, that this hacking was going to be successful in swaying any votes. I think that's where the point of this agreement remains, at this point -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Evan, thanks very much. Evan Perez with good reporting for us.

Let's bring in our panel to discuss the Russian hacking of intelligence and more. We have "The Washington post" reporter, David Nakamura, our Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto and our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

You know, Gloria, Donald Trump says, flatly, the reports linking Russia to the hack, ridiculous. What does it say about Donald Trump right now that he's so dismissive, in effect, of the U.S. intelligence community?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I -- if I were a member of the U.S. intelligence community, I'd be worried about my relationship with the president going forward.

I mean, the White House today, just at the briefing, said that, you know, the president's experience, over the last eight years, is to have trust in the intelligence community. These people are patriots with specialized skills.

You have a president who is skeptical and dismissive of them. And this disagreement in nuance, as Evan puts it, between the FBI and the CIA only feeds into Donald Trump's dismissiveness of the -- of the intelligence that's coming at him.

[13:05:11] I think what we're in danger of doing, though, is conflating two different stories. One is about, there are some Democrats who want to say, OK, the election really was -- we should delegitimize the election because it wasn't fair because the Russians were hacking. That's not the issue here. Let's put that aside. That's the politics.

The issue here is the Russians trying to intervene in one way or another to wreak havoc on an American electoral process. That's the real issue. I think if you are going at this and you're trying to disqualify Donald Trump's election, stop it. That's not -- that's not going to happen.

BLITZER: That's a good point. The White House press secretary, Jim, just moments ago, spoke out about all of this issue. Let's listen to Josh Earnest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That all said, you didn't need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from malicious Russian cyber activity. The president-elect didn't call it into question. He called on Russia to hack his opponent. He called on Russia to hack Secretary Clinton. So, he certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on.

The last several weeks of the election, were focused on a discussion of e-mails that had been hacked and leaked by the Russians. These were e-mails from the DNC and John Podesta.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That's the argument that they're making is that the Russians were assert -- were aggressively trying to help Trump because all of the damaging e-mails were damaging to the Democrats.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Right. I mean, they're not the first to make that argument. Folks like Adam Schiff, who's with the intel community, he's briefed on this stuff. His words are, you'd have to be willfully blind not to think that the hack was intended to harm the Democrats because only the Democrats had this information revealed.

Now, that's a judgment to make. I mean, there are so many blurring of the lines here, for political purpose here. I think we have to break through it a bit. What no one is disputing, the intelligence community, the 16 agencies of the intelligence community and the FBI, is that Russia hacked the election. Right?

And that was that October statement a month before the election with confidence. They don't go out with public statements using the term, confidence, which is an intelligence term, unless they have the goods to back that up. Russia hacked the election.

What Donald Trump is doing now, he's not just attacking that the hacking was intended to help him. He's attacking the whole assessment. He's saying, I don't even believe that the Russians hacked the election.

With that, he's standing up against the entire U.S. intelligence community. Dismiss it, the work of the entire U.S. intelligence community. And other Republican -- you heard McConnell. You heard McConnell there.

DAVID NAKAMURA, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Yes. Who clearly, yes, don't trust Russia and don't trust Vladimir Putin.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

NAKAMURA: And, you know, this is -- they have -- it goes into this other issue about Donald Trump's relationship with Russia and what policies are going forward. That would -- you know, that'll mean if our policy's going forward with Vladimir Putin and Syria, Ukraine and around the world, Wolf. BLITZER: You know, David, because the statement that Jim was

referring to, this was the statement -- let me read it. This came out in early October, October 7th, I think. And it's a joint statement from the director of National Intelligence, General James Clapper and the secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.

I'll read a couple sentences. The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.

And then, they say, at the end of that first paragraph, we believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials --

SCIUTTO: Right.

BLITZER: -- could have authorized these activities.

David, that was released in early October. Trump says, we don't know who did the hacking. But here in this statement, the U.S. intelligence community says they are confident it is Russia.

NAKAMURA: Right, it's very clear what they're saying. As Jim was just pointing out, there seems to be no ambiguity of that point. And Trump is really impugning the entire -- you know, to bring up intelligence failures from 12 years ago around the Iraq War.

That's very demeaning and, you know, it's really kind of irrelevant, at this point, I think, because there's been a lot of reform since then. So, you know, I think he's trying to distract and impugn, sort of, the integrity of these agencies, at large, which really, you know, opens up other politicism of --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: And keep in mind, he's doing that. I didn't sit in on his intelligence briefing since he's been elected there before. I would be amazed if this was not part of his intelligence briefing. So, you have president-elect who has been shown the goods, in effect, on why the intelligence community believes this and, yet, is still it going public to impugn their integrity.

BORGER: But don't forget, he is also not taking a presidential daily brief every day.

[13:15:00] SCIUTTO: Well, there's one a week, every week.

BORGER: And so -- or as needed, right? And he's having Mike Pence do it. So, in a nut -- this is just another example of the distance he is placing between himself, in the Oval Office, with his very own intelligence community upon which we all defend -- I mean expect to keep us safe.

BLITZER: All right.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

BLITZER: Yes. Much more -- there's more information that's coming in as well. Don't go away.

Coming up, also some top Republicans are expressing deep reservations over Donald Trump's top pick for secretary of state. We'll discuss that as well.

And why is China, quote, "seriously concerned" over comments recently made by the president-elect?

That and much more when we continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Let's get back to our panel.

Gloria, the statement that John Podesta just released, John Podesta the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's campaign, saying the Electoral College should get a full briefing on these reports that Russia interfered in the U.S. election process with the supposed desire to help Donald Trump win. Before the Electoral College formerly wraps up what it's supposed to do by the end of the week, they want this intelligence to be made public.

BORGER: Well, there are some electors who have requested an intelligence briefing and today John Podesta weighed in and said that the Clinton campaign supports that. Again, as we were talking about before, so there were two things going on here. One is the impact that this hacking may have had on the election, and there -- these electors want to kind of hear about the intelligence community's assessment of the exact interference and whether it might have affected the outcome. Then there is the separate issue, which is, the CIA finding credible information that says, yes, the Russians tried to interfere, drawing no, you know, drawing no conclusions about how it affected the election one way or another.

[13:20:14] SCIUTTO: The thing is, it's actually three questions, right? Did Russia hack the election, right?

BORGER: Right.

SCIUTTO: Second, was there intention to swing the election to Trump?

BORGER: To Trump.

SCIUTTO: That's one in dispute.

BORGER: Right.

SCIUTTO: And then the third is, did it have an impact on the election, right?

BORGER: Right.

SCIUTTO: That part's the unknowable to some degree. But -- and then the middle part, I mean all -- this is the thing I think is part of the misunderstanding. Intelligence assessments are never 100 percent certain, right, on anything, you know? Looking back, does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? You know, you know -- all -- you know, is -- are the Americans going to invade at Normandy, right? I mean intelligence assessments are based on imperfect information and they -- they are issued with confidence or with less. Sometimes with this -- with dissenting viewpoints. They may not know. They have confidence based on the fingerprints that they found, et cetera, that Russia was behind the hacking. Is it -- can they know for sure what the intent of the hacking is? No.

BORGER: Is that why the FBI is more quiet about it?

SCIUTTO: Yes. Very much so, yes.

BLITZER: Let me read -- David, let me read to you the line from the John Podesta statement that will cause some buzz out there. "The bipartisan electors letter raises very grave issues involving our national security. Electors," from the Electoral College, "electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts, to have their questions addressed." He wants this intelligence released before they do the final vote to see who's going to get 270 Electoral College votes and guarantee the presidency.

DAVID NAKAMURA, "WASHINGTON POST" REPORTER: What's interesting is President Obama has ordered a full review of all of this from all of the intelligence agencies to be delivered before he leaves office in January. I don't know what -- you know, how quick a time frame these agencies think that is, but we don't really know all of the information yet and the White House has promised to make it public then.

This raises another question too, which is, President Obama's come under some criticism at the White House for not necessarily releasing as much as we might have known before the election and in a sense that he didn't want to be accused of tipping the scales when it looked like Hillary Clinton was, according to polls, headed for victory. He didn't want to sort of undermine her legitimacy by questioning where it was.

But now, you know, there is some doubt, and maybe even among the Hillary Clinton campaign, that he should have done more. They should have been more forthright, especially with Jim Comey, you know, doing more on -- about questions about her own e-mails right before the election.

BLITZER: And the speaker, Paul Ryan, issuing a statement just moments ago, basically agreeing with Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, among other things saying, "any foreign intervention in our elections is entirely unacceptable and any intervention by Russia is especially problematic because partisan purposes does have a grave disservice to those professionals and potentially jeopardizing our national security. As we work to protect our democracy from foreign influence, we should not cast doubt on the clear and decisive outcome of the election."

But he wants the chairman of the House Intelligence community -- BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: Committee, Congressman Nunez, to go ahead and launch a full- scale investigation.

BORGER: He does. He does. And as do leading Republicans in the -- in the Senate want that. And they -- and his last line was really important because he said, it shouldn't affect the outcome of the election, which Donald Trump won resoundingly.

SCIUTTO: Right. Right.

BORGER: But we have -- we have to investigate this because it's nefarious.

SCIUTTO: For the sake of democracy.

BORGER: For the sake of our democracy.

SCIUTTO: (INAUDIBLE) walking a fine line.

BLITZER: How much of a problem if Rex Tillerson becomes the nominee to become secretary of state, the chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil, how much of a problem would he have potentially getting confirmed? He needs 50 votes in the Senate.

SCIUTTO: Right.

BLITZER: If it's a tie, the vice president will be able to break that tie. He's a Republican. So he needs 50 votes.

SCIUTTO: Well --

BLITZER: The Republicans right now in the new Senate, they have 52-48 for the Democrats.

SCIUTTO: So you would, just in theory, need to turn a couple Republicans. And you saw some questioned raised. Marco Rubio tweeting over the weekend that being a friend of Putin, he didn't identify Tillerson, but Tillerson's been portrayed as that way, is not a qualification for secretary of state. So in the Rubio, the McCains, you might have enough votes there. But then again, he might -- I mean the reporting now is he has the backing of Condi Rice and Bob Gates. Maybe he answers those questions well in the confirmation hearings.

BLITZER: Do you think he'll have a problem?

NAKAMURA: Well, what's interesting going forward is whether, if you're picking a fight with intelligence agencies, you wonder, you know, how those agencies might fight back and what information they may have, you know, going forward about nominees or others. I'm not suggesting -- these are professionals who do their jobs. But, you know, it's -- when you're picking long-term, you know, conflict with these folks and make it public the way Donald Trump did, one wonders what leaks you might have coming forward and coming out (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: What I hear you saying, David, this could get really ugly.

NAKAMURA: (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: Yes. All right.

BORGER: It isn't already?

BLITZER: You don't necessarily want to --

SCIUTTO: (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: You don't necessarily want to pick a fight with the CIA --

NAKAMURA: No, I mean intelligence officials said yesterday that, you know, this is contrary to all that is sacred to national security professionals for Trump to be so dismissive of what they're saying.

BLITZER: All right, guys, thanks very much. Lots going on.

Also coming up, recent comments by the president-elect once again concerning the Chinese government. Why officials are asking him, quote, "to be rational and respectful, rather than impulsive."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:28:28] BLITZER: We're still waiting on Donald Trump to name his nominee for secretary of state. Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil is the leading candidate right now. The choice will say a great deal about the Trump foreign policy vision.

Let's bring in our panel from around the world. Matthew Chance is a CNN senior international correspondent. He's joining us live from Moscow. Matt Rivers is a CNN international correspondent. He's joining us live from Beijing. And Elise Labott is CNN's global affairs correspondent. She's here with me in Washington.

Matthew Chance, let's start with you. Where does this relationship between the U.S. and Russia go once Donald Trump is sworn in on January 20th as president of the United States? What is the -- what are you hearing from your sources in Moscow?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, that's a great question, because here in Russia, Donald Trump has been portrayed as the most pro-Russian president of the United States, or would be president of the United States, in living memory. And there's all sorts of expectations about how this is a pivotal moment in the relationship between Washington and Moscow, a relationship that's been so rocky over various issues, particularly over the past couple of years. And so there are expectations amongst the Russian public and amongst the Russian leadership as well that some kind of deal can be done, first of all, on Syria. The Obama administration talked to the Russians about doing a deal on Syria, about coordinating and attacking ISIS. The hope now is that Trump can actually seal that deal. There's hope, too, and this as a result of what Donald Trump said during his campaign, that some kind of agreement can be reached about Crimea, or at least that can be moved away from the center of the relationship between the United States and Russia. Of course, Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014 from the Ukraine.