Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

The Case for and Against Neil Gorsuch; Dems Call for Recusal of Nunes; Interview with Sen. Jeff Merkley. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 29, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

The White House says the congressional investigation into Russia should go forward and that the lawmaker leading and the House investigation should stay at the helm. The White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, just wrapped up today's White House press briefing.

He said he sees no reason for the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Devin Nunes, to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Spicer said he has no new details on Nunes' visit to the White House last week to view surveillance information and who granted him access to the White House.

And he says the president is willing to engage with lawmakers on a new health care reform bill.

First, to the Russia investigation. The House Intelligence chairman, Nunes, rejecting calls from Democrats and now at least some Republicans to at least recusee himself from the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Among the unanswered questions, who exactly cleared Nunes to go on to White House grounds so that he could meet with a source and view secret intelligence reports? That's something the White House was asked about once again today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Monday, you said to us, from the podium, you would look into how Chairman Nunes was cleared here and with whom he met. Can you give us -- and we tried to ask you that yesterday but you walked out.

Do you have any information to live up to the commitment you made here on Monday to provide more details about how that happened in a process you just told us yet again is above board and totally appropriate?

SEAN SPICER, U.S. WHITE HOUSE SECRETARY: I don't have anything for you on that at this time. But, again, I don't --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you looked into it?

SPICER: I have asked preliminary questions. I have not gotten answers yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I'm just asking you about something you told us.

SPICER: No, I said I would look into it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And if you would look into it.

SPICER: I will. I will look into it and whether or not --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And will you live up to that obligation?

SPICER: You know what? I will -- but the obligation is I said I would look into it and I would continue to do that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: For now, the House investigation remains at a standstill. But it's a much different story on the Senate side where the Intelligence Committee is planning its first open hearing on Russia tomorrow.

Let's bring in Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta and our Senior Congressional Reporter Manu Raju from Capitol Hill. Jim, you just left the briefing room over there. Sean Spicer faced some tough questions, once again, about the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Devin Nunes.

Update our viewers on the very latest we're getting.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, as you heard during the briefing with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, he was asked a number of times in a number of ways as to who the source is for that information that the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Devin Nunes, met with last week before he dropped that bombshell that at least the White House felt supported the president's claim that he was wiretapped by former President Obama.

I asked Sean Spicer point blank, do you know who that source is? And he said no, he does not. He was asked earlier this week, could you, you know, please get to the bottom of this information. Who cleared the chairman into the White House grounds and then who gave him access or helped him get access to that information?

The White House press secretary said that he's still trying to obtain that information but did not have it for us today, Wolf. And I think that that was perhaps the only development there on that front. No news on Nunes.

But, at the same time, we should point out, there are many other questions that came up, particularly this puzzling comment that the president made last night about health care reform and how he thinks it would be easy to get a deal. Such an easy one, he said, roughly to some of these lawmakers, some senators who were over here at the White House last night for a reception, featuring the president and the first lady.

And then, he also said that U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq like never before. And I asked the White House press secretary about both of those comments and whether or not they were really in touch with reality.

Sean Spicer said, well, on health care, he was just joking when he said that it would be such an easy one. He was sort of poking fun at, I suppose, the fact that they were not able to turn this into such an easy one, in terms of getting health care passed.

Here's a bit of how that played out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: If you couple that comment with the comment on health care, it being an easy one to get that done, it just -- it sounds like he's -- you probably have heard this and come across this notion he's just detached from reality in making those comments.

SPICER: First of all, I think that -- again, I would respectfully ask that you review the tape. He was having a light-hearted moment. It's on tape. Everybody watched it. He was poking fun and making a joke. There has been comments in it before about how he didn't get it and he was joking about how easy it was. OK? It was a light-hearted moment. It was on tape. I think everybody -- and the idea that there is this -- like trying to make it look like, you know, he's being -- was being utterly serious at the time is a little bit of a stretch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And on the -- on the Iraq comment, Wolf. As we know, U.S. troops are in Iraq in an advise and assist role. They may come across combat situations from time to time. But the Iraqis are in the lead in that fight, particularly in the battle to retake Mosul with, of course, the assistance of U.S. air power.

[13:05:15] When I pressed Sean Spicer on that, Spicer said that the president was referring to progress being made in Iraq in Mosul and in the fight against ISIS overall.

But, of course, when you say that U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq like never before, that, of course, completely disregards what was going on during the Bush administration and part of the Obama administration, when U.S. soldiers were fighting and dying by going house to house and trying to beat back not only Al Qaeda in Iraq but then later on ISIS in Iraq -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jim, stand by. I want to go to Manu up on the Hill.

Manu, we're expecting to hear from the two leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the next hour. What do we expect to hear from them? Clearly, there is much greater bipartisan cooperation in the Senate Intelligence Committee than there is in the House Intelligence Committee.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yes, it's literally an effort, Wolf, on the Senate side to try to reassure the public that this committee on the Senate side is conducting a thorough and credible investigation, particularly after we've seen what has happened in the House that that investigation essentially bogged down in politics and now utterly gridlocked and real questions about whether the House can actually produce anything on a bipartisan basis or can continue forward on its investigation.

Now, on the House side, there -- the reason why there's a dispute right now is basically over process. Democrats are calling for a public hearing that was canceled yesterday by Chairman Devin Nunes to be back on the books alongside a private briefing with James Comey, the FBI Director and Mike Rogers, the NSA Director.

But, earlier today, Devin Nunes said that, well, Democrats have not submitted their witness list yet. And he does not think that they're being very serious in the investigation.

Now, Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House panel, just issued a statement pushing back, saying this -- the minority submitted a list of witnesses to the majority yesterday. This list represents only the first of many witnesses, we believe, should be called to testify. He goes on to say that they have yet to receive a response from Devin Nunes.

So, no agreement, yet, on the process which is one reason why that the Senate leaders are trying to show that they are doing a very deep dive into the issue of Russia, any of those connections that occurred between Russian officials and Trump officials.

And also, certain to answer some questions about their upcoming testimony that they're going to hear from Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law. Something that I'm told is going to be done in a private setting, likely under oath.

They're going to probably lay out some of their time line for hoping to achieve some of those -- get some of that information. So, we'll hear from them in just -- later this afternoon.

But, in the meantime, not much progress on the House side, as all meetings have been canceled this week, questions about whether they can meet anymore, as Democrats call for Nunes to step aside, which he will not do -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, we'll look forward to that briefing from the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That's coming up in the next hour.

Manu Raju and Jim Acosta, guys, thanks very much.

By the way, coming up later today in "THE SITUATION ROOM," I'll be speaking live with representative, Adam Schiff, about the Russia investigation. "THE SITUATION ROOM" airs 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Eastern. Schiff will air -- will be live during the 6:00 p.m. Eastern hour. Tomorrow, the Senate Intelligence Committee digs into the Russia question with two hearings, as they look into Russia interference in the U.S. presidential election and possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. A story White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says is media manufactured and President Trump calls fake news.

Joining us now, the Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso. He's a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, thanks for coming in.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R), WYOMING, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Thanks for having me, Wolf.

BLITZER: Is all this fake news media manufactured that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election?

BARRASSO: I believe Russia did interfere and tried to do even more in the U.S. presidential election. But they're also trying to interfere in the upcoming election in Germany and in France.

BLITZER: Vladimir clearly worthy of congressional investigation.

BARRASSO: Absolutely. And the Senate Intelligence Committee is moving along with the seriousness of purpose to get to the bottom of all of this. It's a bipartisan effort. We all want America to be safe, strong and secure. They're going to get the answers.

But this is nothing surprising, when you think about Vladimir Putin. He is cunning. He is aggressive. He is opportunistic. And he's going to do anything he can, I believe, to try to destroy democracy worldwide.

BLITZER: So, does it bother you that the president calls it all phony, fake, whatever adjective he uses when he describes this Russia probe?

BARRASSO: No. I believe that it's real. I believe we need to do this probe and get to the bottom of it. You have a bipartisan group in the Senate. I think all of the senators who want to get to the bottom of it, want to know the truth and want to share that with the American people.

BLITZER: In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, there's going to be other investigations. I know Lindsey Graham, Sheldon Whitehouse, they're working on their own investigation. There's a House investigation not going along that great.

[13:10:08] Should there also be, beyond that, an independent commission taking a look? Because the consequences, the stakes are really enormous if, in fact, the Russians did what the U.S. intelligence community believes they did do.

BARRASSO: Yes, I have great confidence in the Intelligence Committee and the Senate to get to the bottom of it.

BLITZER: So, you don't think there's an --

BARRASSO: No.

BLITZER: -- independent commission need.

BARRASSO: No, it's doing its work.

BLITZER: Are you frustrated by what you see going on in the House Intelligence Committee?

BARRASSO: Well, the House Speaker Ryan, they'll make the decisions on that. But I have great confidence in the seriousness of purpose. You see it with Chairman Richard Burr, you see it with Mark Warner, the Senator from Virginia, who has said this is the most consequential thing he's done as a U.S. senator.

BLITZER: Yes, I'm -- I've heard him say that. He said it to me, in fact.

I want to move on to health care.

BARRASSO: Yes.

BLITZER: There's a little confusion now. You were at that reception last night at the White House. Republican senators, Democratic senators were all invited there. The president was speaking. First, I want to play what the president said and then Sean Spicer's reaction.

BARRASSO: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know that we're all going to make a deal on health care. That's such an easy one. So, I have no doubt that that's going to happen very quickly. I think it will actually. I think it's going to happen because we've all been promising -- Democrat, Republican, we've all been promising that to the American people. So, I think a lot of good things are going to happen there.

SPICER: The deal that he's looking for is willing to have members come and talk to him and engage with -- on this whole area and figure out what it would take, what their ideas are to get there to grow that vote. And if they can do that and get to an area where we will have a majority of the House, we can move it to the Senate, then we're going to engage in that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, you were there. Was the president joking when he said, I think it -- I -- that's such an easy one, talking about health care.

BARRASSO: I think everyone in the room smiled when he said it, Republicans and Democrats alike. And it was an important thing to do to have Republicans and Democrat members of the Senate there. But we all realize it's also very serious, in terms of what we need to do for the American people. Even the day before the health care vote failed in the House, seven out of 10 Americans said you either have to repeal in total or in part the Obama health care law.

BLITZER: Are you ready to work with Democrats to try to come up -- not necessarily to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, but to improve it? Are you at least ready to take that initial step? Because Democrats say if you forget about the word repeal, but improve, fix, make it better, we're willing to work with you. Are you willing to work with them?

BARRASSO: You know, I was talking earlier this morning with one of the Democrat members of the Senate about what we need to do to move forward because Americans need relief from this health care law. Where their premiums have gone up, the costs have gone up, the choices have gone down.

In my whole state of Wyoming, there's only one person selling insurance. Rates have gone up 25 percent the past year across the country. Americans need a better solution.

BLITZER: So, what's the bottom line? Are you willing to work with Democrats and come up with an improved health care system? Forget about the word repeal at least for now.

BARRASSO: Let me -- let me tell you. From the beginning, I thought the Democrats were wrong to do it as a party working alone. I think it would be an equal mistake for the Republicans to do it alone. We need something that works for all of America, as a doctor.

We needed health care reform before I got to the Senate. We still need it. We are not there with President Obama's plan. And I just think you need to work together to find the best solutions. And, as a physician, I am committed to that solution.

BLITZER: All right, let's quickly talk about Neil Gorsuch. He's the nominee for the United States Supreme Court. The majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has set a date for a vote, April 7th. The Democrats are threatening a filibuster. That means you need 60. You have 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats.

If necessary, would you go along with what's called the nuclear option, eliminate that filibuster, you know, option, if you will, and go down to a simple majority 51? But eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees?

BARRASSO: Every Supreme Court vote in the United States Senate, for over 200 and some years, has been an up or down vote. And Neil Gorsuch deserves that. I am committed to having him on the Supreme Court. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that happens.

BLITZER: Including the nuclear option?

BARRASSO: And I will assure you that come the next week and a half, he will be confirmed and on the Supreme Court. BLITZER: But you would vote for what's called the nuclear option?

BARRASSO: I will do whatever it takes to confirm him. He is the right person. He's mainstream. I think he's the best choice that President Trump could have ever made for the Supreme Court. He understands that it's important for a judge to apply the law and not legislate from the bench. And that's what he's going to do.

BLITZER: I'll take that as a yes. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.

BARRASSO: Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: Thanks very much for coming in.

BARRASSO: Thank you.

BLITZER: Coming up, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley joins us. We'll get his take on the Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. Why he says he'll be voting against Judge Neil Gorsuch next week. There you see him. We'll speak with him live right after this.

[13:15:00] BLITZER: I'll speak with him live right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Senate Republicans are pressuring Democrats to stand down on threats to filibuster the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. A group of senators, along with former Gorsuch clerks, gathered on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court last hour to make their case. Here's Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA), CHAIR, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: He's easily cleared every hurdle in place of him -- in front of him for this position. It leaves me then very stunned why there's this talk about a filibuster. It's quite clear that if he isn't qualified, then nobody is.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: To my Democratic colleagues, if he can't get 60 votes, Neil Gorsuch, that tells me that you don't care about qualifications any longer. I voted for Sotomayor and Kagan under the Obama administration. I would not have chosen either one, but I thought they were well qualified.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Joining us now, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. He's one of the 28 Democrats saying or at least suggesting they would go ahead and filibuster. He's joining us live from Capitol Hill.

[13:20:00] Senator, thanks for joining us.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D), OREGON: You're welcome. Good to be with you.

BLITZER: So you were one of the first to say you'd vote against Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation. Why is that? The American Bar Association, for example, says he is highly qualified.

MERKLEY: Well, because I'm not going to be part of a court packing scheme. This seat, for the first time in U.S. history, was stolen from one president and delivered to the next with the hope of packing the court to the far right. And with Gorsuch, we're talking to the very far right. If this effort to steal a seat succeeds, then forever more the temptation is going to be there to do the same. It puts a big cloud over any 5-4 decision and it puts a big cloud over the integrity of the court. In fact, if Neil Gorsuch had principle, he would have turned down this nomination on the basis that the person who should be nominated is Merrick Garland.

BLITZER: Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama during the final year of his administration. He didn't even get a vote. Didn't even get a hearing. So is this simply revenge?

MERKLEY: So the 16 nominees that have occurred -- nominations that have occurred in a presidential election year, every one except Merrick Garland received action by the Senate. They were considered. In some cases they were rejected. Most were confirmed. But the Senate acted under its obligation of advice and consent.

In this case, however, Merrick Garland got no conversation, no hearing in front of Judiciary, no vote in front of the Judiciary, no vote on the floor, no consideration and the whole goal was to follow the instructions of the Koch brothers to pack the court with a conservative by putting this nomination into the hands of the next president and they hoped that that would be a conservative president.

BLITZER: So, senator -- so, senator, it is an element of revenge, but am I hearing now that over the next four years, while President Trump is in office, he nominated -- let's say this one goes down, that Neil Gorsuch goes down, you're going to oppose anyone he nominates? Because you know he's going to nominate a conservative judge.

MERKLEY: There is absolutely no revenge in this. This is about saving the integrity of the court from here on through the next generation. And certainly, if one doesn't care about the integrity of the court and you just want to look at this nominee from a judicial perspective, we have two other significant problems with him. The first is that the president's team is under investigation for having potentially interfered in the U.S. presidential election. If that turns out to be true, that is traitorous conduct and that means that this conversation should be set aside until that is cleared up.

And the second is, Gorsuch is way out of the mainstream. He hates class action lawsuits. He doesn't want the LGBT community to be able to use the courts to end discrimination. He finds and twists the law to find corporations -- for corporations against ordinary citizens time after time after time. This is a judge so far right that "The Washington Post" analysis said he is further right of anybody currently serving on the court.

BLITZER: But you know, senator, if they can't get to 60 in order to break a filibuster, they are going to use that nuclear option and that will only require a simple majority in the Senate, 51, to go ahead and confirm him. The Republicans have 52. The Democrats have 48. Are you willing to see that nuclear option implemented? He will be a justice on the United States Supreme Court, the Republicans say, one way or another for the next 30, maybe 40 years.

MERKLEY: This is a decision of the Republicans. But to ask us to go away with the -- to concur with the theft of a seat and the destruction of the integrity of the court is unacceptable. And if the Republicans want to continue this court packing scream, that is on their hands. But they do run a risk and it's this. What if Trump only gets one nominee to the court but the next president, who will be a Democrat I'm sure after this Trump administration, gets three? I mean that would be unacceptable for the Republicans that it be a simple majority vote at that point. We preserved --

BLITZER: But -- but, senator -- senator, there are elections --

MERKLEY: We preserved --

BLITZER: As your critics will tell you and everybody agrees, elections have consequences. Trump was elected president of the United States. President Obama was elected president. He served for eight years. He nominated more liberal judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. They were confirmed. Isn't it the prerogative of a president to nominate someone he or she feels comfortable with?

MERKLEY: For a seat that opens during that president's administration, yes. But this seat did not open during his administration. And to proceed to and let this individual, who wants to turn our Constitution on the head, change our government from of, by and for the people to of, by and for the powerful and the privileged would be a huge mistake. Those who care about our system of government, so different than many nations that have government based for and by the powerful and privileges, those who care about we the people are against this nomination. This really hurts our vision of what America is going to be.

[13:25:03] BLITZER: All right, so I just want to wrap it up -- wrap it up. I know you've got to run, senator. I just want to wrap it up. And let's say he goes down. Anyone that President Trump nominates, you will oppose over the next nearly four years? Am I hearing that?

MERKLEY: Well, what I'm telling you is that the president can end this desecration of the court by nominating Merrick Garland and having the Senate go through the process it was supposed to go through more than a year ago.

BLITZER: One final question on a different subject. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, says Democrats aren't serious about the investigation. Likewise, Democrats have called for Nunes to recuse himself. Do you think the House is capable of handling this investigation? Or do you think the Senate needs to take the lead? I assume you have much greater confidence in the Senate Intelligence Committee.

MERKLEY: Absolutely. I sure do. And I know that the -- the Democratic ranking member, Mark Warner, is doing everything possible to keep that conversation serious and focused. But the Intel Committee is not enough. It's very hard to get information back out of them. We need a public commission and we need a special prosecutor.

BLITZER: Senator Jeff Merkley, thanks for joining us.

MERKLEY: You're welcome. Good to be with you.

BLITZER: All right, we've got some live pictures now from Capitol Hill. The heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the chairman, Richard Burr, the ranking member, Senator Mark Warner, they will preview their hearing tomorrow, Russian interference and the U.S. presidential election. We're going to have live coverage of that. This is an important event. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)