Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Russian Election Meddling; Medicare for all Legislation; Trump's Trade Promises; Dismantling Obama Climate Policies; Gorsuch Confirmation Vote; Interview with Sen. Bernie Sanders. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 30, 2017 - 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: Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Coming up, my interview with Senator Bernie Sanders.

But first, Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election front and center right now as we wait for today's White House press briefing. It's set to get underway in hour. We're going to have live coverage for you. That's coming up.

Looking at live pictures right now. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, will face questions about today's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. It's the first public hearing on the -- in the Senate on Russia -- on the Russian investigation.

We're also waiting for details on a planned meeting today between the Republican chairman and the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The chairman, Devin Nunes, under a lot of pressure from ranking member Adam Schiff to recuse himself from the committee's Russia investigations. No Nunes is about to do any such thing.

In the meantime, Internet trolls cranking out phony stories, a deliberate campaign of disinformation. Those are just some of the tactics that intelligence officials say Russia used to interfere in the U.S. presidential election. And that is the focus of today's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD BURR (R), NORTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: The vice chairman and I realized that if we politicize this process, our efforts will likely fail.

The public deserves to hear the truth about possible Russian involvement in our elections.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VICE CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I will not prejudge the outcome of our investigation. We are seeking to determine if there is an actual fire but there is clearly a lot of smoke.

EUGENE RUMER, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Russian meddling in our presidential election most likely is viewed by the kremlin as an unqualified success.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: This is a coordinated effort across multiple spectrums to sew instability and to pit Americans against one another, politically, social economically.

CLINT WATTS, FELLOW, FOREIGN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: There's been more dead Russians in the past three months that are tied to this investigation who have assets in banks all over the world.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Our Senior Congressional Reporter Manu Raju has been following all these developments up on Capitol Hill. Manu, witnesses at the hearing say Russian interference in the U.S. election and U.S. politics is ongoing even as we speak. What else have we learned?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yes, that's right, Wolf. In fact, occurring the health care debate over the last several weeks, one of the witnesses here testified that Speaker Paul Ryan's efforts to push through the health care bill could have fallen victim by this Russian propaganda efforts, trying to prop up damaging news stories, social media accounts on the issue of the health care legislation.

Also, -- it's also meant to ascension within the Republican ranks over Speaker Ryan's tenure.

So, this effort continuing to play out. Clint Watts, who is one of the witnesses, a former FBI agent, who testified here earlier, actually raised the prospect of not just Hillary Clinton was hurt by the Russian hacking, but also Marco Rubio who, of course, sits on this committee and lost that Republican -- private Republican primary to Donald Trump. Raised the prospect that he was hurt, too, by these Russian propaganda, Russian efforts to meddle in the elections.

I asked Marco Rubio if he was surprised to hear that afterwards. He declined to comment and he wouldn't say if he had been hacked. He would not say if he had been briefed on the matter.

But after this first session broke out, we had a chance to talk to the vice chairman of the committee, the Democrat, Mark Warner, about his impressions about one particular aspect of Clint Watts' testimony, where he said that the president used, quote, "active mentors" to undermine Hillary Clinton because of this Russian campaign.

This is how Mark Warner responded.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RAJU: Yes, he said, specifically, part of the reason active measures have worked in this election is because the commander in chief has used Russian active measures at times against his opponents. Does that move you closer to the idea that there could have been some improper coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians?

WARNER: These are all the questions -- these are some of the core questions we have to get to. I mean, this afternoon's hearing, you know, I'm going to try to drill down on the technology capability to actually target by precinct certain voters.

Now, what I've been told is that the Russian intel services alone would not have that level of political sophistication about our electoral process to know which precinct in Wisconsin, which precinct in Michigan to target.

So, where did they get that information? And, you know, again, I'm not sure we'll get an answer this afternoon, but it's obviously one area of the inquiry.

RAJU: Two of your colleagues -- two of your colleagues, Feinstein and Wyden, have said that it would be important to get the president's tax returns to determine any financial links. Are you -- do you think that's important? Do you -- will you try to subpoena them?

WARNER: I have been actively calling long before this investigation started for the president to do what every other prior president and every other prior presidential candidate has done.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[13:05:05] BLITZER: Now, he would not say, Wolf, whether or not he would seek to subpoena those tax returns. But watch for that to be a flashpoint as some Democrats on the committee would want to use the rules to try to subpoena those tax returns to determine see if there's any financial links between the Trump associates or Trump himself and the Russians. That's an issue that will play out, probably behind closed doors -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Manu, thanks very much. Manu Raju watching all of this on Capitol Hill.

There is breaking news coming out of the White House right now, involving the president's staff. Let's go to our Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny. What have you learned, Jeff?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, we are seeing some signs of a shakeup here happening in the west wing of the White House in the wake of the defeat of health care. A deputy chief of staff to this president, Katie Walsh, will be leaving the west wing, leaving the White House to go work for an outside group. One of those outside political action committees that supports this is president's agenda.

And this is just happening in the last few minutes or so. And our Jim Acosta is reporting that this is because of a health care defeat. In the major defeat in the legislation from just last week. And Katie Walsh is -- was a long time chief of staff, excuse me, at the RNC to Reince Priebus, Wolf.

And she was very much in charge of driving the agenda here at the White House. And, also, keeping things sort of running.

We're also told by other sources that she's been frustrated. Of course, there have been some issues in recent weeks here at the White House. But the -- this definitely is not the first shakeup, but it's the second, I guess, if you can consider Michael Flynn, of course the national security adviser who was let go more than a month or so ago.

But, Wolf, this is definitely coming on a day when the White House is trying to, sort of, reboot. And they're desperately looking for a win.

The president earlier in the day was doing something he rarely does. He was taking aim at fellow Republicans going after some of those House Freedom Caucus members. So, this is something the White House is clearly trying to reboot and get things back on track here after a very rough 10 weeks or so out of the gate -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Is this, in any way at all, related to the news that we got yesterday that Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter, is now taking on an official White House role as an adviser?

ZELENY: Wolf, that's a good question. I mean, the Ivanka Trump hiring, sort of, stands alone as itself. She is a -- an adviser unlike anyone else here at the west wing, of course, because she is a family member first and foremost.

But she definitely is taking a greater role and reins on everything here. So, we do not believe that it's directly connected to that at all.

And our sources are saying that Katie Walsh is not being fired, by any means. She is staying within the Trump family, if you will, by going outside the White House to, sort of, build consensus and a coalition for his message.

But, you know, the hiring of Ivanka officially, you know, certainly has everyone on edge, in some respects, and on watch here at the White House to see if other staff shakeups will occur because of that.

But in terms of if they were absolutely connected, Wolf, we don't think so at this time.

BLITZER: Yes. We know she worked very, very closely with Reince Priebus when he was chairman of the Republican National Committee.

ZELENY: Right, she was the chief of staff.

BLITZER: Yes, she certainly was. Jeff Zeleny at the White House. Thanks very much.

Meanwhile, as the Senate Intelligence Committee moves forward with its investigation, the same cannot be said for the House Intelligence Committee. Right now, that investigation is at a standstill.

Let's bring in a member of that committee, Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

REP. CHRIS STEWART (R), UTAH, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Good afternoon, Wolf. BLITZER: Let's talk about what's going on. Congressman, the speaker, Paul Ryan, he acknowledged this morning that the back and forth of the -- over the House Intelligence Committee's investigation has gotten, in his words, a little political and there needs to be a pause to gather all the evidence to get it right.

I assume you agree with him that it's -- and I'm -- well, I don't know if he said this but I'll ask you. It's an embarrassment what's going on right now, in terms of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation.

STEWART: Well, I think it's unfortunate. I mean, many of us who work on the committee, one of the things we valued was the ability to work in a bipartisan manner. And one of the reasons for that is we were able to do it without the cameras in our faces and it wasn't as public. And we took this responsibility, Wolf, very seriously.

Look, we're going to follow this investigation wherever it leads, but I think it's better done if we do it not necessarily behind closed doors, but if we do it, kind of, quietly. If we do it very responsibly.

But when we start working and debating in the public realm, I just think that it's not helpful and I think we've seen some of that over the last week. I think the committee wants to --

BLITZER: Have you seen -- Congressman, have you actually seen or been fully briefed on the information that Chairman Nunes collected when he made that to the White House the other day?

STEWART: You bet. We've been fully briefed on it. We understand it pretty well. We haven't actually seen the documents, but I know that they're going to be delivered and made available to us.

[13:10:03] But, again, we've spent a lot of time understanding what they -- what they contained. And they were meaningful things. They were things that I think that were, you know, troubling for us, in some ways.

And, again, we look forward to sharing that with the American people. But the investigation I think is just better done if we do it more discreetly.

And let me -- let me elaborate on that if I could, Wolf. When we had the FBI director before our committee in our first open hearing last week, almost 100 times we asked him questions. He said, I can't answer that in this forum. We want to bring him back. Ask him those same questions. Get those answers. And it gives us a much better foundation for moving forward than having these open hearings where we can't get the information that we need.

BLITZER: When will you hold your next hearing?

STEWART: Next week. And we're rescheduling those people who were scheduled to come this week. And we want to bring the director back. We want to bring Mr. Rogers back as well. I think we'll see good activity in, again, early next week.

BLITZER: So, early next week, General Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, John Brennan, the former CIA Director, are they going to be among those testifying as well as the former acting attorney general of the United States, Sally Yates?

STEWART: Yes, that's certainly our hope and expectation. Now, I don't know that they'll be here next. But we've invited -- invitations for them to come. They know that. They've recognized and said that they would come to a floor committee. They're scheduling that now.

But, once again, I don't know if it'll be next week, but hopefully it's very quickly.

BLITZER: Because they were supposed to testify on Tuesday. And, all of a sudden, the chairman canceled that. Do you have a good understanding why? We were all anticipating --

STEWART: Yes.

BLITZER: -- an important hearing to get some additional information for the American public.

STEWART: Yes. And, once again, we want to be as open as we can. But referring to the committee hearing we had the week before, it wasn't very helpful, in the sense that again and again and again the questions were asked and they said, can't talk about it here.

And I think those open hearings are better done at the end of the this process. Let's bring in these individuals in a private setting where we can ask highly classified very sensitive questions, get the answers for those, lay that into a foundation where we know this is what's happening.

And I think that opens a door for us later on when we do have more public hearings, to know what we can ask and what we can get answers to that haven't been designated as being very sensitive or classified. I think it's better for the committee. I think it's better to find the truth.

And I think it's really better for the American people. They don't get frustrated then when they hear the hearings and go, well, I didn't learn much because they couldn't answer the questions.

BLITZER: Congressman Chris Stewart, thanks for joining us.

STEWART: Good to be with you, Wolf. Thank you.

BLITZER: Coming up, live pictures, take a look at this, from Capitol Hill. The Senate Intelligence Committee, they'll soon begin part two of their hearing on Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

So far, Senate Marco Rubio was told he was a victim of Russian hackers. We're going to go there live once it resumes. And I'll also speak to Senator Bernie Sanders about the Russian meddling, whether he thinks there was collusion. The upcoming vote on the U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. A lot more. That's coming up next.

[13:13:04]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:28] BLITZER: We're waiting for the White House daily press briefing to get underway. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, expected to take questions from reporters very soon. We'll have live coverage.

But first, I want to bring in the independent senator, Bernie Sanders, of Vermont. He's joining us now from Capitol Hill.

Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: My pleasure, Wolf.

BLITZER: We have lots to discuss. But quickly on the Senate Intelligence Committee that is meeting today, holding a public hearing on Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election, possible collusion with Trump -- the Trump campaign. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, today, called those claims of meddling, and I'm quoting him now, he said they were "hoaxes, lives, and provocations." Do you think, first of all, that President Trump's associates colluded with Russia to try to influence the U.S. presidential election?

SANDERS: Well, let me just say that I would take what Mr. Putin says with a grain of salt. The evidence is overwhelming. It is enormously serious that Russia did interfere in our election. They have interfered not only in elections in the United States, but in elections around the world. That is what they are doing. And we have got to respond vigorously to that. It is a real political attack by Russia against the United States.

Second of all, the issue of whether or not Trump or his associates, his campaign, had colluded with Russia in the elections is an issue of incredible consequences. I think the American people are a little bit astounded that when you have an authoritarian type guy like Putin, who is moving Russia more and more away into an authoritarian society, why it is that President Trump has only positive things to say about this authoritarian figure. What hold does Russia or might Russia have over the president? We know -- it appears at least from media that Russian oligarchs lent Trump and his associates money. Does that have anything to do with Trump's relationship with Russia? These are issues. I don't have the answers, but these are issues that must be thoroughly investigated. The American people want to know that our president is representing the best interests of the American people, not Russian oligarchs or the Russian government.

BLITZER: And we know the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing that investigation. The FBI is as well. The House Intelligence Committee, they've got some other problems over there, but hopefully they'll get into this as well. SANDERS: Right.

BLITZER: Let's move on to some other important issues, senator. President Trump has said he'd like to work with Democrats on health care. But this morning he tweeted, and let me read it to you. He said, "the Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team and fast. We must fight them and Dems in 2018." And here's what the speaker, Paul Ryan, said in a new interview and over at a press conference earlier today about working with Democrats. Listen to this.

[13:20:28] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: What I worry about, Norah, is that if we don't do this, then he'll just go work with Democrats to try and change Obamacare. And that's not going to -- that's hardly a conservative thing.

If we're going to do what we said we would do, which is repeal and replace Obamacare and save the American health care system, something tells me the Democrats aren't going to help us repeal Obamacare. They're the ones who created it in the first place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Senator, your reaction?

SANDERS: Well, my reaction is, you know, we can go on for a long time on this. First of all, what I would tell Speaker Ryan is, he's got to understand that the United States of America today is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. I live 50 miles away from Canada. They manage to do it.

Second of all, we end up spending twice as much per capita on health care as any other country. Thirdly, we pay by far -- by far multiple times the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. And all of that has to do with the power and the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies.

Nobody I know, Wolf, thinks that Obamacare has been a panacea, that it solved our health care problems. But what it did do is provide 20 million Americans with more -- with health insurance for the first time. It did away with this obscenity of denying people care because they had a pre-existing condition. It did some good things. What a rational approach would be, which apparently Mr. Ryan is not prepared to do, is for us to sit down and say, how do we deal with the problems. Our deductibles --

BLITZER: Let me -- let me -- let me interrupt you for a moment, because I know you support what you call a Medicare single payer health care system, Medicare for all.

SANDERS: Yes.

BLITZER: And you want to work and try to get that through the current political environment. But is that at all single payer, Medicare for all system, is that all -- at all realistic right now?

SANDERS: Not today it's not. I am going to introduce that legislation because I think it is the most sensible and cost effective approach, Medicare for all. Medicare right now works well for people 65 or older. We should have it apply to everybody. I am going to introduce that legislation. It will not pass under the current political climate where insurance companies and drug companies have so much power.

But what we can do, working together, is to say, for example, are deductibles too high under Obamacare? The answer is yes. How do we lower those deductibles? How do we lower co-payments? How do we lower the cost of prescription drugs?

Trump has talked a lot about taking on the pharmaceutical industry. I have legislation in that would save billions of dollars for the American people by allowing pharmacists and distributors to purchase lower cost prescription drugs from Canada and other countries around the world. Will Trump work with us on those issues? The idea of a public option being made available in 50 states. This will improve Obamacare. Let's work together trying to do that.

BLITZER: But you say you want to work together with the Trump administration. Earlier in the week, as you know, he invited all 100 U.S. senators to the White House for a reception. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, went. Dick Durbin was there. You decided not to attend. Why?

SANDERS: Because I'm not into social events. If the president is serious about dealing with health care, if he is serious about dealing with the high cost of prescription drugs, let's work together. I don't want to sit around just, you know -- you know, blabbering and talking about the weather. That's not the way you get real work done.

I have introduced legislation that will substantially lower the cost of prescription drugs in this country through reimportation. If the -- and the president has said he likes that idea. He campaigned on that idea. So let's not -- let's stop the talk. Let's sit down and work on it. If --

BLITZER: Has he reached out to you, senator, or have you reached out personally to him and said, let's have a meeting? Have you actually sat down and had a meeting with him?

SANDERS: I will -- I -- I don't want to just talk. There is legislation out there. Look, this guy throughout his campaign said some good things among prescription drugs. If he is prepared to say, Senator Sanders, I've seen your legislation on reimportation, has 20 co-sponsors in the Senate, I know a number of Republicans are sympathetic to the concept, if he says let's sit down and work on the legislation, I'll be there if five minutes. But I don't want to do a photo op with the president if we're not going to go anyplace. He talks a good game. I want to see real action.

[13:25:09] BLITZER: Another area where there has been some potential agreement between you and President Trump involves trade. As you know, he's withdrawn from the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. SANDERS: Right.

BLITZER: You don't like that deal either. But "The Wall Street Journal" is now reporting there are early indications he's only going to make when it describes as modest changes to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Do you believe he's living up to his campaign promises on trade?

SANDERS: Wolf, you know, I've said this before and I'll say it again, I think the president lies a great deal of the time. I think he told the American people, working class people, during the campaign that he was going to stand with them, that he was going to take on big money interests. He ended up appointing half of Wall Street to his administration. The guy he is now considering to be his FDA secretary administrator is a man who wrote in op-ed in direct opposition to a lot of what Trump said about prescription drugs. So he said one thing during the campaign, he's doing the very -- very opposite.

On trade, no, I would not be surprised. We do need to fundamentally rethink our trade policies. It is not acceptable to me that profitable corporations throw American workers out on the street, go to China, go to Mexico, pay people very, very low wages. So we have got to do everything that we have -- can do to create a trade policy which not only works for the multi-national CEOs, but works for the working people of this country.

BLITZER: All right. I know there's another issue that you're really committed to, very passionate over, and that involves the environment. President Trump signed a sweeping executive order this week involving the Environmental Protection Agency, which officials said looks to curb the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations by putting American jobs above addressing climate change. React to that move.

SANDERS: Wolf, that is such a nonsensical and stupid and dangerous approach. It's almost indescribable.

Look, the scientific community is virtually unanimous. While Trump and his friends may think climate change is a hoax, what the scientists are telling us, it is real, it is caused by human activity, it is already causing devastating problems. And all over the world you're having countries beginning to transform their energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency sustainable energy. In the United States you're even having Republican governors, Republican mayors doing the same thing. And guess what? Far more jobs are now being created in sustainable energy and energy efficiency than are being now created in the fossil fuel industries.

You had the absurdity of Exxon, the largest oil company in America, telling the president he should not withdraw from the Paris agreement. This is very dangerous because if the United States does not lead the world in transforming our energy system, I worry very, very much about the nation and the world that our kids and grandchildren will be living in as a result of the devastation caused by climate change.

BLITZER: Is there anything you can do to reverse his new regulations? SANDERS: Well, obviously we will try to do everything that we can do.

But I think you are seeing states all over this country, cities all over this country, understand how dangerous and absurd his ideas and his actions are and they're going to continue to go forward trying to combat climate change, along with countries all over the world.

BLITZER: The Senate is scheduled to vote next week on whether to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. You're voting against that confirmation. Will you also support a filibuster?

SANDERS: Well, I don't -- you know, we can argue about terminology. First of all, yes, I am going to be voting against Gorsuch for the following reasons. I had a meeting in my office with him. It was a pleasant meeting. We talked for, I think, 45 minutes.

Look, here are the issues that worry me. I worry that billionaires are now able to buy elections because of Citizens United. And I know he can't comment on a particular case. I was not impressed about his views on that issue. I believe that voter suppression, Republican governors all over the country trying to make it harder for people of color, poor people, older people, to participate in our democracy. I was not impressed by what he had to say about that. Was not impressed about what he had to say with regard to privacy rights or a woman's right to control her own body. So I'm going to vote against him.

Now, the rule right now are, as you know, and Democrats did not change this particular rule applying to the Supreme Court, is that if anybody objects, it requires 60 votes. So I believe somebody will object. I think that we should obey the current rules and it should require -- we should require 60 votes for Gorsuch's appointment.

[13:30:06]