Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Reaction To Flynn Demand; Two White House Staffers Assisted Nunes; White House to Share Classified Documents; Flynn Offers Testimony; Trump's Freedom Caucus Tweet. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 31, 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 in Washington. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We're keeping a very close eye on the White House briefing room right now where the press secretary, Sean Spicer, is expected to come out shortly to brief reporters and take questions on the congressional investigations into Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, as well as links between the Trump campaign and Russia. And the bombshell from the former National Security advisor, Michael Flynn, who now says he's willing to testify in the investigation but only if he's given immunity from any prosecution. An idea president Trump endorsed in a tweet earlier this morning. Saying Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt, excuse for a big election loss by media and Dems of historic proportion. That from the president of the United States.

We're now hearing reaction from both congressional committees on Michael Flynn's immunity demand. Let's get straight to the breaking news. Phil Mattingly, he's up on Capitol Hill. Our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta is inside the briefing room getting ready for the Sean Spicer briefing.

Phil, what are you hearing right now from both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about this request for immunity from prosecution in exchange for Flynn's testifying?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, at least initially, cool would be the best way to describe the response, according to sources in both the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, based on their investigation. The idea that they would grant immunity, one thing we're hearing reportedly, it's far too early on in the process for them to consider a request.

But both committees, at least House Democrats, according to sources, saying that they would be very unlikely to accede to this request. And Senate Intelligence sources also saying that they would be unlikely to give in on this.

We also just received a statement from Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee, who initially pointed out that it is a grave and momentous occasion that the former national security adviser would be even considering asking for immunity on anything. That was kind of his first point.

But then, he went into details as to why the committees might be reluctant to provide such a thing. And I want to point out a key portion of Mr. Schiff's statement, saying, quote, "We will be discussing the matter with our counterparts on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Department of Justice. While Mr. Flynn's testimony is of great interest to our committee, we are also deeply mindful of the interests of the Department of Justice in this matter." And that latter point is the key one that I've heard, up to this point, as these conversations really kicked into high gear last night.

The idea that they don't want -- on both sides of the -- both sides of the chambers, when it comes to how these committees are looking into this, they don't want to do anything that would impede an FBI investigation. What prosecutors of the Justice Department are currently looking into right now.

And that's kind of a key point that Adam Schiff, himself a former prosecutor, is trying to make right now. It's early in the process. They aren't anywhere near considering such an idea yet.

But even when they get to the point, if consideration is something that actually occurs, they want to be very careful that they don't do anything, provide anything or agree to anything that would undercut or undermine what the Justice Department is doing throughout the course of their investigation -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Stand by for a moment.

I want to go to the White House. Jim Acosta, the president was asked about the Flynn immunity request during a White House appearance with members of the National Association of Manufacturers just a little while ago. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any comment on Michael Flynn, Mr. President?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No comment from the president on --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. No comment from the president when asked about Michael Flynn. The White House had refused to comment on the situation until the president actually tweeted about it earlier this morning. Here's the question. Does this somehow complicate how Sean Spicer will need to address this in the upcoming briefing this

hour?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, I don't think Sean Spicer is going to be able to do what the president did during that discussion with the National Association of Manufacturers. He's not going to be able to simply bite his tongue and not make any comments.

Now, we should point out, the president did put out a tweet earlier this morning about all of this, saying that Mike Flynn should ask for immunity. And that this is a witch hunt, excuse for a big election loss by media and Dems of historic proportion.

But, Wolf, some complicating factors in all of this is namely back during the campaign both then candidate Donald Trump and General Michael Flynn made some comments about Hillary Clinton and some of the people around her who were being talked about giving immunity when it came to their legal challenges that they were involved with at that time.

And Michael Flynn who was on "Meet The Press" in September of 2016 said, when are were given immunity that means you have probably committed a crime. And then, Donald Trump, at a campaign rally, back in September of 2016. If you're not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for, right?

[13:05:01] So, obviously, those are comments that Sean Spicer is going to have to deal with, during this briefing coming up in about half an hour from now, Wolf.

And I think the question comes at a very critical time in all of this, because all week long, the main pushback that we've heard from Sean Spicer with respect to some of these questions about how Devin Nunes came over to the White House grounds last week. And he obtained access to that information that he presented to the president and, in part, to the news media.

You know, the response from Sean Spicer on to all of that has been that the news media is more interested in process than in substance. And so, the question will become, I think, for this briefing today, where does Michael Flynn's request for immunity fit? Does it fit into these questions of process or substance?

Of course, there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill who say what Michael Flynn has to say, at this point, goes very much to the heart of the substance of this situation -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jim, we also know the names of two White House staffers who helped the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Devin Nunes, get into the White House, go through those documents. What more do we know right now?

ACOSTA: All we know, at this point, Wolf, and obviously this is following up on reports in "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" is that, you know, CNN has been able to confirm, through a U.S. official, that Michael Ellis and Ezra Cohen Watnick, two officials who work for the National Security Council, essentially work for the White House, were involved in helping the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Devin Nunes, access that information that he was accessing when he was on the White House grounds during that mysterious visit more than a week ago.

What is unclear is what exactly those officials were doing, in terms of helping Chairman Nunes obtain that information. And, of course, as I was just saying a few moments ago and as we've heard some Sean Spicer all this week during the briefings here, the White House has just simply not wanted to answer that questions. Sean Spicer simply not wanting to talk about that and address it.

And so, the question becomes, now that we're here at the end of the week, and you have the resigned national security adviser Michael Flynn asking for immunity up on Capitol Hill and to the Justice Department, do we get some more answers this afternoon -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Oh, and the key question -- also, another key question is, who authorized those two White House officials to work with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to get him in, to have access to those highly classified documents? Did the national security adviser approve it? Did the chief White House counsel approve it? Did the president approve it? Those are key questions.

We don't know the answers to those questions right now. Maybe they'll be forthcoming, at some point.

Thanks very much. Jim Acosta at the White House. Phil Mattingly up on Capitol Hill.

Let's talk a little bit more about the possible legal implications. Joining us, Laura Coates, CNN Legal Analyst, former federal prosecutor. It is early in the -- relatively early in the process.

But both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, they have to be very sensitive. If they're going to give General Flynn immunity, they have to make sure it's not going to undermine any Justice Department investigation.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. And the people who actually give immunity is the Justice Department. The reason you have to go through them is because it has implications across the board.

Whether or not you get immunity really depends on three things, Wolf. Number one, do I not already have this information? Can I get it from nowhere else? Number two, is it truthful. And three, will it be able to help implicate somebody at least at your level or perhaps a higher level?

Remember, immunity is based on this premise that the fish rots from the head. I wonder if can go above you and get anyone else above you in this case. So, to give leverage and compromise the ability to prosecute somebody, it's got have him (ph) very substantive. And we don't know if they have that yet.

And, remember, we don't know all of the facets of this investigation. The FBI has done it since July but there could be other avenues they have not yet been able to pursue.

BLITZER: The statement from Congressman Schiff also said this. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. When the time comes to consider request from immunity from any witness, we will, of course, required a detailed proffer of any intended testimony. Explain what that means.

COATES: So, here's how it works. If you have a request for immunity, you have this, kind of, off-the-record dance you do. You say, what are you going to tell me? I'll let you know if you really qualify for immunity. Is it worth my while? Is it enticing enough for me?

What they'll do is, kind of, give a proffer, meaning here's what I intend to say. At that time, the FBI will essentially evaluate whether or not, again, they already knew about it or I can't get this anywhere else but from you.

And, remember, there's not yet a smoking gun. We don't have in place just this one piece of evidence. What we have is smoke which, in the law, is, kind of, circumstantial evidence. It may be that General Flynn's testimony is worthwhile because it may be able to connect that, right now, what are seemingly unconnected points that could be make up a better case.

BLITZER: Laura Coates, excellent explanation.

COATES: Thank you.

BLITZER: Thank you very much for that.

[13:10:00] Let's talk a little bit more about all of this, get some reaction about Michael Flynn's immunity demand. From the House Intelligence Committee, I want to bring in Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, a member of the Intelligence Committee. Congresswoman, thanks for joining us.

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: What do you think of Michael Flynn's offer?

SPEIER: Well, you know, the best defense is a good offense, for starters. I mean, the fact that Michael Flynn, on the campaign trail, talked about immunity as admitting that you have committed some offense is kind of telling in and of itself.

But I agree with everyone who has said that it's very premature. And, again, there's no way that immunity is going to be granted. And it would be granted by the Department of Justice if and only if it provided a bigger fish, in terms of dotting the Is and crossing the Ts and getting to someone who is more critical, in terms of violating the law. But we also know that --

BLITZER: I want to just interrupt for a moment. Congressman, you say a bigger fish. He was the national security adviser to the president of the United States. There aren't a whole lot of bigger fish out there. But, clearly, the president is a bigger fish.

SPEIER: That's right. And if he would be in a position to say the president was engaged in working with the Russians in trying to undermine the election, that would be big.

BLITZER: That would be huge. But I just want to be precise. As of this moment, you don't have any hard evidence to back up that suspicion.

SPEIER: No, not at all. BLITZER: OK. So, let talk about Michael Flynn a little bit more.

His attorney speaks of claims of treason against his client. Says they have to have assurance against, quote, "Unfair prosecution." His words. Is the House investigation looking at possible crimes committed by Trump associates right now?

SPEIER: Well, the committee is looking at everything associated with the Russian interference with our election. And as we heard at our very first hearing, it was Director Comey who said that their investigation is also looking at the relationship of persons within the Trump campaign and whether or not they were coordinating with the Russians in an effort to undermine the election.

So, that all becomes part of our investigation.

BLITZER: But you will always defer to the FBI investigation, to the FBI director Comey. He said there's a criminal investigation underway a week -- a week or so ago. You will always take steps to make sure you do nothing that undermines his investigation, right?

SPEIER: That's correct. Absolutely.

BLITZER: All right. CNN has now confirmed that at least two White House officials, maybe more, helped provide your chairman, Chairman Devin Nunes of the Intelligence Committee, with the information when he went over to the White House. They, then -- he, then, came back the next day. Presented that information to the president, as you recall. I interviewed the chairman this past Monday and we had this exchange. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Did you meet with the president or any of his aides --

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R), CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: No.

BLITZER: -- while you were there that night?

NUNES: No. And, in fact, I'm quite sure that, I think, people in the west wing had no idea that I was there.

BLITZER: By holding the meeting on the White House grounds, it makes it appear that someone in the administration was coordinating the release of this information to you. Is that not the case?

NUNES: No, it's not the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Do you think he was telling the truth?

SPEIER: No, I don't. Let's also remember how this all started. This started with a tweet by the president when he was unsupervised on a Saturday morning. He, then, attributed it to a judge on another station as being, you know, a jurist with great reputation. And then, that jurist was terminated by that other station. And for the last three weeks, all we have done is talked about this. And I'm firmly convinced that the president and his aides concocted this and drew Devin Nunes into it and he became an advocate and an abettor to what I think is an absolute fabrication.

And for the president of the United States to pursue this, in this manner, and, frankly, have all of us directed away from what we should be doing, which is looking at the Russia connections, is really a shameful set of circumstances.

BLITZER: Do you have -- do you have any knowledge -- do you know if higher-ranking White House officials approved the visit by Nunes to the White House, access to that sensitive information? We know two White House officials brought him there, showed him that information. One official from the National Security Council. Another official from the White House counsel's office. Do you know if higher ranking White House officials approved this visit or did these two guys just act on their own?

SPEIER: You know, I don't think anyone acts on their own in the White House. There's always someone that you've got to get approval from.

And let's go back in time.

[13:15:00] Before our open hearing by the Intelligence Committee, it was the president of the United States who either tweeted or said, in a public setting, that, just wait, there's going to be information coming out that's going to vindicate me on this. This has been totally and completely orchestrated by the White House and I believe the president knew about it or was part of the effort to do this.

BLITZER: The White House has offered to show classified documents they've uncovered which supposedly involve surveillance, indirect surveillance of White House - of Trump campaign, Trump transition officials. They've said they will share this information with the chairman, the ranking member of your House Intelligence Committee. But will you see them as well?

SPEIER: Well, I believe we absolutely must see all of that information. And let's be clear, too, that when Devin Nunes talked about it, he said it was incidental collection and he believed it was legal. There is incidental collection that goes on when we are in the process of following a foreign person because we are trying to find out information about that other country. So if a foreign person, ambassador, or a foreign dignitary is communicating with a U.S. person, there can be incidental collection. It is almost always masked. And if the hearing we had on the Intelligence Committee, the - Admiral Rogers went to some lengths to talk about the process that they go through to unmask an name. Now, again, Devin Nunes said he thought it was masked but he could tell who it is. Well, the fact that he could tell who it is doesn't change the fact that it was masked.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Jackie Speier, thanks so much for joining us.

SPEIER: Thank you. BLITZER: The congressional intelligence hearings and Michael Flynn are

two of the big topics likely to be discussed at length during the upcoming White House daily press briefing. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, expected to go to the lectern shortly. We'll have live coverage. Stand by this hour.

Also, President Trump calling out members of his own party, picking a fight with the House Freedom Caucus. Republican Congressman Mo Brooks is a member of that caucus. There he is. He's standing by live. We'll get his reaction to all of this when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:47] BLITZER: Welcome back.

You're looking at live pictures from the White House Briefing Room. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, about to answer reporters' questions and there are many questions on the agenda right now. Likely to weigh in, for example, on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's request for immunity from prosecution and the very latest on the House and Senate Intelligence hearings on Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election. Live coverage of that coming up. Stand by.

In the meantime, let's get some perspective on all of this and more from Republican Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama. He's a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus. He's joining us from Huntsville, Alabama.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: My pleasure, Wolf.

BLITZER: Let's get your reaction first to the news, the former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, offering to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Is that a good idea from the U.S. government's perspective?

BROOKS: Well, I don't know the details of the evidence that the United States government may or may not have against General Flynn. And, quite frankly, I should not know. This investigation should be conducted by the FBI or any other investigative agency in a close to the vest fashion until such time as they make a decision whether to go forward or not.

Now, from a defense attorney perspective, if you're going to have someone who is involved in an investigation, you should always ask for immunity. So I don't know if there's a substantive reason behind the request for immunity, i.e., I've committed a crime and I want protection, on the other hand, or if it's just a part of what a defense attorney would normally advise. And I say that with a little bit of background having been a prosecutor in the Tuscaloosa County D.A.'s office where I prosecuted felony jury trials and helped organize the grand jury for then District Attorney Wayne Williams, or when I was district attorney of Madison County for a couple years, which is where Huntsville, Alabama, is.

BLITZER: President Trump tweeted today that Michael Flynn is the target, in his words, of a witch hunt stemming, in his words again, from the big election loss by Democrats. But the FBI director, James Comey, told the House Intelligence Committee a week or so ago that the Russia investigation actually started in late July. You know, if this is an ongoing - he said criminal investigation, counter intelligence investigation, should the president be weighing in on all of this with that kind of tweet, as he did today, saying, yes, he should be getting a - he should be getting immunity from prosecution in the middle of an FBI investigation?

BROOKS: Well, I'm not the president. It's not something that I would do. I don't think it's appropriate to weigh into these kinds of investigations. Personally, I believe that it should be kept a little bit quieter. That those kind of offers should be made to the appropriate authorities, the FBI and the House and Senate committees that are investigating this kind of stuff and it should be done behind the scenes.

And ultimately what I hope will come out of all of this is that there will have been a thorough investigation done by the appropriate House and Senate committees on the one hand, and by our law enforcement agencies on the other hand. And to a very large degree, we ought to hold back until we have those conclusions. Again, having been a prosecutor in Tuscaloosa and in Madison County, Huntsville, Alabama, sometimes what the initial evidence may show is not what the final evidence may show. And that's why you have these investigations that take some period of time.

[13:25:006] I know it's hard not to talk about these things because the public is so interested. But, to me, if I was in charge, I would broaden the investigation involving Russia in a variety of different ways and hopefully these investigative agencies and committees will give us a report once their investigation is concluded, once all the evidence has been martialed, once all the witnesses have been examined, so that we can have a better understanding of what, in fact, took place and then how to ought to react to it to prevent any wrongdoing from occurring in the future.

BLITZER: Your colleague, Jason Chaffetz, the Republican congressman, chairman of the Oversight Committee in the House, he responded to the president's accusations of a witch hunt, immunity for Michael Flynn. I want you to listen to what Congressman Chaffetz said. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: No, I don't think it's a witch hunt. I - look, it's very mysterious to me though why all of a sudden General Flynn is suddenly out there saying he wants immunity. That - A, I don't think Congress should give him immunity. If there's an open investigation by the FBI, that should not happen. I also don't believe actually that the president should be weighing in on this. They are the ones that actually would prosecute something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Based on what I've already heard from you, congressman, I assume you agree with Congressman Chaffetz.

BROOKS: To a large agree I think that Jason Chaffetz is spot on. I also heard Jackie Speier and I think her comments are also important to weigh and take into account as we work our way through this.

But the bottom line is, as with any investigation, we have investigators who are interviewing witnesses, that are accumulating evidence. And we in the public sector, we don't always have a full picture. And I would urge the American people to wait for a thorough investigation and the results. We can demand a thorough investigation. There ought to be a thorough investigation. But once it's concluded, then we will know what the true picture is and we probably will not know for sure with any degree of confidence until that time occurs.

BLITZER: One quick question before I let you go, congressman, a different subject, the fallout from the failure of the repeal and replace health care bill. The president calling out your group, the Freedom Caucus. He tweeted, 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."

I want you to respond to the president. You're a member of that Freedom Caucus. And you were, I believe, ready to vote no against that legislation. But go ahead and respond. Do you see this as a threat from the president against members of the Freedom Caucus like you?

BROOKS: Well, if you've read "The Art of the Deal," you looked at President Donald Trump's history, this is a part of his method of operation. I'm not overly concerned about it. Any time you take a position on a controversial public policy issue, you're going to have some folks that like what you're doing and some folks who don't like what you're doing.

Moving forward, though, I hope the president will bear in mind that the Freedom Caucus is going to provide the bulwark of the support the president needs on things like border security, on things like trade agreements and making sure that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an unfair trade agreement, does not resurface in some different shape, form or fashion. Our support is going to be necessary for tax cuts and for the protection of free enterprise. So we're not always going to agree, but there are some major issues going forward where the president's going to need our support and I hope he will bear that in mind because we're probably the most reliable conservative voice in the United States Congress at this point in time.

And as far as this particular issue goes, I'm more than happy to get all the credit anyone wants to give me and the Freedom Caucus for being instrumental in killing a very bad bill that only has 17 percent support with the American people and that increases health insurance premiums for American citizens somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 percent to 20 percent over the next couple years, over and above the increases that you would expect from Obamacare. And the source for that information comes from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. So I'm proud of the stance that I took and others took as we defeated bad legislation that would hurt America long term. BLITZER: Congressman Brooks, he's already tweeted naming names, some

of your colleagues in the Freedom Caucus. If he's watching, get ready for some tweets against you as well.

Thanks so much for joining us.

BROOKS: Comes with the turf.

BLITZER: It certainly does.

All right, we're, once again, waiting for the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, to come out, take questions from reporters. We're going to have live coverage of that. Get ready.

Also, an ISIS fighter unmasked. A closer look at what's driving westerners to join this terror group. A report you will see only here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)