Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Several Killed, Many Injured In Russia Terrorist Attack; Judiciary Committee To Vote. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired April 03, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

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 begin with the breaking news out of Russia. Authorities now say 11 people were killed and at least 39 others were injured in a subway explosion in St. Petersburg.

Russian officials say an unidentified explosive device caused the blast. The bomb went off in the tunnel between two metro stations. The entire metro system in St. Petersburg has now been shut down. Officials say a second explosive device was found in another St. Petersburg metro station at Revolutionary Square and was disabled.

The Russian prime minister described the explosion as a terrorist act. The president, Vladimir Putin, said, and I'm quoting him now, "We will naturally look into all possible scenarios, especially causes of a terrorist nature."

Let's get more on the breaking news from our Senior International Correspondent Matthew Chance. He's joining us live from Moscow.

Matthew, walk us through how this unfolded and what you're hearing about the initial scene of the explosion.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the scene is one of absolutely devastation. All for the past several hours since this attack took place, Russian television has been rolling video that was filmed on the spot, shortly after the explosion took place, by people on their cell phones.

And still photographs as well showing the carnage and the destruction that this explosion wrought. The twisted metal of the metro train. Its doors blown off by the impact of the blast. The platform outside filled with smoke splattered with blood and the casualties who are strewn around.

An appalling incident. Eleven people killed, 39 injured. Six of them in critical condition, according to the authorities. And so, the final casualty figure, the death toll, could well rise in the hours ahead. An investigation is under full work now with Russian prosecutors on the scene. Not just at this metro station but elsewhere across St. Petersburg as well, gathering what evidence they can and trying to piece together what exactly it was that took place. Who planted this device and where those -- that individual or those individuals are now.

So, I expect there will be a huge effort being put into this investigation right now. Some of the witness reports that having coming from the scene absolutely harrowing. One person talking to Russia media saying that people were bloody. They came out of the carriage with their hair burning.

Other people spoke to state media. One inside the metro car when the explosion went off, saying that everybody in the carriage expected death. And the people began to help each other out, that when the explosion was over but that everybody was covered in blood.

And so, absolutely appalling images, appalling accounts of this terrible scene in St. Petersburg tonight.

BLITZER: Matthew, what can you tell us about the second device, the second bomb that was found and disabled?

CHANCE: Well, this is one of the most terrifying aspects, I think, of this incident because there was this one blast in a metro station, Sennaya Square, in the center of St. Petersburg. And then, just with the next hour, the authorities found another device which they managed to defuse which was in a metro station elsewhere down the same line.

The station was evacuated. Seven others initially were under suspicion and were evacuated as well, until the decision was made to evacuate all 67 metro stations in the city of St. Petersburg, the second biggest city in Russia.

And so, there is still a lot of concern tonight that the perpetrators of this are obviously still at large. And there could be more bombs that the authorities have not yet found.

BLITZER: A Russian politician, Matthew, says the explosion may have been timed to coincide with President Putin's visit to St. Petersburg. He was there earlier for a speaking engagement. What do you make of that?

CHANCE: Well, coincidence or not, it's a -- it's a -- it's a fact that when this device exploded in this metro train, Vladimir Putin was in St. Petersburg. In fact, he was live on national television addressing a media forum, answering questions in St. Petersburg at the time when this attack took place.

Her was later meeting Alexander Lukashenko, who's the president of neighboring Belarus in St. Petersburg. So, both of those presidents were there at the time of the attack. Vladimir Putin offering his condolences, going on state television, offering his condolences for the families of the dead and the injured. And vowing to bring those responsible to justice -- Wolf. BLITZER: Matthew Chance in Moscow for us. Matthew, thank you.

So far, there has been no claim of responsibility for the attack in St. Petersburg. So, who might have been responsible, who might have been behind it?

[13:05:05] Joining us from New York, CNN Terrorism Analyst Paul Cruickshank. He's editor and chief of "CCT Sentinel." And joining us from Irvine, California, our Intelligence and Security Analyst Bob Baer, a former CIA operative.

Paul, who are the most likely suspects?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, I think the working assumption, Wolf, is this was an act of Jihadi terrorism. Russian investigators will be looking at jihadi groups operating in the caucuses region. Those groups have been responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks on Russian soil in the last decade.

But there could also be a Syria link here, a global Jihadi link here. Because Jihadis have made clear that Russia is now their number one target worldwide. Not the United States anymore but Russia.

And that's because of Russia's brutal campaign of air strikes in Syria. The fact that so many Sunni Muslims inside Syrian places, like Aleppo, have been killed in Russian airstrikes. That's angered the Jihadi community and also energized them.

And groups, like Al Qaeda and ISIS, have said we're going to hit Russia. And there's concern that some of these Russians that have joined ISIS and other Jihadi groups, and there are a very large number of them, several thousand, may come back to Russia and launch attacks.

And we've seen some of the recruits from the caucuses' region actually be part of international terrorism in the past few months, including that attack on Istanbul airport in June of 2016 -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So, Paul, when you say Jihadi terrorist, you're specifically referring to either ISIS or Al Qaeda. Is that right?

CRUICKSHANK: Well, ISIS or Al Qaeda or groups affiliated or sympathetic towards them. The Jihadis now operating in the caucuses' region, many of those groups now aligned with ISIS, their fellow travelers. We'll have to wait and see whether there are those international connections.

But Vladimir Putin recently warning that up to 7,000 nationals from Russia and the former Soviet block joined groups like ISIS and Syria and Iraq. That's an astronomical number and the worry is them migrating back and Russia could see, really, an unprecedented wave of terrorism in the coming months.

BLITZER: Bob, authorities, as you know, found this second explosive device at a different metro station. They were, fortunately, able to disable it. What does that suggest about the size of this terrorist operation to you? BOB BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Wolf, I agree

with Paul, first of all. You have a lot of Russians fighting in Syria. They have motivation for coming back to Russia and attacking.

The fact that two explosive devices were used. Typical Gorilla tactics, never just one, always two. They wanted the Russians to know that was an organized group. It wasn't a one off. It wasn't a lone wolf. And they're coming to get them.

They're -- it's just traditional using two devices. And I think the Russians are lucky the second device didn't go off.

BLITZER: Good point. All right, guys. We're going to stay on top of the breaking news. Bob Baer, Paul Cruickshank, we'll get back to you as well, go back to Moscow.

Also, we're watching other important news, including President Trump now facing his biggest diplomatic week yet, a meeting today with Egypt's president. Meeting, in fact, at the White House as we speak.

And two other world leaders later in the week. Will his harsh campaign rhetoric, though, hinder those upcoming meetings?

Plus, live pictures now from Capitol Hill where the Senate Judiciary Committee is debating whether or not to move the Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, before the full Senate for a vote later in the week. Why the tally may force Republicans to invoke what they call the nuclear option.

That and a lot more coming up.

[13:08:53]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Right now, the Senate Judiciary Committee is debating the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. Democratic Senator Chris Kunz is speaking right now. Let's hear what he says.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D), DELAWARE, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: His book and other comments suggest a very narrow interpretation of a key president, Planned Parenthood of southeastern Pennsylvania versus Casey. An absolutely central case to addressing personal liberty and reproductive rights as protected under the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

Casey is a critical precedent that the Supreme Court has continually relied on for 25 years to protect the freedom of many, including most recently, the freedom of same-sex couples to have intimate relationships and to support equality as the law of the land.

On each of these important issues and more, Judge Gorsuch avoided responding concisely and thoroughly to questions. In fact, as detailed by Senator Feinstein, he avoided responding to questions that many other nominees, nominated by both Republicans and Democrats, have not just answered but answered squarely. He told me that the Casey decision remains an open question in many ways.

He would not agree with me that the right to privacy today extends to protecting women's rights to have autonomy over the reproductive choices and protecting the privacy of intimate relations between consenting adults, whether same sex or the opposite sex.

This, and many more, left me concerned Judge Gorsuch harbors restrictive view of the right to privacy and personal liberty, rooted in the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Let me be clear, I don't think these and other issues raised by many of my colleagues are just narrowly partisan issues. I think it is unfortunate if we leave the public to view members of the Supreme Court simply as red pegs or blue pegs deciding cases along partisan lines. Because there are many, many cases that are decided not along partisan lines, but along lines that are narrowly legal. In fact, I think in 60 percent of the cases decided by the court, they are unanimous.

Indeed, several justices nominated by Republican presidents have appreciated exactly this point. The important role of 14th Amendment due process in securing for individual liberties and have taken a far more restrained view of their judicial role than Judge Gorsuch's record suggests he would adapt.

Judge Gorsuch's record shows a tendency to searchingly explore broader issues than what is necessary to decide the case before him. A willingness to revisit long settled precedent and to promote actively changes to the law. As others have discussed, he has insisted the chevron doctrine should be revisited. This doctrine is a longstanding precedent that ensures judicial difference to agency experts responsible for health and safety, environmental and consumer protection regulations. And for me, even more troubling, he suggested restricting access to federal court for actions brought under Section 1983, a critical tool for civil rights enforcement.

It is based on these and many other concerns that I've detailed in my questioning, my questions for the record, and in further statements I've made that I will ultimately vote against Judge Gorsuch's nomination today.

Still, I share the view of many of my colleagues that Judge Gorsuch is a talented, experienced jurist. I understand why all of my Republicans colleagues will support him and why some of my Democratic colleagues will support him today as well. I cast my vote well aware that he will receive the required votes on this committee to advance to the full Senate.

We are at an historic moment in the history of the United States Senate. Thanks to actions, decisions, even mistakes made by both Democrats and Republicans over recent years, over many years, we have eroded the process for reaching agreement and dishonored our long traditions of acting above partisanship, especially when it comes to confirmation for judges and now justices.

I said last week it would be tragic if Judge Gorsuch's confirmation process leads the Senate Republicans to join the majority leader in abolishing the 60 vote threshold for cloture on the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. Let's be frank, the majority leader has assured us he will abolish the 60 vote threshold for Judge Gorsuch if eight Democrats don't support him on the Senate floor. I don't agree with that approach. But like it or not, as a number of you have asserted today, that is the reality.

On Thursday, the full Senate will participate in what's called a cloture vote. It's one of the Senate's many long traditions. And though many Americans not know - may not know exactly what it means, it means that we are done debating. That we are ready for the final vote. And almost always a combination of both Democrats and Republicans are required for us to get to cloture.

So on Thursday we'll be voting to decide whether we are ready to finish debating the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. I am not ready to end debate on this issue. So I will be voting against cloture unless we are able, as a body, to finally sit down and find a way to avoid the nuclear option and ensure the process to fill the next vacancy on the court is not a narrowly partisan process, but rather an opportunity for both parties to weigh in and ensure we place a judge on the court who can secure support from members of both parties.

The reality we are in requires us over the next several days to consider what both Democrats and Republicans are doing to this body and to consider what both Republicans and Democrats have done to erode the trust that has long lasted between us, and to consider whether we can stop the undeniable momentum towards abolishing the tradition that make this Senate unique and important.

Democrats, including me, are still furious at the way Judge Merrick Garland was treated last year. But the traditions and principles that have defined the Senate are crumbling and we are poised to hasten that destruction this week. So for my part, I hope and pray that we can yet find a way together to find a solution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

Senator Crapo (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Judge Gorsuch has shown -

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so there you heard Senator Coons say he's going to oppose the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the United States Supreme Court but is deeply, deeply concerned that the rules of the Senate could change if in fact they can't get that - if they can't get him approved. The nuclear option potentially could be used. That's what the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has suggested that they will get this judge approved for the United States Supreme Court one way or another.

I want to bring in Phil Mattingly up on Capitol Hill. Phil, walk our viewers through this sort of complicated process that

we're watching right now. You just heard Senator Coons say he will vote against confirmation, but he - he, like other, Democrats and certainly some Republicans as well, are deeply concerned that the entire rules of the Senate for such a long time could change as a result of a filibuster.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's exactly right, Wolf. And they basically will change based on what you just heard Senator Chris Coons say. Now, Senator Coons made very clear, he's opposing the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to be the next Supreme Court justice, but he's also saying he's going to vote no on cloture. Now, what that essentially means is Chris Coons becomes the 41st Democrat to say publically he will filibuster the nomination.

[13:20:11] As the rules currently stand, for a Supreme Court nominee, You need 60 votes in favorite of that nominee to be able to move on to a final vote. With Chris Coons decision to say that he is going to vote against that procedural vote, vote against that idea to just move forward to that final vote, that means the Democrats have enough to filibuster the nomination.

Now, what does that mean going forward? Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been very clear, Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice - as a - the next nominee to be a Supreme Court justice no matter what, which means he's made very clear he will be changing the rules of the Senate to ensure that a simple majority will be all it will take to continue on to that final vote.

So, as it currently stands, Wolf, and this goes back to years of a very acrimonious relationship between Republicans and Democrats, as one senior GOP aide told me just a couple of days ago, look, nobody's hands are clean in this debate back and forth. Democrats changed the rules on other judicial nominees back in 2013, making it only a prerequisite to having a majority to move them forward. Now Republicans have made very clear, based on what Senator Coons has said, based on the 41 Democrats that are now opposed to just the procedural vote to move forward, they will also change the rules going forward.

So, as it currently stands, by the end of this week, Senator McConnell will invoke what is called the nuclear option, and that option means a full blown change of the rule as it pertains to Supreme Court nominees to be able to move this nominee forward as we've heard repeatedly over the course of this day, as members of this committee, Wolf, have kind of walked through it. You've heard a lot of Democrats talk about why they are opposed to Neil Gorsuch's nomination, but you hear even more of them, and a lot of Republicans as well, kind of decry the current environment in the U.S. Senate. The current kind of way things are moving. Nobody's very happy about the direction.

Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican, said, and I'll quote him on this, "it's very clear, it is not a healthy institution right now." But Republicans have made the calculation, have made the judgment that this is their Supreme Court nominee. They're going to do whatever it takes to get him through. Democrats have basically tried to call their bluff here. They are saying together on this for the most part, minus the three that have come out in favor so far of this nomination.

And, Wolf, what that means is the Senate is headed down a path that frankly a couple years ago people would think that they would never go to. They're going to be there by the end of this week, Wolf.

BLITZER: So this will mean that from now on a U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee will only need a simple majority, will not need 60 votes. So if there are more openings on the U.S. Supreme Court down the road, and President Trump nominates someone, that person will only need 50 votes because the president of the Senate is the Republican vice president to break that tie or a simple majority. And this dramatically changes the rules that have been around for so long, right, Phil?

MATTINGLY: That's exactly right. And, look, the big debate behind the scenes among Democrats is, if you make this change, you're essentially acknowledging that the next Supreme Court nominee won't have to be a mainstream pick. That pick could be very far right. Or if Democrats happen to be back in power, that pick could be on the very far left. It's something that traditionally, historically the Senate tries to avoid, particularly on a nomination like a Supreme Court nominee. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. You don't want kind of nominees that come from the opposite polls of each party. But as this goes forward, based on the rules change that is almost certain to happen by the end of this week, Wolf, from here on out it will only take 51 votes going forward. If things currently stand as they do with the majority, Republicans holding 52 seats in the Senate, if another seat opens up, President Trump only needs to look to get that majority. Doesn't need to care about Democrats anymore, Wolf.

BLITZER: It truly would be an historic moment for the United States Senate.

All right, Phil Mattingly, thanks very much.

Right now, by the way, President Trump is still meeting with Egypt's president, El-Sisi. Also we're getting word he's weighing in on the latest Russian terror attack in St. Petersburg. We'll have details on that, more when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:28:30] BLITZER: Over at the White House today, the president's been meeting with Egypt's visiting president, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. Here's part of their Oval Office remarks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President El-Sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt.

We'll fight terrorism and other things and we're going to be friends for a long, long period of time. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's go to our White House correspondent, Sara Murray.

Sara, this is an important meeting. In fact, there are a series of important foreign policy meetings the president is having this week, not only with the leader of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan will be coming to the White House on Wednesday, I think Thursday and Friday the president will be meeting with the president of China down in Mar- a-Lago in Palm Beach. All of this setting the stage for some critically important decisions.

SARA MURRAY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. It's a high stakes week of diplomacy for President Trump and it will give us a good indication of how this president plans to approach foreign policy. Very differently from his predecessor. I think this meeting with the Egyptian president is a good indication. You saw that warm greeting. You saw President Trump insuring the two countries will be working closely together. Wolf, this is something he forecasts on the campaign trail and he specifically talked about the president of Egypt and the king of Jordan as key partners in combatting terrorism. And in another difference with the Obama administration, a Trump administration official told reporters last week that any discussion of human rights concerns, human rights abuses would be done discreetly, raised quietly outside of the public realm. That is obviously very different than how President Obama approached these relationships.