Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Meeting with Egypt's President; Trump Meeting with Chinese President Later in Week; Senate Democrats to Filibuster Gorsuch Nomination. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 03, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00] SARA MURRAY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: 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 different than how President Obama approached these relationships.

But of course, the most important, the high stakes meeting is sure to be with the Chinese president at Mar-a-Lago. They're expected to meet over the course of two days. The president has already made clear he plans to warn China about the North Korean nuclear threat. He wants to be able to forge a partnership on dealing with that. He did not sound particularly optimistic about that possibility in an interview with the financial times even suggesting that the U.S. could deal with North Korea unilaterally -- Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We know the president also just spoke out on this terror attack in St. Petersburg, Russia. Tell our viewers what he said.

MURRAY: We're waiting for the full video of this to get the full extent of the president's remarks. But he said it was a terrible, terrible thing. He pointed to concerns about terrorism and seemed to indicate this is the kind of thing we're seeing happening all over the world. This will be, Wolf, a driving discussion in a number of his meetings. The question of how terrorist attacks like this are continuing to happen, what's driving them, and how the U.S. can partner with these other countries to prevent them. So it sort of builds into the narrative that the president is hoping to get across this week already to see these tragic images as we've seen today coming out of Russia.

BLITZER: Sara, thanks very much.

We'll get that sound and that tape shortly.

As we just mentioned, President el Sisi of Egypt is at the White House. The king of Jordan will visit tomorrow. Later in the week, China's President Xi jinping is headed to Mar-a-Lago to meet with President Trump.

Moments ago, we saw the president of Egypt and the president of the United States walking over at the White House. You see some pictures there. Unfortunately, they're being blocked by the pillars, but there's the president right there. They have extensive meetings with their aides, an earlier meeting in the Oval Office as well. This is an important relationship, the U.S./Egyptian relationship. Clearly, it has dramatically improved during the term of el Sisi as opposed to his predecessor, who was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, still remains in jail. He was democratically elected but removed by the military. There seems to be a new stronger Egyptian relationship.

You might recall that while on the campaign trail the president, then the candidate, had plenty of harsh rhetoric at China. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We can't continue to allow China to rape our country. And that's what they're doing. It's the greatest theft in the history of the world.

I'm going to instruct my Treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator, which should have been done years ago.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: I want to bring in Aaron David Miller, a CNN global affairs analyst, a former adviser at the State Department.

Aaron, thanks for joining us.

Let's talk a little bit about these major foreign policy issues facing the president this week. How will that previous harsh campaign rhetoric against China impact the upcoming meeting later this week with President Xi?

DAVID AARON MILLER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: We're only 60 days in, Wolf, but I think it's clear that the realities of governing have given way to some of the harsher rhetoric that the president-elect used on the -- Candidate Trump used on the campaign trail. You don't hear talk of two Chinas. You don't hear much talk about the imposition of terrorists. You hear that comment about the U.S. taking care of North Korea if the Chinese wouldn't.

I suspect that this meeting in Mar-a-Lago will probably go pretty well, because I think the president and his advisers are coming to reality that it's a cruel and unforgiving world, and China and China's requirements have to be dealt with. I don't anticipate any transformations. I don't believe in grand bargains after one meeting. Frankly, Xi is probably much more prepared and focused in terms of what he wants from the president than the president's agenda can respect to President Xi. I think it will be a good meeting, but by and large transactional. No issues are going to be conclusively resolved.

BLITZER: There's no doubt North Korea will be high on the agenda. China has influence over North Korea and this interview the president gave over the weekend to the "Financial Times," he says, "If China is not going to solve North Korea, then we will. That is all I'm going to tell you." Will China do what President Trump wants China to do, lean on North

Korea to cut back on those missiles, the launching of ballistic intercontinental, potentially missiles with a nuclear warhead?

[13:35:09] MILLER: I mean, I think there may be polite pressure or at least a tendency on the part of President Xi to say to President Trump that perhaps the Chinese are prepared to use more pressure, but I don't think that President Xi will become an agent in order to Kim Jong-Un. I think there's so many reasons why the Chinese do not want to put themselves in that situation. The United States will have to face the rather cruel reality that its own options in terms of a preemptive strike against North Korea nuclear technology or even ballistic missile technology has to take into account Japanese and South Korean reactions. It's a problem that doesn't have a solution it seems to me. And on balance I would bet by the time we're done with this, in the end we're moving toward more in the direction of diplomacy, Wolf, than preemptive use of American military power. I don't think you'll see a lot of threats and cajoling coming out of Mar-a-Lago this weekend.

BLITZER: We've also been told that President Obama told President Trump, as this transition was taking place, that the most serious national security threat facing the United States right now is North Korea. So I know that will be high on the agenda.

Aaron, thanks very much for joining us.

MILLER: You're welcome, Wolf.

BLITZER: There's other important news we're following. President Trump now says he is not giving up on health care reform, repealing and replacing Obamacare. Telling the "financial times" in that interview, "If we don't get what we want, we will make a deal with the Democrats, and we will have, in my opinion, not as good a form of health care but we are going to have a very good form of health care, and it will be a bipartisan form of health care". That's the president's comment this weekend.

This week, the president got in a round of golf with Senator rand Paul, one of the fiercest critics to repeal and replace Obamacare. Rand Paul tweeting out afterwards, "I had a great time today and believe we are getting closer to an agreement on health care."

I want to talk about this and more with Senate Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, a member of the subcommittee of health.

Thanks, Senator, for joining us.

SEN. BILL CASSIDY, (R), LOUISIANA: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Are you OK with the Freedom Caucus, very conservative Republicans in the House, continuing to resist with the president making a deal with Democrats on health care?

CASSIDY: I'd actually think we can bring everybody together. The point being that may sound naive, but if you're conservative, you are conservative about how we are spending money. We need to pay for that which we are doing and we need to spend the money we spend most wisely. There should be common ground in there, both from Democrats all the way towards the Freedom Caucus.

BLITZER: You say bring everyone together, you mean bring all the Republicans together or bring Republicans and Democrats together to come up with some new health care legislation?

CASSIDY: You have to bring Republicans and Democrats. There's never been a sweeping social change that has endured in our society unless it's bipartisan. I will say that. And it's a truism. Therefore, it really should be bipartisan if we wish it to endure. By the way, many of the policy changes that Republicans wish to achieve can only be done with Democratic cooperation. So my perspective has always been that we need to have this bipartisan more inclusive, not less, including House Freedom Caucus members as well as Democrats.

BLITZER: But remember the former president, President Obama, in 2009, 2010, he got the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, through with only Democrats on board. There were no Republicans who supported it.

CASSIDY: And so it proves my point. It's been under assault ever since. And it's been difficult to do anything. So therefore, it looks as if it will not endure. I wish that when we achieve under President Trump to endure. Not just because it's Trump. Not because it's Republicans or Democrats. That is what's better for patients. I just take that perspective of the average American. If we do what's best by her and it endures, that's the best solution. And for that, you need both Democrats through the House Freedom Caucus.

BLITZER: But if it's called repeal Obamacare, you know Senator Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader in the House, they're not going to support anything that repeals the Affordable Care Act. They're willing to improve it, but they don't want to repeal it. How do you get around that?

[13:39:49] CASSIDY: If we fight about semantics t's going to be like an old married couple that forgot what they are fighting about. In the meantime, everything else is going to heck. I do think we can achieve that which the American people perceive as repeal and replace. Another American might say repair. What's important is both sets of Americans will be happy where we end up. That's what I'm concerned about. Something that's enduring that takes care of Americans, takes care of parents.

BLITZER: Has the White House reached out to you on your ideas?

CASSIDY: I've spoken to a White House official earlier today as well as members of the House of Representatives earlier today and continue to speak with various Senators.

BLITZER: So when the president says he's willing to work with Democrats and come up with a new deal, you're encouraged by that?

CASSIDY: Absolutely. It means it's still front burner, if you will. We need the president's engagement. As long as the president signals this is a priority, it will continue to be a priority for Senators and representatives. I will go back to what I said earlier, that means it will be a priority for the American people. The American people want change. They want lower premiums. They want Candidate Trump's pledges to be fulfilled. They want it to be done in a fiscally responsible way. That's what we should be about. If the president's about it, it it's more likely to happen.

BLITZER: One final question, before I let you go. Will you support what's call the nuclear option and end this whole filibuster rule that will allow Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed as a United States Supreme Court justice by a simple majority?

CASSIDY: Absolutely. If we don't allow Gorsuch to go forward, a guy who jurist and lawyers from across the political spectrum say is imminently qualified, that would suggest that President Trump will never be able to nominate somebody that will get approved. If he's president for eight years, there might be four openings that go unfilled. You just can't allow obstruction because Chuck Schumer is afraid of the far left. It has to be based upon qualifications. Absolutely, I will support whatever it takes.

BLITZER: Senator Cassidy, thanks very much for joining us.

CASSIDY: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Up next President Trump weighing in on the terror attack in Russia that killed 11 people and injured dozens more. What he said right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:46:30] BLITZER: We have breaking news now on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Democrats have crossed the threshold to achieve their threatened filibuster with this. Listen

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS COON, (D), DELAWARE: And throughout this process, I have kept an open mind. After reviewing Judge Gorsuch's record, after meeting with him twice, after participating in four days of Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings, submitting written questions and getting feedback from literally thousands of Illinoisans, I have decided that I will not support Judge Gorsuch's nomination in the Judiciary Committee today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That was Delaware Senator Chris Coons, who said he will not support Judge Gorsuch and also said he would support a filibuster. That makes 41 Democrats in the United States Senate in favor, meaning the only path forward for the Republicans to get the confirmation is to trigger what they call the nuclear option.

Senate Coons is joining us now from Capitol Hill.

Senator, in the committee, you also said you would support that Democratic filibuster. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, says, one way or another, he will be confirmed. You realize by supporting this filibuster, you're going to force the Republicans to change the rules to do what the Democrats did in 2013 when Harry reed was the Democratic leader and rewrite what the United States Senate can and cannot do by simple majorities?

COONS: Well, Wolf, as you may have heard in another point in the hearings this morning, in the Judiciary Committee markup, Senator Cornyn from Texas said that there has never been a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in Senate history. In my remarks, I said, if seven months of preventing Judge Merritt Garland from getting a hearing and a vote is anything, it is the longest and most successful partisan filibuster in Senate history. In the end of my remarks, at the committee today, Wolf, I also remarked that what cloture means -- we will be taking a cloture vote this Thursday. What that means is we are done debating. 60 members of the Senate agree we're ready for the final vote. I said to, be clear, that I am not yet ready for us to be done debating and for us to get to the final vote. So I will vote against cloture on --

BLITZER: Senator, just to interrupt, to explain to our viewers, you will be part of the Democrats who will filibuster this nomination and, as a result, you understand the consequences of what Mitch McConnell --

(CROSSTALK)

COONS: I understand.

BLITZER: -- and the Republican leaders are saying. They'll say, you don't need 60 votes to be confirmed. You only need 51.

COONS: Right. Wolf, I urge you to listen to the rest of my comments, the rest of that sentence. I said I will vote against cloture unless the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can somehow find an agreement that is trustworthy and reliable, where on the next Supreme Court nominee they won't change the rules, and we will have input, and a more confirmable consensus nominee will be put in front of the Senate. I'm not saying that I am insisting that we force the Republican majority to break the rules. That's a choice they're going to have to make. The Republican majority is going to have to decide now how they will act in response to Democrats saying we're not ready to vote for cloture. We need to see if there is still any hope, any way, that they will back off from the nuclear option in exchange for some understanding about how they will handle the next nominee.

[13:50:11] BLITZER: Explain that to me. I'm a little confused. Will Neil Gorsuch be -- in this compromised proposal, this idea that you have, let's call it, a compromise down the road, will Neil Gorsuch become a Supreme Court justice?

COONS: That entirely depends on what actions the majority takes now. They are clear that if the vote were called today, when the vote is called Thursday, there would be 41 Democrats against cloture. At this point, the Republican majority will either say to us, we don't want to do that, we don't want to break the rules, we recognize that what happened to Merrick Garland was wrong and we want to work with you to find a path forward, or they won't. That's where we stand.

BLITZER: What's the path forward? What's the best scenario? In other words, how do you not change the long-standing rules of the Senate as far as confirmation of Supreme Court justice nominees are concerned while, at the same time, allowing this nominee to go forward and be confirmed? How do you walk that tight rope?

COONS: That would require a personal commitment, a trustworthy binding commitment from a significant group of Senators of both parties that we won't change the rules, that we won't change the rules on the legislative filibuster, that we won't change the rules at least for this Congress on Supreme Court nominees. That forces the majority to get eight Democrats to agree that the next nominee is someone we can confirm. I'll remind you that President Trump relied upon the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to pick his nominee for this vacancy. There are more confirmable, more centrist Republican judges out there. If there had been some consultation between the Trump administration and Democratic leaders in the Senate, Judge Gorsuch would have gotten more Democratic support. This is a very close call, Wolf. It's important to not miss that virtually every member of my caucus views this as a stolen seat and thinks there has to be some action taken to recognize that we should be celebrating the anniversary of Justice Garland rather than voting on Judge Gorsuch today.

BLITZER: So in this nuanced position that you have -- and I understand it's complex. What I think I'm hearing you say is, is that if you can get a commitment from the Republican majority in the Senate that the next Supreme Court nominee will require 60 votes in order to be confirmed, you would step back and allow Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed this time. Is that what I'm hearing?

COONS: I'm saying we need to begin that conversation. Now that it's clear there are 41 Democrats willing and ready to vote against cloture, we have to have a conversation about how we got here and where we're going. I'm very skeptical, given just how much distrust and disagreement there is, how much what's happened to Judge Garland and now happening to Gorsuch has divided our parties. I'm quite skeptical we can come to an understanding. But I wanted to be clear that what I said in hearing today, if you run my entire quote, was I'm going to vote against cloture, unless there's a path forward between Republicans and Democrats that we can trust, that allows us to have confidence they will not change the rules on the next confirmation.

BLITZER: But you would allow him to be confirmed this time if you can get what you want the next time. Is that right?

COONS: That's right. That's right.

BLITZER: All right. Senator Chris Coons, with a concept of where he wants to go. And we'll see -- any conversation with mitch McConnell on this front?

COONS: I have not had any direct conversations with Senator McConnell about this. Now that I think it's clear, there will probably be 42 or 43 Democrats by the end of today, now that it's clear there aren't enough Democrats to be invoked on Thursday, it's my hope we will work together in the next two to three days to find our way towards each other. If that doesn't happen, there will be one more big step downwards in the spiral of our ability to work together in the Senate. I think that would be tragic.

BLITZER: Just to be precise, if you get that commitment that the next Supreme Court nominee, if there's another opening on the Supreme Court, will require 60 votes, you're going to step back and stop the filibuster this time. Is that right?

COONS: I would be looking for an agreement from both parties that we won't change the rules. And that, in recognition that Judge Garland should have gotten a vote and there should have been consultation on who was nominated this time, that on the next confirmation, there would be a binding commitment that we will be consulted and Democrats and Republicans will work together to make sure there's a confirmable nominee. We won't break the rules. We won't change the rules. We'll proceed as we should.

[13:55:04] BLITZER: We want the that commitment because this could be a historic moment for the Supreme Court. If the rules are changed now, you have heard the criticism, the Senate becomes the House of Representatives, simple majorities rule and that unique nature of the Senate goes away. You understand that, right?

COONS: Wolf, to be clear, what you're now talking about is the legislative filibuster, the fact that to move any bill in the Senate also requires that this point, cloture, which is a 60-vote motion. I'm greatly concerned that we not let the change in the cloture standard for judges and judges bleed over into legislation. That really would mean that we would be nothing different than the House, that the Senate of the United States would lose what has made it special and what has forced compromise. Regardless of how this dispute over Judge Gorsuch turns out this week, regardless of what happens this week, I'm determined to work with colleagues, both parties, across the aisle to make sure we don't put the legislative filibuster at risk, which is something that's foundational to the history and nature of the Senate.

BLITZER: It certainly is.

Senator, thank you so much for joining us. Glad we got some clarification on where you stand.

COONS: Thank you.

BLITZER: Take a look at this, to our viewers. You're looking at live pictures from the White House briefing room. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, will be briefing reporters, answering questions in the next hour right here on CNN.

We'll take a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)