Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

White House Daily Press Briefing Obama Personally Warned Trump Against Hiring Flynn; Former Acting A.G. Sally Yates to Testify on Flynn. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired May 08, 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] QUESTION: I mean, if it's still on the website, if the president's words are being used against them in court today, is it worth you clarifying that once and for all?

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I -- I -- yeah, I'm -- I'm trying to figure out why I -- I've been very clear. I don't think I need to clarify what -- what we have said or what the president's said since...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... it's coming up in court and if that's...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: I understand that. And that's, frankly, one of the reasons that we -- we have concerns about how that's being interpreted, because I think the intent of -- of the travel ban was very clear. I think the -- it was something that the president made very clear in the filings that we have filed why he did it, the motives for doing it, and he was clear when he spoke about it from the beginning.

So there really shouldn't be any question as to why the president's doing this and -- and the idea of making sure that we're putting the safety of our country and our people first and foremost.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Thank you.

I've got two topics, hopefully fast.

SPICER: OK.

QUESTION: So, the Kushner family was in China making a pitch for the EB-5 visa program. This came a day after the president signed the omnibus, which, of course, extended that program without any changes. So two questions.

One, is it a violation of the conflict of interest agreement that Jared Kushner came too? And also, does the president believe that that investor visa program needs to be modified in any way?

SPICER: So, I think I would refer you to -- to the company on that. I don't -- but this had -- Jared has done everything to comply with the ethics rules to make sure that had nothing to do with him per se. He wasn't involved.

And secondly, I think we've talked about this before the president and Congress are looking entire -- at how to look over the entire visa program, all the various visa programs, and whether or not they are serving the purpose that they were intended to, whether or not we're making sure that we do what's in the best interest of the American worker.

And so we're going to continue to work with Congress on that.

QUESTION: OK.

And regarding the opioid commission, it's my understanding that no members of that commission have been named yet. We're more than 30 days into what was supposed to be a 90-day period for that commission to come back with a report to the president.

What's up with that? And does that send the wrong signal to people who believe that this is a very urgent crisis where, like, more than 100 people are dying every day?

SPICER: Right.

Well, let me get back to you on the -- on the exact names and the announcement on that. I've got to follow up with that.

I think when it comes to the opioid crisis, the president, both during the campaign, the transition and now as president, has made it very clear of his commitment to figuring out how we can address this crisis that plagues so many -- so many neighborhoods and communities. And he'll continue to work with -- you know, he appointed Governor Christie and a bipartisan commission.

So, as soon as we have additional information on that -- so we will do that.

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Kevin?

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: Why is it important for the president to get these 10 individuals out there to serve the country?

And on a more broader perspective of this question, there are a number of vacancies, 129 going into today, to say nothing of some of the openings over there in EOB that I'm sure can still be filled. The pace seems slow.

Is the president aware of that pace? Is he comfortable with the pace? And what's the White House doing not just to fill those important judicial jobs, but others that are related to the administration?

SPICER: So on the judicial jobs, obviously we're going through it in a very methodical way. As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of background that goes on in each of these in terms of the Office of Government Ethics, the FBI background check that goes on. And so they're all in the pipeline. I think you'll continue to see a very robust (inaudible) of announcements on not just the judicial front, but on several of the fronts. And we're really -- we -- we've been tracking where we are. I think we're well on pace with where previous administrations have been; some ahead, some a little behind.

But we're doing a great job of filling those key positions and making sure that we get the right person for the right job.

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Steve?

QUESTION: I want to ask you a big-picture question about Afghanistan. You were asked about troop levels and don't have an answer to that.

But last week, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction painted a very grim picture: security incidents through March reached the highest level in decades, civilian casualties were the highest on record, there's rampant drug use in Afghanistan.

So as the president weighs this request for more troops, what -- what's going to be his ultimate goal? Is it going to be stability? Is it outright victory in the 16, 17 years (inaudible)?

SPICER: Well, I think, number one, he wants to make sure that we defeat ISIS. That is something that is in our national security interest; make sure that we protect our people. But do -- does so in a very responsible, smart way. I mean, he's talked about not projecting, you know, where -- where he's going and what he's going to do to let the enemy know ahead of time.

And part of that guidance and -- that his national security team is giving him are -- are different pieces that you're talking about. How do we achieve those key outcomes? How do we do what's in the country's best interest and utilize our -- our military and our treasure to the best of our ability?

That is something that we're continuing to work on and do. And that's part of what he is getting briefed on and -- and is implementing.

It's -- so I'm not entirely sure that answers where you're going, but that is -- that is what he has been getting briefed on and that is the kind of decisionmaking process that is currently underway.

QUESTION: Is the president displeased with the current state of affairs in Afghanistan?

SPICER: Well, I think he wants to make sure that we do what we can to win. And that's why he charged the generals and other military advisers and national security team to come up with a plan that can get us there.

So, Veronica (ph)?

QUESTION: Sean, thank you.

Does the president believe that health care is a right or a product?

SPICER: Well, I think the president's been very clear in his statements that whether or not you call it a right or not, he wants every person to have access to health care that covers pre-existing conditions, that is affordable. And I think the steps that he's taken over the last week in the bill that he's implemented -- that he -- he worked to pass through the House clearly highlight those priorities.

He wants to make sure that people have access to care. He is concerned when he hears about companies leaving the marketplace and not giving consumers a choice. He is concerned when he hears about deductibles going through the roof, costs going through the roof, and people not having the access that they can (ph) in health care.

And he is very concerned that we are facing a -- a choice right now where Obamacare is failing and dying, and that if we don't act, that people won't have access to health care, and they won't be able to afford it.

And so, the steps that he is taking are to achieve those principles that he's laid out.

Blake?

QUESTION: Thanks (ph).

Two questions as it relates to President Trump and former President Obama.

Back to that November conversation, were there specific reasons given? And if so -- as -- as it relates to Michael Flynn -- and if so, was that based on private information?

SPICER: I -- I don't know the answer to that. I -- I know that, like I said, he passed along exactly what I mentioned to Kristen (ph) at the outset.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Sean, secondly? Sean, secondly?

SPICER: Michael?

QUESTION: Two -- two clarifications.

On the signing statement -- broadly, not just the subject that (inaudible) -- are you saying that the president was not aware of that very -- of the details about very long signing statement? It was just something that done at -- at OLC and...

SPICER: No, no, no. That's not -- I -- that's not -- I'm sorry.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

SPICER: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, the -- the president's obviously aware of what happened. The question that was asked is -- it is a process. It -- it happened for administrations going back, you know, generations I'm sure. I don't have this precise nature of when signing statements came into -- to being.

But this is a -- a normal pro forma piece that goes along with -- with -- with a bill signing to make sure that the executive branch's intent is as understood.

QUESTION: So, a lot of the things that were in that signing statement were things that were essentially carryovers from things that Obama had also objected to...

SPICER: Right.

QUESTION: ... and so -- but -- but the president and the senior staff here was aware of what those things were and approved those...

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Of course, yes.

QUESTION: OK.

Second question, on the Flynn and the security clearance, you -- you guys have made, both from the podium here and also the president made a big deal of this question of the Obama people gave him the clearance, or re-upped the clearance...

SPICER: Right.

QUESTION: ... earlier.

Are you suggesting now -- knowing what you guys know at the -- with -- with hindsight and whatever, are you saying that they should have -- you believe that the Obama administration should have denied him his clearance back in April based on the information that -- that you're now aware of, connections with Russia, et cetera, et cetera? Are you suggesting that they should have denied it?

SPICER: No.

What I'm suggesting is that that you can't have it both ways.

The -- the folks who are coming out and saying "Obama, you know, expressed some concerns about Flynn," well, number one, it was pretty expected. This is a guy who was very outspoken in his criticism of -- of President Obama's policies. So the idea that President Obama, you know, didn't -- didn't -- didn't like the guy doesn't seem shocking. But the point that you have to ask yourself is, if you -- if the Obama administration -- or under the Obama administration, if they reissued a high -- the -- one of the highest security clearances that you can get, knowing what they knew then, and then didn't do anything to take a proactive step to suspend it in any way shape or form, the question you have to ask yourself is, if they were concerned, why didn't they take any steps?

We -- they're the ones who had, at that point, all the access and all the knowledge to everything that was on his SF-86 security clearance, not us.

So, if President Obama or anyone else, frankly, in the government was concerned, the question should be asked what did they do? And if nothing, then why not if they really truly were concerned?

I think that is a fair question.

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Dave? Dave? Dave?

QUESTION: ... President Obama...

SPICER: Dave?

QUESTION: Sean, can I follow...

SPICER: Dave?

QUESTION: Over the weekend...

QUESTION: General Flynn...

QUESTION: Sean, over the weekend, North Korea detained the fourth U.S. citizen.

Are you -- are you concerned that they're trying to escalate tensions even further? Do you consider these Americans hostages? And what are you doing diplomatically, back channel or otherwise, to try and get them released?

SPICER: Yeah, obviously, this is concerning.

We're well aware of it and we're going to work through the embassy of Sweden -- it has a facility in North Korea -- or an embassy in North Korea -- through our State Department to seek the release of the individuals there.

But I would refer you to the State Department on that.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Sean, thanks very much.

Just follow up on your answer on Afghanistan, you mentioned ISIS, but you didn't mention the Taliban. Should we read that to mean that...

SPICER: No, no.

QUESTION: ... the focus will be on ISIS (inaudible)?

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: No, it's -- it's to defeat both the ISIS and Taliban.

I mean, there's no -- it's -- it's to make sure that we put our national security interest first and defeat all of those folks that seek to do us harm.

QUESTION: Are you willing to negotiate with the Taliban?

SPICER: I -- look, let's -- I think right now, the whole point of this is the president is receiving a plan and guidance from his national security team, as he had asked for. That guidance is coming forward as we speak. He's continuing to meet with them. And there will be further updates from the Department of Defense as we move forward.

The -- as I mentioned at the outset, the president -- the vice president has an event. I want to make sure the pool has time to set for it. We're around all afternoon.

(CROSSTALK)

SPICER: Take care. Good to see you. Thank you.

[13:40:44]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So there it is. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, wrapping up his daily briefing. Lots of questions on the upcoming testimony that we're about to have before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. Michael Flynn, right at the center of all this. He's not going to be testifying. But the former acting attorney general, Sally Yates, will be testifying, as well as James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence.

Gloria, the point that Sean Spicer was trying to make is, if the president of the United States had so much concern about Michael Flynn becoming the president's -- the president-elect's national security adviser, why did they renew his clearances in April of 2016?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I was just talking with or communicating with a former senior Obama administration official who said to me that he didn't work for us anymore. This is effectively a courtesy.

And you know about this, Jim.

This is a courtesy they extend to people. He wasn't -- they weren't aware of all the situations surrounding Flynn at that point. And so, it was extended. And so -- but if you are going to become the national security adviser, the level of vetting goes way beyond that. And it -- as Susan Rice herself said to Fareed Zakaria, it was a separate and much more elaborate check than a security clearance. It gets into financial information, your relationships and it gets into your behavior.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Here's the thing. If just having a security clearance is all the vetting you need to be national security adviser, then today, 1.5 million Americans could be national security advisers. That's the number of people, more than a million, who have top-secret security clearances. The fact is, as Gloria says, it's not how the process works. When you go into those senior-most positons, the administrations, understandably, puts you to a higher stand. There's additional vetting.

Keep in mind, Flynn was not new to them at that point. He'd been a very vocal spokesperson for Trump, even been talked about a possible vice presidential partner for the president. You have that.

But let's put that aside. Because, OK, if Obama came do him on November 10th and said, you really shouldn't trust Flynn, you may understand does Trump trust Obama's recommendation? That's fine. And Sean Spicer said there, we didn't know what the background was, why they felt that.

On January 26th, Sally Yates, the acting attorney general in the Trump administration, goes to the White House counsel and tells them why, exactly why she's concerned about Flynn. Because he was lying, she said, when he denied raising sanctions, U.S. sanctions on Russia in his communications with the Russian ambassador. That's January 27th. Then they had the goods. It was only 18 days later that Michael Flynn was fired, keep in mind, the night of a "Washington Post" story where it came out in public that he had lied to the vice president.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: So they had the goods.

BLITZER: I want to go to Jim Acosta, our senior White House correspondent. He's still there in the briefing room.

What was your main impression? The point that Sean Spicer was making is that it was no secret that the president, the president at that time, President Obama, was not a fan of General Flynn.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. I think the general take here is that this is a White House that is still very much on the defensive when it comes to the hiring of Michael Flynn for national security adviser.

You heard Sean Spicer in the briefing in here talk about, quote, unquote, "bad blood" between President Obama and General Flynn. I think that, OK, President Obama made sure that Michael Flynn was gone from his position at the Defense Intelligence Agency during his administration, but at the same time, it doesn't sound like, unless we hear otherwise, there were a whole lot of other personnel recommendations coming from President Obama to President-elect Trump at that time.

And for the president of the United States, on November 10th, two days after the election, in a sit-down meeting with the president-elect in the Oval Office that went on for 90 minutes, for him to give that kind of warning to the president-elect, stay away from Michael Flynn, that is a pretty significant warning.

But we do know, Wolf, that President Trump was very much a fan of Michael Flynn. You recall that news conference early on in his administration when he described media reports on General Flynn as being part of a witch hunt. And just this morning he was blaming the Obama administration for providing a security clearance to Michael Flynn. So I think it's fair to say at this point that this White House just really doesn't have a good answer at this point on Michael Flynn. They're blaming the Obama administration for the security clearance of Michael Flynn, but at the same time, the president disregarded a personal warning from the outgoing president two days after the election to stay away from Michael Flynn.

I think until we get an answer from the president himself, Sean Spicer's answers in this briefing room are just not going to suffice.

[13:45:46] BLITZER: And, Nia, let me read to you these two tweets from the president this morning. The first one, "General Flynn was given the highest security clearance by the Obama administration, but the fake news seldom likes talking about." Then he tweeted, "Ask Sally Yates under oath if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to White House counsel."

And Sean Spicer repeatedly was asked, are you accusing Sally Yates of leaking that classified information, and the simple thing that Sean Spicer said, "The tweet speaks for itself."

HENDERSON: Yeah, which I don't know what he means by that in terms of the tweet speaking for itself. He essentially wouldn't really answer.

But the president is clearly trying to cast doubt on Sally Yates credibility. They see her as an Obama hold over, an Obama appointee, someone who basically has an axe to grind with this White House.

We see again, this president's tweets getting him in trouble, right? The sort of constant talk about President Obama and what President Obama's administration didn't do in regards to Flynn. Again, that has essentially made Obama want to come out and say, or Obama aides come out and talk about this conversation.

One of the questions that was asked when Spicer was leaving, was President Obama right about Flynn? Was he right to warn you about Flynn, and it turns out he was, and Trump's inability to accept that he was wrong about Flynn.

BORGER: It's all a diversion. It's all a diversion. You want to talk about leaks, you want to talk about Sally Yates leaking, you want to charge the Susan Rice leak? The question is, should Flynn have been appointed national security adviser? It seems that there are serious questions there. They fired him 23 days later, whatever it was. And the question is, why didn't he get that more extensive vet that he should have gotten? We know the president felt very loyal to this guy. And that is probably the reason he got appointed. But should he have been given all these issues?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER & EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Right. Gloria is exactly right. The question is why, after a meeting like that, eight days later, does President Trump say to Michael Flynn, do you want to be my national security adviser. Not do you want to be an adviser. Do you want to be my chief national security adviser? I put that to a former Trump campaign official and the answer came back, I wish I knew. I think that that's a very common thing. Gloria's reported on this. CNN broadly has reported on this, which there are lots and lots and lots of doubts. Were, from President Obama to Trump campaign transition officials to Sally Yates, lots of doubts about this person. Should this person be in your administration at all, much less, in this role. I think the obvious answer -- Gloria touched on it -- is loyalty. He was the guy who was with Trump from the beginning. Led the "lock her up" chant. He was the most outspoken aggressive Trump surrogate. Donald Trump likes that. He likes to reward loyalty.

BLITZER: Yeah, and then he fired him.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

CILLIZZA: By the way, and Jim mentioned this, he fired him, not because of that

(CROSSTALK)

CILLIZZA: -- conglomeration of information, because he lied to the vice president about it.

(CROSSTALK)

CILLIZZA: What we're talking about wasn't even really the fireable offense, though the timeline is exactly right. The fireable offense was he lied to the vice president.

BORGER: And maybe Flynn didn't have a lot of other friends at that point, besides Donald Trump.

[13:49:10] BLITZER: Everybody stand by, Jim, Nia, Chris, Gloria.

We're going to have a lot more coming up, including special live coverage of today's Senate hearing about Russian interference in the 2016 election. That's only moments away.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Amid heightening tensions, North Korea has detained a fourth U.S. citizen, this time, another professor, another possible bargaining tool with the U.S.

Our senior international correspondent, Ivan Watson, is joining us from Seoul, South Korea -- Ivan?

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, imagine learning that your spouse has suddenly been detained in North Korea on suspicion of plotting to hurt the North Korean government. That's what happened Kim Mi-ok over the weekend after her husband, an ethic Korean and naturalized U.S. citizen, was suddenly detained. His name is Kim Hak-song. Now he was an evangelical Christian pastor who had been teaching at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology helping teach cultural techniques to a country that has suffered from deadly famine in the past.

I asked his wife what message she has for North Korea. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIM MI-OK, WIFE OF DETAINED KIM HAK-SONG (through translation): We are all the same people. We have been serving the people. So I hope this detention issue is solved in a humanitarian way and he is sent back to our family. Members of our family are waiting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WATSON: Wolf, Kim Hak-song is the second American working at that university to have been detained in just over two weeks. The other was a professor named Tony Kim, suspected on similar charges. And they're in a very serious situation now, not only because of the confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington over North Korea's nuclear program, but also because there are no direct diplomatic relations between the two countries, and finally, because North Korea claims that it recently foiled a CIA-backed alleged assassination plot targeting the supreme leader of North Korea. So all of that ramping up real tension and pressure, and part of why Kim Hak-song's wife is so worried right now and trying to send the message that her husband loves the North Korean people and that he's been falsely accused -- Wolf?

[13:55:27] BLITZER: Ivan Watson, thank you.

Moments from now, the former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates will testify about Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

Our special coverage continues, right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:05] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: Hello. I'm Wolf Blitzer, in Washington. This is CNN's special live coverage of what's expected --