Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Graham Wants To Probe Trump's Business Dealings; Russian Activity In France; Pence, Senators Meeting To Discuss Future Of Health Care; WH Official: Women Will Be Added To All-Male Senate Group; Interview with Sen. Bill Nelson. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 09, 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: Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Happening this hour, the White House press briefing. Sean Spicer will brief reporters, take questions. Among the likely topics, many including the fate of health care. Right now, up on Capitol Hill, Vice President Mike Pence and Republican senators, they are behind closed doors, considering the right path forward to try to achieve health care reform.

There'll also be many questions about the Russia investigation. The National Security Agency director has a stark warning about possible Russian election interference in the future.

Plus, top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham now says he wants to investigate President Trump's business dealings involving Russia.

Joining us now, our White House Correspondent Sara Murray and our Senior Congressional Reporter Manu Raju. Manu, you had a chance to speak with Senator Graham just a little while ago. What did he tell you?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yes, that's right. We did talk about a hearing that he had yesterday in which Yates -- Sally Yates and James Clapper did testify before his committee. He did say he felt that Sally Yates did a, quote, "incredible job." And he also said that perhaps that Donald Trump kept Michael Flynn in that position for 18 days as national security adviser, even as he Yates warned he could have been blackmailed by the Russians. Because, quote, "Trump is very loyal to Michael Flynn."

Now, what intrigued Lindsey Graham, in particular, was an exchange that he had with James Clapper about possible - about possible business connections between Trump interests and Russian interests and Clapper's refusal to respond. Listen to his exchange from yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: General Clapper, during your investigation of all things Russia, did you ever find a situation where a Trump business interest in Russia gave you concern? GEN. JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Not in

the course of the preparation of the intelligence community assessment.

GRAHAM: Since?

CLAPPER: I'm sorry?

GRAHAM: At all? Anytime?

CLAPPER: Senator Graham, I can't comment on that because that impacts the investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, when I talked to Lindsey Graham about the next steps for his sub committee, he referenced that specific exchange and says he wants to learn more about those business dealings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: So, I want to know about what Clapper said and I want to know more about Trump's business dealings.

RAJU: What's the business interest of yours?

GRAHAM: I don't know. I mean, the FBI, according to Clapper, I think they're actually looking at that. So, maybe that's something we need to steer clear of. What I'm trying to do is find out what happened so we can prevent it in the future.

RAJU: Do you think his tax returns would be helpful in determining the business interest aspect?

GRAHAM: Could be, down the road.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, I asked him, would you be willing to subpoena for those tax returns? He said he did not know that yet. We're not going to get to that point. He did say he needs to be weary of what the FBI is doing before launching himself into looking to his business dealings. But interestingly enough, he does want to look into that further.

Also, Wolf, he said that he does want to hear from Susan Rice, the former Obama adviser, about whether or not she was involved in any unmasking of identities, particularly for political purposes. As you know, Rice declined to appear at his hearing yesterday. He said that, I don't know if I'm going to subpoena her yet, but he does want to know if she was involved in any way and how this information eventually got to the press.

So, clearly, his subcommittee not done looking at this issue just quite yet, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, clearly, he's not going to make President Trump very happy by what he said about this investigation into Trump's business dealings with Russia, and including the possibility of trying to get his tax returns.

Sara, you're over there at the White House. The Graham news comes just a day after the rather explosive testimony from the former acting attorney general, Sally Yates, and the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

So, what is the White House saying on this day after about all of that? And I say that - I ask you the question knowing, I'm sure, that the press secretary, Sean Spicer, will be bombarded with questions about it.

SARA MURRAY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think that's right, Wolf. I think one thing is clear that questions about Donald Trump ties to Russia are going to continue to haunt this administration, at least for a while going forward.

From the White House's perspective, their big take away after yesterday, the point that they want to hammer home is that there is still no evidence of collusion between anyone who was associated with Donald Trump's campaign and suspected Russian operatives. And after we saw those hearings yesterday, the president took to Twitter to air those grievances, saying it was a total hoax, the notion that there was any collusion between his campaign and the Russians.

But, of course, Wolf, we know that the FBI is looking into this. And I think one thing is notable. We did not hear the White House or the president address some of, sort of, the bombshell revelations that we heard yesterday. The fact that Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, issued a stern warning on more than one occasion about Michael Flynn, about the fact that he could be compromised.

[13:05:11] And then, that President Trump kept Michael Flynn in that role for 18 days after learning that Flynn could be blackmailed. So far, the White House has not answered this question of why the president continued to keep Flynn on until it became known publicly through news report that Flynn was in this compromised position. You can bet that that is a question that Sean Spicer is likely to be asked today - Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, we'll have live coverage of his press conference. That's coming up later this hour.

Sara Murray, Manu Raju, guys, thanks very much.

The head of the National Security Agency, the NSA, just testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on cyber threats facing the United States right now. Admiral Mike Rogers says there is a possibility of cyber capability of some of the U.S.'s strongest adversaries, including Russia, that could exceed the United States' ability to defend itself adequately. And he adds, the U.S. needs to be prepared for future cyber interference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ADMIRAL MIKE ROGERS, DIRECTOR, NSA: The offensive side, in general, has the advantage over the defense which is why the ideas of deterrence are so important here. How do we shape and change opponents' behavior?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In order to do that, we would have to have a policy followed by a strategy, right?

ROGERS: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do we have that now?

ROGERS: No, sir, but the new team is working on that. I want to make sure we all understand that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the check's in the mail?

SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: After looking at the experience in 2016, which you just described, knowledge of penetration, attribution to a foreign state, going after key systems in this country, some of which have now been designated as critical infrastructure, we have to be much, much better prepared in 2018, 2020 and beyond.

ROGERS: I agree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Senator Mike Rounds is on the Armed Services Committee. You heard Admiral Rogers' testimony. Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R), SOUTH DAKOTA, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity.

BLITZER: Do you think the U.S. is prepared for a cyber-attack potentially by another country, let's say Russia?

ROUNDS: I think we're at risk and I think that's what Admiral Rogers has indicated.

As a matter of fact, the Science Advisory Board that gives information to the Defense Department made it very clear that for the next 10 years, our ability to defend against those attacks from our peer competitors, which would include both Russia and to a lesser extent China, is not equal to what their offensive capabilities are.

That's one of the reasons why they've indicated that over the next 10 years, we have to have a stronger deterrent in place.

And that means not just a cyber deterrent but also the understanding, clearly in policy, that certain items would want to be tolerated, certain encourages (ph) would not be tolerated.

And that's one of the reasons why we've asked for the creation or a clear delineation about could be considered a cyber act of war, one which would require a response. And if we don't have that type of a policy in place, then other organizations that are out there, both our peer competitors and others, are more inclined to test the waters to find out whether or not we really do have a red line that they could cross.

BLITZER: Did the Russians cross that red line, do you believe, with their cyber activities, interfering in the U.S. Presidential election last year?

ROUNDS: What they've actually done is the same as they have in previous years. They've been doing this type of activity for a generation. The difference this time around is that they are getting better at using cyber as a tool. They got in. In the past, what they would have done would have been to sneak into somebody's office, take pictures of private notes and letters and then released them through traditional means, meaning R.T. or a news publication or pamphlets.

In this case, with social media and WikiLeaks, they were able to not only use cyber to get in and look at what was on computers, but then they took that information and they disseminated it using cyber means, in terms of social media, WikiLeaks and so forth.

So, their actual interference, their actual activity is not new. What is new is their competence, their capability to disseminate information. And it does - it does ring a bell for us that says that, you know, if they're going to do that and they're not going to feel some sort of a price for it, then they'll do it again. And Mr. Putin is very, very good at measuring his competition, measuring his opponents and finding out what he can get away with.

So, our responsibility is to let him know that if he's going to interfere with our election process, or at least try to, that there will be consequences. And that doesn't necessarily have to mean just cyber consequence because we should have all of our domains available to us.

BLITZER: The NSA director, Admiral Rogers, also confirmed the U.S. actually warned France about Russia's interfering with that country's presidential election last weekend. Here's what Admiral Rogers said. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[13:10:03] ROGERS: But if you take a look at the French elections, for example, again an unclassified hearing, I'm not going to get into specifics, but we had become aware of Russian activity.

We had talked to our French counterparts prior to the public announcements of the events that were publicly attributed this past weekend and gave them a heads up, look, we're watch the Russians. We're seeing them penetrate some of your infrastructure. Here's what we've seen. What can we do to try to assist? We're doing similar things with our German counterparts, with our British counterparts. They have an upcoming election sequence. We're all trying to figure out how can we try to learn from each other?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, Senator, how are the world's powers dealing with this growing cyber threat, particularly as it relates to these elections in democracies across the globe?

ROUNDS: First of all, by getting the information out, that there really is such a thing as fake news. That there really is misinformation out there and to trust your sources. Part of that is what happened in France, where literally people started to understand that Russia was trying to interfere.

When that happens, it can have a backlash as well. And that slows down their activity in the future, hopefully. But along with that, other companies have to recognize the risk that they take. And it's not just a matter of responding, in terms of cyberspace. There are other means as well.

There's economic activity that can be impacted. We shouldn't limit the type of response to just a cyber response. But if you also noticed, admiral rogers made it clear that we have the capabilities to monitor what Russia is doing. We've got some very good capabilities and, in fact, they wish they had our capabilities. We can do it.

We just - we just can't be complacent. We can't just simply assume that since we've got the capability to monitor them right now that we necessarily have the capability to stop them from interfering. And that's the reason why the science board had made it clear that we have to improve our ability to deter them in the future.

Cyber is one way in which to do it. To be able to go back in. To attribute who's actually causing the problem. To work your way through the different systems. Find that organization. And then, to be able to respond to them accordingly. In milli-seconds if it's under a cyber response or if it means a political means or economic means and, in worst case, scenarios if everything else fails, military means using the other domains that we have available to us, space, land, air, sea.

BLITZER: Senator, you heard your Republican colleague, Lindsey Graham, just tell our Manu Raju up on the Hill that he wants to look into President Trump's business dealings with Russia. He said he was particularly intrigued when the former DNI chief, James Clapper, had a no comment during yesterday's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing. And he added that Trump's tax returns could also be helpful as part of this investigation. Do you agree with Senator Lindsey Graham?

ROUNDS: Well, what I've said in the past is that we like the fact that with the Intelligence Committee, we've taken a bipartisan approach. We respect the members on that committee. We'll listen to what they have to say and we'll respond after they've made their decisions.

But that decision and the investigation itself being held by that particular committee, which, as I say., has the respect of the United States Senate, I think is a positive thing. If Senator Graham, in going back to the intelligence committee makes that recommendation and they adopt it, we'll support their decision.

BLITZER: Senator Mike Rounds, thanks so much for joining us.

ROUNDS: Thank you, sir.

BLITZER: Right now, the vice president, Mike Pence, is weighing in on the future of health care here in the United States. He's meeting with the Republican senators, as we speak. He's also planning on making a weekly visit. And this is part of his weekly visit to Capitol Hill.

CNN's Phil Mattingly is joining us right now. Phil, what are you learning about the vice president's efforts right now up on the Hill?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're going to be broad-based, Wolf, no question about it.

And there's a recognition, both inside the White House right now and up here on the Senate, that they're in the very early stages of this process, despite all of the wrangling, almost painfully so, that we saw across the Capitol in the House over the course of the last two months.

The Senate really is starting over on most of the major pieces here. And the vice president's goal, I think, I've been told, over the course of the next couple weeks, is to make sure things stay on track. To make sure that there is a legitimate effort behind closed doors to work their way on to consensus.

Obviously, there are very major issues that they need to confront, from Medicaid expansion, the structure of the tax credits, Planned Parenthood funding, all of which will to need to be addressed for them to move forward.

And the White House making clear they understand that the Senate is going to go its own way on this and probably going to work on its own rather slow paced.

But the goal is to make sure that they stay engaged and to make sure they keep this process on track as they move forward to the hope there's a floor vote where they can get 51 senators and actually move this forward - Wolf.

BLITZER: Actually, just to be precise, they need 50. Mike Pence, as the president of the Senate, he could break that tie, right?

MATTINGLY: Yes, that's exactly right.

[13:15:00] Look, they can afford to lose two of their 52 senators and still have Vice President Mike Pence come in and cast the deciding vote, give them 51 and actually move forward. I think the goal is to try and get as much of their conference, if not all of it, together.

But - and when you look at the issues that kind of divide the conference, and divide the Republican Party here, there's no question that there's a very real possibility that they're going to lose one, two, or maybe more senators. And I think that's why you see the White House engaged so early, and that's why you see senators being very clear about the fact that there's a lot of work to do behind the scenes to get to them to that point where they believe they can actually pass something, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, republicans have a very slim majority in the senate, 52 republicans, 48 democrats. Very quickly, Phil, before I let you go, the Senate Majority Leader, he named a 13-member group of senators all male to deal with health care reform. I take it you're getting new information on the makeup of that panel?

MATTINGLY: Look, senate republicans are keenly aware that this is not a good look. They have five very talented, very well-regarded female senators in the conference. The idea that they wouldn't be part of this group is not necessarily a good public scene. And I think behind the scenes, it's caused some frustration among the senators as well. The White House is telling my colleague, Liz Landers, that they believe there will be a substantive change to the makeup of this group. Senate republicans I've been talking to say, "Look, everybody in our conference is going to be involved." For example, Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Senator, was involved in today's meeting because it was about Medicaid. She comes from a Medicaid expansion state.

So, they're keenly aware of the optics of this. That there probably needs to be changes made. The White House says those changes are coming. At the moment, though, senate republicans say, "Look, we want everybody involved throughout." There are several different groups working here. They know this is a problem and it appears they're working on trying to address that problem, Wolf.

BLITZER: Well, let's see if they name some women to that inner group. All right. Thanks very much, Phil Mattingly, up on the Hill. This reminder, we're waiting on the daily White House press briefing with Sean Spicer. You're looking at live pictures coming in from the briefing room. Once it begins, we'll go there live. You'll see it right here on CNN.

Up next, I'll be joined by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. He's a top democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Lots to discuss with him including what we just heard from the National Security Agency director about Russia and more. Plus, his hopes for health care reform in the U.S. senate. That, right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:07] BLITZER: President Trump meeting with the National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster this morning. Afghanistan certainly a likely topic. The final proposals for a possible U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan expected to cross the President's desk perhaps as early as this week. A boost of troop levels, something General McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis are apparently both in favor of.

Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr is joining us. She's been reporting on this. Barbara, what kind of numbers are we talking about when we report that a possible U.S. military troop increase is in the works?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, what we're talking about is somewhere between 1500 and 5,000 additional U.S. troops to join the 8400 U.S. forces already in the country. If it's 5,000, it's a significant increase, it's significant percentage increase but what will these troops actually do? They are set to continue to work on train, advise, and assist Afghan forces, some could conduct counterterrorism missions, go after the Taliban, go after ISIS, Al- Qaeda remnants. But, this is pretty typical of what's been going on for the last 15 years. So, the real question is would these 5,000 additional troops be enough combat pressure, if you will, to force the Taliban to a settlement at the negotiating table? That may be a very tall order, Wolf.

BLITZER: And presumably, there would be some additional NATO troops as well if the U.S. increases its troop presence. Is there a divide as far as you're hearing, Barbara, within the Trump administration over the strategy of doubling down right now in Afghanistan, 15, almost 16 years into this war?

STARR: Well, I think there certainly are some people within the administration who are skeptics of doing it. You know, there are some who are very much of the "America First" school of thinking, and they are not said, at least not be supportive of a significant increase in the U.S. commitment here. But, one of the other things on the table for the President to decide, is giving commanders on the ground more authority to conduct airstrikes, more authority for more ground operations, the very same authority she's already given them in places like Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. Giving the Pentagon more authority is something many commanders have wanted, but this is very dangerous business. It also means they have to own it. They have to be successful at it. President Trump says he wants to win in Afghanistan, and there are a lot of people who think more -- just more U.S. troops won't be enough to push the Taliban out of business, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, it's also going to cost the U.S. taxpayers billions and billions of additional dollars. Barbara, thanks very much.

Let me bring in Senator Bill Nelson, he's a democrat from Florida. He's a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator, thanks for joining us.

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL), SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SENIOR MEMBER: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: So it would be smart for the U.S. to deploy maybe as many as additional - an additional 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan?

NELSON: Yes, I support it. But, Wolf, there's no end to this. And what we found is an occupying force never wins in Afghanistan. Look at the whole history of the country. But, at this point, I don't think we have any other choice because if we were to get rid of our 8400, now maybe up to 13,000, the alternative, if they were to leave, it's going right back into the hands of the Taliban.

(CROSSTALK) BLITZER: But Senator, let me -- let me interrupt you. If the U.S.

couldn't get it done over these past 15, 16 years, when the U.S. had 50,000 troops there, 75,000 troops there, backed by other NATO Forces, if they couldn't get it done with that kind of level, and it was a disaster, why do you think it could get done now with an additional, let's say, 5,000 troops? Is it simply a waste?

[13:25:13] NELSON: Well, your point is that it's very difficult, and indeed, it is. Here's the hope. The hope is stabilizing it enough that you can bring about a peace settlement and that that peace settlement sticks. That's the only hope. Otherwise --

BLITZER: But is that - is that at all realistic, senator, given the history of what we've all seen over these past 15, 16 years in Afghanistan? Because all of us who have covered that war, there were great hopes early on that there was going to be a new government, a pro-democratic government, the Taliban was leaving, Al-Qaeda was leaving. Now, ISIS is in the mix dramatically there, and there are reports that the Russians are involved in arming the Taliban. It looks like it could be just an open-ended disaster for the U.S.

NELSON: Kind of sounds like Syria all over again, but it's not just in Afghanistan the last 15, 16 years, look at the last century in Afghanistan. This is always the case. An occupying power never is the one that finally wins. However, Wolf, we don't have any choice. We've got work to try to bring about a peace settlement for the interest of the United States and our allies. And I think the increase of some 3,000 to 5,000 troops is a step in the right direction but be sobered about the future.

BLITZER: Well, do you have confidence in this Afghan government there? Because the U.S. can't want peace for the Afghan people more than the Afghan people want peace. Are you confident that the regime there, the government there, is the right government to lead the Afghan people towards some real settlement, a real peace?

NELSON: Well, it's a new day. Look, for example, the rights of women. You're going to have a considerable rebellion among women if, in fact, you were to turn it back over to the Taliban. So, I think there are some new things that might indicate that there might be a peace settlement successfully. On the other hand, we're dealing with Afghanistan, and you know the history.

BLITZER: Let me play a little clip. This is the Secretary of Defense James Mattis. He was in Copenhagen in Denmark today meeting with some of the NATO allies. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES MATTIS, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: In Afghanistan, we're up against a determined enemy. As I said, ISIS has been thrown back there. Al-Qaeda have been unable to amount attacks out of Afghanistan. The government under President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah are committed to working in a responsive way with their citizens and therein lies the path forward when a government wins the affection, the respect, and the support of their people, then no enemy can stand against them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. I want to get your response to that. What do you think?

NELSON: That's a responsible statement. That's what he ought to say. I think he believes that. And if there is a possibility that that will occur, then, in fact, we ought to try it.

BLITZER: It's a - it's a fair statement indeed. Unfortunately, we've heard those kinds of statements from U.S. Defense Secretaries, U.S. Secretaries of State, and U.S. Presidents now for almost 16 years, going back to the beginning of this war in Afghanistan. The longest U.S. war in American history. Let's hope it could be different this time. But I've got to tell you, senator, a lot of people are not very upbeat. Another 4,000 or 5,000 troops probably not going to make all of that much of a difference but we shall see. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, thank you so much.

NELSON: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: The FBI, meanwhile, is considering correcting the congressional record of its director, James Comey. This, after Comey, raised eyebrows last week when he talked about the amount of e-mail a top Clinton aide shared with her husband. We have details when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)