Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Tried to End Probe; Obstruction of Justice by Trump; Democrats Call for Impeachment; Pompeo Briefs Intel Committee; Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 17, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: This is a moment in American history.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: If indeed the President tried to tell the director of the FBI who worked for him that he should drop an investigation, that's a very serious matter.

SEN. AL GREEN (D), TEXAS: A call for the impeachment of the president of the United States of America.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: We need the actual documents. We need to hear directly from Mr. Comey himself.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Why didn't he take action at the time? So, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

GOV. JOHN KASICH (R), OHIO: This is not a time for Republicans to hide.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three words, obstruction of justice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As stunning as the developments of recent days have been, this one really is a bombshell.

MAXINE WATERS (D), CALIFORNIA: This could be just the tip of the iceberg.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Momentous times. Hello, I'm Jim Sciutto in for Wolf Blitzer today. It is 1:00 p.m. here in New York, 8:00 p.m. in Moscow. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thank you for joining us today.

Bipartisan calls for a special prosecutor, growing talk among Democrat of impeachment, leaks from inside the White House of dismay and confusion. The Trump administration scrambling to deal with the latest, arguably most serious, crisis of the Trump presidency.

The administration denies that President Trump asked now fired FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor to the president.

Sources close to Comey, however, tell CNN that the former FBI director meticulously documented that conversation in a memo composed right after his meeting with the president, as first reported by "The New York Times."

The White House has had no public comment today but, at a Coast Guard commencement ceremony just a few minutes ago, the president took aim at his critics especially the media.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: A handful of Republicans are openly criticizing the president, something we have not seen in numbers with any previous controversy. Republican leaders are calling for more information. House Speaker Paul Ryan says that Congress will follow the facts wherever they lead.

Now, the president is receiving an offer of help from an unlikely source. Vladimir Putin is denying that President Trump shared classified information with Russian officials and says that he has the transcript of that meeting to prove it.

Let's bring in CNN's Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny, Congressional Correspondent Phil Mattingly and Senior International Correspondent Matthew Chance.

We'll begin at the White House. Jeff, what is the latest response from the White House on the Comey memo? They're not speaking publicly. Are they speaking, however, privately to you?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, we definitely got a sense of the president's own mind-set there as he gave that commencement speech a little earlier this morning. He is feeling, sort of, besieged, aggrieved. You pick the word for it here.

And here at the White House, you know, advisers only have his word to go on here. He said he did not say that to the FBI director. Of course, no one else was in the room. No one else was in the Oval Office during those apparent conversations here.

So, the White House is still standing by the statement it released last evening, saying that the president, you know, is taking issue with James Comey's characterization of that meeting.

But, Jim, beyond that, the White House is not saying much at all. What they are trying to do is, sort of, stop some of these cracks from happening up on Capitol Hill. They're trying to either, you know, tell Republicans to hear them out. They're taking a measure of Republicans and they're trying to get them to speak out in defense of this administration.

But, Jim, I can tell you, this is -- there's been somewhat of an odd silence here at the White House, as well as other parts of this town. Many Republicans are not coming to this president's defense on this.

As one top Republican close to the White House told me, this is on him, meaning this is on the president himself. Never mind the staff drama that always plays out. The shake-up potential, yes, that's still there. But this is indeed on him, the president -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: And a rare moment where we don't have tweets from him commenting.

Phil, the Senate Intelligence Committee now wants to hear from James Comey. They're asking for these memos as well. They've invited him once before. He said no that time. Do they expect him to accept the invitation this time?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, according to committee staff, they do expect the former FBI director to come and testify.

And there's also an expectation that they're not just requesting a closed hearing, they want an open hearing, too, which I know, Jim, you've been reporting the former FBI director would like. That's exactly the forum he wants to speak in.

Take a listen, Jim, as Senator Mark Warner, the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the top Democrat on the committee, laid out the process that committee will be going through and the stakes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[13:05:04] SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA, VICE CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I think we're going to have to take this sequentially. Let's see if the memos exist. Let's see if they are accurate. Let's hear the testimony from former Director Comey. He deserves to tell his story to the American people.

But if that all proves what's been reported as supposed to be true, it -- I'm not sure how we would describe it beyond troubling, concerning, all the other adjectives we've used in the past. This is now a factor of 10.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The senator not really mincing any words there.

Now, Republicans have taken a slightly different tone, at least publicly. Speaker Paul Ryan coming out today and saying people need to calmly look at the facts here. Wait for more facts to come. Take a sober look at things.

But I can tell you, Jim, behind the scenes, last night was a jarring revelation for many Republicans. Republicans who have taken no pains to basically rush out and defend the president time after time after time. Last night, mostly quiet, mostly cautious.

One member texted me last night when I asked why all Republicans are avoiding our questions. He said, bluntly, because this looks really bad -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes, no question. I mean, you might even say crickets, for the most part, from Republicans.

Going overseas now. Matthew, you have this very odd offer from the Russian president to provide a transcript of the meeting between President Trump and Russian officials. I have to say, when I saw that, it struck me as something of state-sponsored trolling here. Do you think the Russian president is trying to score some points with this offer?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I -- you know, it's possible. One motivation for this unexpected offer -- I mean, we didn't even know there was a transcript, as far as I'm aware.

But one motivation may be that Trump knows very well that any support he offers from the kremlin to President Trump isn't going to go down very well at all in Washington. It is, in fact, going to sew more uncertainty and more chaos.

And he may have done it on purpose because there is a certain level on which many Russians, President Putin included and others in the kremlin, are enjoying this chaos, this political chaos that has gripped the United States and its political system, at the moment. And they're kind of reveling in it in the media and that may have been a further, sort of, contribution to that sense of chaos.

But, at the same time, it may well be that President Putin thought he was genuinely helping President Trump. Because, you know, this is somebody who he believes he can have a relationship with. Somebody he believes sees the world from his point of view.

And he may have genuinely believed that if he offered up this transcript to which may or may not exist, we just don't know, then that would genuinely relieve pressure on the U.S. president who is, of course, accused of divulging these classified secrets to the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and to the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Something that President Putin says simply did not happen -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: I'll have to put myself, I will admit, in the group of skeptics on that one. Matthew Chance, Jeff Zeleny, Phil Mattingly, thanks very much.

Many Republicans clearly troubled by the new revelations out of the west wing. Today, House speaker Paul Ryan tried to read his members and, at the same time, remind them of their responsibility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RYAN: The point is this. We can't deal with speculation and

innuendo. And there's clearly a lot of politics being played. Our job is to get the facts and to be sober about doing that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Few Republicans have been willing to speak publicly today, whether to defend the president or to criticize him. Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger is a rare exception. And, Congressman Kinzinger, credit where credit is due. Thank you for accepting our invitation today.

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R), ILLINOIS: You bet. Thank you.

SCIUTTO: So, right to it. If Director Comey's account is true, did the president, in your view, obstruct justice?

KINZINGER: OK. So, I think when it comes to if the account's true, you know, what we've heard is very concerning, very frightening. We haven't seen a memo. We just hear basically part of a memo that was read and it was Comey's interpretation.

So, I think to go to the next step of saying, then what? It's pretty early. But I do think, look, the American people deserve the answers. And what's happened with all this information, it's become -- and this is why I think it's time to have an independent investigation.

Because it's become to the point where anytime something new comes out, the left automatically screams impeachment. The right says this is, you know, a media scandal. This isn't true. The truth is maybe somewhere in the middle. Who knows.

But we need actual answers instead of this knee-jerk partisanship for everything. This isn't about 2018. It's not about 2020. It's about the belief in the foundation of the Democratic institutions of the United States.

SCIUTTO: I mean, it sounds -- you're putting it in quite remarkable context there, saying that if this account is true, it at least raises the question as to whether the system of the United States is being challenged here.

[13:10:08] KINZINGER: Well, if this account is true -- and, again, this is an if. We -- you know, I believe it's been confirmed by multiple sources that there is at least a memo that exists. So, then, you know, how accurate's the memo? All kinds of questions. We go on it forever.

The point is, we need to know. We need Comey in front of Congress. We need to see this memo. And then, we can have the debate about what next steps are or anything along that line.

It's early -- you know, to hear people on the floor of the House and the Senate already utter the word, impeachment, that is entirely too quick. And that is a huge thing to say without all the information.

We need the information and that's what we have to do. And so, I think it's time -- look, there's some great investigations going on in the House, Senate and the FBI. They should continue.

But I think it's time to begin to talk about an independent group that can come along, whether it's a commission or a special prosecutor and investigate this, too, outside of politics.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this because it looks that we're heading in the direction of a he said, he said situation. Comey's word against the president's word. And they were the only two people present in the meeting because the president asked, according to Comey, for others to leave, including the vice president.

I'm going to ask you directly here. If it is he said, he said, whose word do you trust more?

KINZINGER: Well, that's a tough question. Look, I implicitly trust Director Comey. I believe him to be an honest person. I know people that work in the FBI that know him.

But I'm not accusing the president of dishonesty in that. If it's he said, he said, it's -- you know, we don't really know -- we haven't heard much from the White House.

The point is I think we need all the information that may -- I think that's going to have to be through something independent because this has become tool politically toxic.

But I would caution both sides of this, whether it's my side or the other side. Let's not jump to our corners anytime something new comes out. Let's try to find out what really happened. Stop yelling about impeachment right now. And we also can't say that every new piece of information that comes out is totally false and not true.

We have to look at this with sober eyes and get to the bottom of it.

SCIUTTO: It's fair advice, no question. I want to ask you about what was the other crisis, until some 24 hours ago. And this is reports, confirmed by CNN, that the president shared classified information with the Russians in that meeting last week.

Do you believe the White House has done enough to explain why it did so and what -- and what -- has it addressed concerns about whether it compromised a key intelligence-sharing relationship by doing so?

KINZINGER: No, I haven't heard enough to address that. Look, the president is correct when he says he has the right to declassify. That's true. Theoretically, a president could have declassified everything stolen by Edward Snowden, too, but no president would do that.

It is one thing if you are meeting with your national security team. You guys went through strategies, said it is beneficial if we reveal this information, whoever supplied it to us gives the OK. That's completely acceptable. That's part of policy and diplomacy.

To just willy-nilly throw something out there and potentially burn an ally without having discussed it with your team, while technically legally, I think is highly problematic.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a rare Republican to speak publicly following these developments. Thanks very much for taking the time.

KINZINGER: You bet, John. Take care.

SCIUTTO: Coming up, a friend and former colleague of James Comey will speak to us about those members. And a member of the House Intelligence Committee will give us an update on the Russia investigation.

Plus, does obstruction of justice apply to the accusations against the president? We're going to get some legal analysis to help answer those difficult questions and that's next.

[13:13:40]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:30] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back.

We just got an update on the ongoing Russia and Comey investigation. In addition to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is requesting these now well reported Comey memos, we now have learned that the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well, has requested them. And we'll continue to follow to see whether that request is met.

Did President Donald Trump ask the FBI director to stop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Reports of a memo just referenced to that effect from Comey, combined with Trump's admission that the Russia investigation was on his mind when he decided to fire Comey, have been raising serious questions frankly among both Democrats and Republicans. If proven true, some lawmakers are questioning if Trump's actions amount to obstruction of justice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: In terms of the repercussions, even if there were demonstrable evidence of obstruction, you're absolutely right, at the end of the day, it's a very practical question for the Congress to decide. And I think ultimately what's at stake is whether members of Congress and indeed the country as a whole believe that the president's conduct was corrupt enough, if indeed that's what we would find, that his removal wouldn't be simply the nullification of the election by other means.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: CNN contributor Steve Vladeck is with us now. He's a professor at the University of Texas Law School.

Steve, I wonder if you could - you could help us understand and put this in layman's terms, if you can, does this amount - from base on what we know - to obstruction of justice, to make a request to the FBI director to hold off on an active counter intelligence investigation of your former national security adviser?

STEVE VLADECK, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, Jim, it's the right question and it certainly comes very close. The federal statute at issue basically talks about three different requirements. So, first, is there some kind of ongoing criminal investigation. In the case of Michael Flynn, we know there was. Second, did the individual at issue here, President Trump, do something to interfere with that investigation? For example, here asking the FBI director, you know, to potentially stop the investigation. Third, Jim, was it his intent to interfere with the investigation? And I think that might be where we have some wiggle room here where we might hear President Trump and his advisers say that it wasn't really the president's intent to stop the investigation. That he really just wanted Director Comey to give Flynn the benefit of the doubt. I think that's where the gray area is where it comes to the statute.

SCIUTTO: It's interesting how intent comes up, because intent was also the issue with Hillary Clinton's e-mails, the idea Comey referenced this. There's a famous news conference that sharing it you need to have the intent to - to have compromised it as well.

[13:20:10] On the next question then is the question of impeachment, because impeachment is - it seems to me as much a political question as a legal question. But given the standards and practice, could this then, if it's established as obstruction to justice, be enough to begin the impeachment process in your view from a legal perspective?

VLADECK: I mean I think, Jim, what you said is exactly right, that impeachment is so much more a political question than a legal question. Courts don't have an role to play in impeachment proceedings, so it's a question of what the House of Representatives concludes is a high crime or misdemeanor within the language of the Constitution.

And, Jim, we have precedent here. I mean when Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998, the principal charge was obstruction of justice. When the House was considering impeachment articles against then President Richard Nixon in 1974, one of the principle charges was obstruction of justice. So the House, at least historically, has treated obstruction as an impeachable offense. You know, I'm not holding my breath that this particular house is going to do the same right now, but that's not because there's no precedent.

SCIUTTO: It's remarkable, I suppose. The difference is it was a Democratic-controlled Congress in Nixon times, Republican-controlled, I believe, in Clinton's times and here we have a party - same party in the White House and on The Hill.

VLADECK: And, Jim, and it's a real concern. I mean so there's - you know, there's a real concern that we increasingly have in Washington, not a separation of powers, but a separation of parties. And I think the question is, what is it going to take to impel this particular Congress to actually take seriously its independent institutional responsibility to ensure, to investigate, to ensure that there isn't anything wrongful taking place in the White House.

SCIUTTO: Steve Vladeck, thanks very much. Thanks for helping us weed through it.

I want to talk more about this now, the White House reaction, the ongoing congressional investigations with Congressman Mike Quigley. He's a Democrat from Illinois. He's also a member from the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Congressman, thanks for joining us today.

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D), ILLINOIS: Thank you. Glad to be here.

SCIUTTO: You heard our legal analyst there. You yourself were an attorney, as well. You're your point of view, based on what we know from this memo, does it constitute obstruction of justice by president?

QUIGLEY: I think that when you ask the person investigating something to not do it and that - and you're the commander in chief, that is obstruction. But as an old trial attorney, I believe everyone deserves due process. This is just the beginnings of this investigation. I think we need a bipartisan agreement to move forward subpoenaing these memos, the tapes, Mr. Comey's testimony. Let's let the facts come out. Let's discover this with a thoughtful manner.

You just talked about impeachment being a political matter. With the polarization that exists in this country right now, I don't think we can let it be a political matter. I think we need to have a bipartisan effort to find out exactly what took place and let the facts follow where they are. Let's try to find out so that the American public knows exactly what happened.

SCIUTTO: As you know, some of your Democratic colleagues in the House have discussed the possibility of impeachment. Even called for it. Do you believe it's too early to discuss that option?

QUIGLEY: Sure, I think it's too early, but I think it's not too early for the Republicans to jump on board and understand that we need an independent 9/11 type commission analyzing this. We need an independent prosecutor. They need to be part of this subpoena process. They can't be part of this.

Clearly, the White House was interfering with this investigation, with bogus White House - bogus claims of wiretapping Trump Tower and more. You know, now they have elevated the game by firing the FBI director after he asked for more resources, by threatening, a veiled threat, to the same director that there might be tapes here. And now, you know, allegations that he was involved in this process that we learned about yesterday. This is the - this is the grounds for obstruction charges. But there is a process to move forward before we jump to that conclusion. SCIUTTO: Let me ask you, at the end of the day, it's political, it's

numerical, right? You're the minority party. Short of Republicans, a significant number of Republicans in effect crossing the aisle on this issue, what do Democrats plan to do? Because without those Republicans, you can - you can shout from the bully pulpit, but legislatively you can't really move the process forward.

VLADECK: Yes. I think what the bully pulpit gives you is an opportunity to address the American public. And the American public's pressure on my Republican colleagues to look at this matter thoughtfully and analyze it, follow the facts wherever they take us, is our best chance. You've got to remember, way back to Watergate, it wasn't until senators like Republican Barry Goldwater went to Nixon and said that he would vote for impeachment that the president stepped down. So to answer your question, it's going to be up to the American public.

[13:25:18] SCIUTTO: We understand that the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, briefed members of the Intelligence Committee on the question of what was shared to Russian officials by the president regarding intelligence that we've since reported was sourced from Israel. Have your concerns been allayed about what the president shared and what that sharing put at risk?

QUIGLEY: And I can't talk about what Mr. Pompeo discussed with us. My concern about what the president shared isn't just that we might have revealed sources and tactics. What's more important to me right now is the fact that we aren't kept safe just by the United States intelligence community and our allies. And if they can't trust our commander in chief with keeping those secrets safe, I'm not sure they're going to want to share anything with us, and, indeed, we will be less safe.

SCIUTTO: Congressman Mike Quigley, thanks very much for joining us today.

QUIGLEY: Thank you so much.

SCIUTTO: Coming up, Congress invites former FBI Director James Comey to testify on his memos concerning that conversation with the president. When will he speak? Some perspective from someone who knows the former FBI director personally. I'll speak with him. And that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)