Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

TV Host Talks of Tabloid Threat; White House Denies Threat; National Enquirer Denies Involvement; Trump And Moon Meeting; Tweet Frenzy From Trump; Interview with Rep. Will Hurd. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 30, 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: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's one p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in London, 8:00 p.m. in Mosul, Iraq. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Up first, trying to put the brakes on North Korea's accelerating nuclear weapons' program. It's one of the main issues as President Trump meets with the president of South Korea. Both leaders spoke extensively about the North Korean threat in joint statements in the White House Rose Garden just a little while ago.

President Trump declared that the era of strategic patients with North Korea has failed and is now over.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're working closely with South Korea and Japan as well as partners around the world on a range of diplomatic security and economic measures to protect our allies and our own citizens from this menace known as North Korea.

The United States calls on other regional powers and all responsible nations to join us in implementing sanctions and demanding that the North Korean regime choose a better path and do it quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's go to our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta. Jim, it sounds like the president wants new sanctions, tougher action against North Korea right now.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It sure sounds like it, Wolf. You heard there in the Rose Garden with the South Korean President Moon that President Trump is, yes, calling for a tougher stance against North Korea.

But at this point, the White House, the president, they're just not outlining exactly what that's going to be. You did hear the president say in the Rose Garden that the era of strategic is over, that's it's failed. That was, really, in reference to what he feels was a failed Obama administration policy. That's essentially what he was saying there. And so, there was some tough talk coming from the president on this front, Wolf. But there were no specifics, in terms of what the president is going to do now.

We should point out, yesterday here at the White House, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin did announce the -- these new sanctions aimed at a Chinese bank that is really driven by the desire to put pressure on North Korea. So, they are starting to make moves on that front.

You also heard the president say, very candidly, that he had a frank discussion with the South Korean president about the trade imbalance between the U.S. and South Korea, which has doubled in the last five years every since the U.S. and South Korea embarked on that trade deal. So, they had a conversation about that as well.

But, Wolf, you know, hanging over everything in the Rose Garden was obviously the controversy over the president's tweets. I tried to ask a question at the very end of this even in the Rose Garden. He did not take questions. This was not a press conference.

Whether he was going to apologize to MSNBC T.V. host, Mika Brzezinski, he did not answer that question. There were other questions shouted at the president on this front.

Specifically, one question was about whether or not the White House was, in some fashion, trying to blackmail or threaten Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough over -- you know, over their coverage of the president. And so, that question was not answered as well.

We'll have a briefing coming up, and off-camera briefing here at the White House within the next hour or so. And I suspect the -- that question will get asked again. But, Wolf, that will be off camera. So, when we do get those answers later on this afternoon, they'll be audio only, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, and we're going to have a lot more on this latest development and this whole rift between the president and the news media, including those anchors over at MSNBC. So, stand by, Jim Acosta reporting from the White House.

In the meantime, let's get some more on the South Korean president's visit here in Washington on the North Korean nuclear threat. Joining us, we have retired Rear Admiral John Kirby, he's our CNN Military and Diplomatic Analyst. He's also a former State Department spokesman and Pentagon press secretary. Also joining us, our CNN Global Affairs Analyst Kimberly Dozier, she's the Senior International Security Correspondent for "The Daily Beast."

It looks like there could be a difference -- a significant difference between President Moon of South Korea and President Trump of the United States over establishing a dialogue with Kim Jong-Un's regime?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, what they have an opportunity to do is set the pattern for a way forward with North Korea. Possibly with Moon being the good cop, reaching out to North Korea. It's something he's already signaled his own people he wants to do. It's something he campaigned on.

And then, you have Trump saying we have military options but there are no good military options.

So, I think that's why you're seeing Trump finally step up some of the economic measures to lever China into putting more pressure on North Korea. I mean, China does 90 percent -- or North Korea does 90 percent of its trade with China.

[13:05:09] Trump gave them some room to run for a few months and obviously doesn't see behind closed doors or, in terms of trade, them cutting off the people who are, perhaps, behind the North Korean weapons campaign.

This is a very important relationship, the United States and South Korea, John. But it was a little awkward today. We heard from the president and from the commerce secretary in an open session, cameras were there. Some what you could call veil trade threats to South Korea from the United States.

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: It was and I thought it was -- it was almost an attempt to humiliate the president of South Korea. One of our closest allies and partners in the region right there inside the cabinet room.

I mean, it wasn't just the president starting out -- barely a word on North Korea. But starting right out on the trade imbalance. And then, he tosses it over to his commerce secretary who then tosses it to his chief economic adviser. I thought unnecessarily tough in that setting (INAUDIBLE.)

BLITZER: How is that going to play in South Korea?

KIRBY: I don't think it'll play very well. I mean, they -- nobody wants to be humiliated or embarrassed, certainly. You definitely don't want to be humiliated and embarrassed by the president of the United States in the White House.

And I think, in South Korea in particular, who very, very jealously guard the closeness of our alliance and this is not going to play well with the South Korean people, I don't think.

DOZIER: And it's an odd way to start when you want these two men, President Trump and President Moon, to be able to see eye-to-eye and have delicate conversations as they try to get Pyongyang to denuclearize.

South Korea could be facing a major conflagration from the north if the U.S. tries to take -- decides that it needs to take military action. They need to have a strong relationship. And I think that's threatened by how it started today.

BLITZER: What do you think of these latest sanctions against the Chinese bank that does business with North Korea? That sends one message to China. Also, a billion dollar-plus arms deal between the United States and Taiwan that's deeply irritating the Chinese right now as well.

DOZIER: I think these were good moves. And I think -- look, on North Korea, the national security staff should get credit for the very thoughtful deliberate approach that they've taken to this problem.

I don't think it was accidental, the timing of both those announcements. I think they were good. I think they sent a strong message to Beijing. And, frankly, they sent a strong message hopefully to the Republic of Korea that we're taking this very seriously.

But back on talks, Wolf. The only way talks are going to work is if the north is proving willing to have them. And, so far, I don't think you can see any indication that Pyongyang is willing to sit down at any table.

They are racing towards long-range ballistic missile capabilities, racing towards nuclear capabilities. And I don't think there's any incentive, on their part, to sit down and have a meaningful discussion about rolling that back.

BLITZER: John Kirby, Kimberly Dozier, guys, thanks very much.

So, let's bring in Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas. He's a member of the House Intelligence Committee and as the Homeland Security Committee and Oversight Committees. He's a former undercover CIA officer.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. WILL HURD (R), TEXAS, OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEES: Wolf, always a pleasure to be on.

BLITZER: So, in these joint remarks with the South Korean president, President Trump said the U.S. -- that U.S. patience with the North Korean regime is over. He used that word, over.

What do you think he means by that? More sanctions? Possible military actions? What options do the -- does the United States really have?

HURD: Well, I think the president was trying to say all options were on the table and that we're living in a -- in a new world. And I think that's the correct move.

I think the Treasury sanctions against the Chinese bank yesterday is also the right move. As the previous panel was talking, with 90 percent of the North Korean economy dependent upon China, the fact that their nuclear weapons program is using loopholes in the Chinese tax and business code, being able to put that continued pressure on China is important.

And the Chinese need to realize that the strategic interests of the U.S. and China is actually aligned, when it comes to North Korea.

And I think also the North Koreans need to realize that maybe their only way out of this is to engage with the South Koreans. We know the South Korean president is willing to have talks with North Korea.

I think this may be an opportunity for the North Koreans to realize that they're -- that they can potentially save face this way.

But I think the president has made it very clear that all options are on the table. We see the response in Syria after the chemical weapons attack, saying that if you did this again in Syria, we will respond. I think the president and his team has proven they're willing to act.

BLITZER: We heard the phrase, burden sharing, from President Trump in his remarks with the visiting South Korean president today. It seemed like a bit of a jab at a key U.S. ally.

What do you think South Korea should be doing to halt a threat from North Korea?

HURD: Well, I haven't seen -- I've just seen a readout of those -- of those remarks. And I wouldn't say that burden sharing is a jab at anyone.

[13:10:08] I think this is a shared problem. North Korea is a shared problem between us, South Korea and also Japan. Our treaties outline this.

Earlier in the year, General Mattis and Secretary Tillerson had been out to the region to reaffirm our commitment to those two allies. And the burden of deal weigh a potentially nuclear armed North Korea is a burden shared by all of us.

And I would include China in that. And China needs to recognize that a nuclear North Korea is in nobody's interest. And having been out to the peninsula recently and realizing that the North Koreans with normal artillery could kill hundreds of thousands of people in Seoul, that they could likely already hit our allies like Japan or even possibly get to Guam.

And we know that Kim Jong-Un, the dictator in North Korea, is going to stop at nothing to keep a hold on that regime. And one of that is getting nuclear weapons.

And so, this is a -- this is a difficult problem. But I think the United States, we need to stand tall, when it comes to this threat. Because if Kim Jong-Un gets an ICBM, and is willing to put a nuclear weapon on top of that, we got to be prepared for his use.

BLITZER: Very quickly on this, the whole notion of what's going on in Syria right now. Clearly, U.S. military action is escalating, designed, at least in part, to deal with the regime of Bashar Al Assad.

Do you believe the president needs Congressional authorization, military authorization, for the use of military force right now before the U.S. escalates its military involvement, not only in Syria but also Iraq, Afghanistan, given the nature of this war the U.S. is fighting? HURD: I think having those conversations here in Congress are

definitely important. When you look at the current AUMF that's been operating on since 911, deals with terrorism. And, you know, Bashar Al Assad I think is terrorizing his own people, using chemical weapons.

But I think this is something that we need to be clear. I believe Bashar Al Assad needs to go. We have a Syrian refugee problem because of him. He's been willing to use chemical weapons on his own people for dozens of occasions.

I think he's a barbarian and has to go. And I think that would require Congress playing a role.

BLITZER: Very quickly, before I let you go, a totally different subject. I'm anxious to get your reaction to the president's latest tweets going after the MSNBC anchor, Mika Brzezinski. When you saw that tweet yesterday, you see the uproar that has developed over the past 24 hours, your reaction?

HURD: Well, it's beneath the stature of the president and it's a distraction. We should be talking about our strategy on dealing with North Korea. We should be talking about our strategy on how -- what happens, you know, when -- post-ISIS losing Mosul. How do we prevent ISIS from metastasizing to northern Africa?

We should be talking about what is our counter-covert influence strategy to deal with the Russians covert (ph) influence attempts in our elections and likely attempts in 2018. I think it takes away from that when we have this kind of conversation.

BLITZER: Yes, the president is clearly not stopping tweeting on that subject. We have more tweets. We're going to have a lot more on that coming up.

Congressman Will Hurd, thanks so much for joining us.

HURD: Thank you, Wolf. Have a good Fourth.

BLITZER: You, too, thank you.

Up next, two T.V. hosts claiming threats of a tabloid hit story. Why they say it can be traced back to directly to White House officials.

Plus, why the House Intelligence Committee says it may be forced to subpoena evidence from President Trump.

We'll be right back.

[13:14:48]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:53] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Two cable morning hosts targeted by President Trump in an outrageous Twitter attack yesterday are formally hitting back today. Not only to they accuse the president of lying, but they're also making another stunning allegation, that the White House threatened to go after them in a tabloid publication. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC ANCHOR: We - we got a - we got a call that, hey, "The National Inquirer" is going to run a negative story against you guys. And it was, you know, Donald is friends with - the president is friends with the guy that runs "The National Inquirer." And they said, if you call the president up and you apologize for your coverage, then he will pick up the phone and basically spike this story. I had -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow.

SCARBOROUGH: I will just say three people at the very top of the administration calling me. And the response was like, are you kidding me?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Shortly after that aired, President Trump responded, tweeting this, quote, "watched low-rated 'Morning Joe' for the first time in a long time. Fake news." Fake news all in caps. "He called me to stop a "National Enquirer" article. I said no. Bad show."

Let's bring in our senior media correspondent Brian Stelter. He's also the host of CNN's "Reliable Sources."

Brian, help us understand exactly what these network hosts are alleging and what others involved are now saying.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: This immediately raises questions about abuse of power, Wolf. They're suggesting the White House has weaponized "The National Enquirer." I think we all know "The Enquirer." We see it at the supermarket. It's that tabloid that's been a part of people's lives for a long time. And lately "The Enquirer" has turned more political, more pro-Trump actually very specifically. That's partly because the publisher has been friends with Trump for a long time.

So there's some logic here to what Scarborough and Brzezinski are alleging, although no concrete proof. I've asked Scarborough for some of the text messaging that he says exists. He says he has proof of this. So far I haven't heard back.

[13:20:00] But one interesting new detail, Wolf, coming from NBC News. Apparently Scarborough told his colleagues, told several executives about these alleged threats as they were happening. Contemporaneously, I'm told. So that means that some of Scarborough's colleagues knew about this a couple of months ago and were also concerned about this idea.

Now, we're seeing comments online, suggestions this is a blackmail of some sort. Scarborough and Brzezinski are not going that far, but they are saying they feel that Trump was trying to use a favorable media outlet in order to punish them and try to get them to be nicer to him.

Now, her is what "The National Enquirer" is says about all of this. Dylan Howard (ph) is the man who oversees the publican and he says he doesn't know anything about this. If it did happen, he doesn't know it. Quote, "we have no knowledge of any discussions between the White House and Joe and Mika about our story and absolutely no involvement in those discussions." And they also said, "we didn't threaten Joe or Mika. We were not involved in this kind of alleged behavior."

Wolf, this is not the first time there's been suggestions that the White House is working behind the scenes to neuter or silence critical voices on TV, but it is a pretty shocking example today.

BLITZER: And just to be precise, Brian, the allegation is that White House officials were making this threat to these two anchors, not the president himself. They didn't speak about this directly with the president.

STELTER: That's partly what's curious here, Wolf. That's right, Scarborough is saying that there were White House aides calling him up saying, you've got to get on the phone with Trump. You've got to get him on the phone and apologize and that way he'll kill this story. Now, Trump is says the opposite in the tweet this morning. Trump is saying, yes, Scarborough did call me. he tried to get me to call off "The Enquirer," but I didn't do it. So, either way, both men are saying that they were involved in these discussions but they're not agreeing on the details. Either way, it comes down to this question of whether the president has tried to weaponize this supermarket tabloid.

BLITZER: Brian Stelter, thanks very much. A good report.

Let's talk a little bit more about this very serious allegation with our panel. Joining us, our CNN political director David Chalian, our senior Washington correspondent Brianna Keilar, our CNN politics reporter and editor at large with "The Point" on cnn.com, Chris Cillizza, and our legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Laura Coates.

So, Laura, I guess this very serious question, could this be, from a legal perspective, an abuse of presidential power?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Not as has been told yet. We're not quite there. And the reason it's so important is that, you know, Brian's right, we haven't, right, got to the allegation of actual blackmail. What you have is this discrepancy and whether or not the president himself was involved in some way in knowing about an article in advance and having a hand in either trying to silence it or did he have a hand in actually crafting it with the idea of weaponizing it again to the media?

It would not be the first time that the president has, obviously, tried to attack the media. But it would be an odd step given his track record that he is - essentially tried to punish the media by not trying to, you know, create stories in the press, but rather trying to suppress them. So there's been an inconsistency overall. But right now you've got the accusation, what you would need legally to push you over that hurdle is that you had that intent to actually do that and what was his specific involvement in the crafting of it as a way to wield it against to silence and suppress free speech.

BLITZER: David Chalian, it does take this whole story that developed yesterday morning to a new level.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, it certainly does that. Right now, though, we are in a he said/he said scenario. We have Joe Scarborough's version of events. We saw, as Brian pointed out, the president had a different version of events. And so that will certainly play out and perhaps we'll learn more of what the truth is there.

What is so, I think, believable is that, just from what we know about how President Trump operates, he becomes obsessed with these kinds of things. So you could imagine multiple conversations from three senior White House aides to Scarborough saying, if you - never mind - forget the threat part of it for a moment. Just saying, you know, if you get on the phone and apologize to him, it may be a good thing or whatever, because you could easily imagine Donald Trump saying to his aides (INAUDIBLE), and, by the way, is Scarborough going to apologize or not? Is Scarborough - and you can see why his senior aides would want that to happen to that they can move on to other things.

This has happened time and again. So I think it does give us a little more insight into how Donald Trump becomes so obsessed and completely focused on things that have absolutely nothing to do with his job.

BLITZER: And the tweet from Joe Scarborough, and I'll put it up on the screen right now, after the story, he's the one who raised the issue of "The National Enquirer" on his conversation this morning on his show. The president responded. Then Scarborough tweeted, "yet another lie. I have texts from your top aides and phone records also. Those records show I haven't spoken with you in many months."

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: And I - I - and that may very be - well be true. I think it's easy to believe that President Trump wanted an apology. We certainly know that he could have some sway with "The National Enquirer." According to another outlet, not CNN, Jared Kushner was one of the aides who relayed something to Joe. And we know from the past that Jared Kushner is (ph) owner of "The New York Observer," on at least two occasions went to the editor there and wanted hit job pieces on people who were a nemesis to him. So I don't think it's that out of line with the culture that we've seen with some of the president's top aides.

[13:25:29] I think my bigger concern, though, is the targeting of the media in - in sort of a larger way. I mean this is - and I don't mean to diminish this at all, because I think it must be incredibly frustrating to Joe and Mika, but there is - it is a bit of an opinion show. And I think sometimes - I just - the thing that bothers me more is when the president takes aim at what are very clear fakes, calls them fake news, and really undercuts the believability of the media when it's a very clear fact, not just a he said/he said thing.

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: He - I think, first of all, I agree with Brianna, I think he benefits, unfortunately, frankly, not because I care whether he's up or down but because I think this is bad, broadly speaking, for discourse (ph). I think he benefits from the fact that we are now - I mean if I laid out the plot line over the last 48 hours, you would be like, well, that would - like, I might watch that soap opera. You know what I mean? Like that's what it feels like.

And I think for a person who's not in Washington, they see that and they think, that's exactly what Trump was there to clean up, right? So the details get lost, though they shouldn't, because I - the tweets about Mika Brzezinski are deeply inappropriate, deeply beneath the office of the president and set a terrible example for sort of what we want in our political dialogue. But I think he - the more this becomes a, well, Mika said this, then Joe responded this, and then Trump said this and this, you know, you're waiting for, I wonder how Friday's episode is going to end?

I think it gets us further afield from what was the root of this, which are tweets about a woman's appearance. A cyberbullying by the president of the United States. And for the average person, I think they just throw their hands up and say, well, all these people are the worst.

COATES: And, you know, it wouldn't be - I agree with you. And one of the things that's disturbing and odd in this case is that normally you've been accusing Donald Trump of attacking the press, and he alone and his perhaps minions, if you want to call them, are attacking the press. This would be an example, if true, that you're using the press as a conduit against another press organization in some way. And that to weaponize from within. But make no mistake about it, I'm not convinced of a legal issue at this point in time, but I do understand this is certainly an attack on the First Amendment if, in fact, true. That you're going to use these concepts of free speech to suppress having - people having an opinion, you're talking, Brianna, or other things. It's very important that the distinctions be made clear from the legal abuses to the actual court of public opinion sphere. And we're not there yet.

CILLIZZA: And by the way, just -

CHALIAN: Here's the -

CILLIZZA: Yes, go ahead. Sorry, David, go ahead.

CHALIAN: To your point though about it benefits him. You mean in his echo chamber?

CILLIZZA: Yes, in his echo chamber. Absolutely.

CHALIAN: With his supporters. Because what is clear is that there's almost nothing that President Trump has done -

CILLIZZA: Nothing he can do.

CHALIAN: Over the course of his presidency that has actually benefited him in terms of getting his big, legislative achievements. I mean the guy is between 35 percent and 40 percent approval rating. So the way he's been conducting himself is not benefiting him in terms of his presidency and his agenda. His health care bill is even more unpopular than he is. So I get that it benefits him inside his echo chamber with his supporters. I get in the binary choice of, oh, those bloviating people in Washington or on TV versus the president. It may help him in that battle. But he's still believing independents in a way that he didn't - you know, that he had them last November and he's done nothing in his presidency to date to start correcting that (INAUDIBLE)

BLITZER: And, Brianna, it's clear also he's out so many Republican in the House, in the Senate, elsewhere, in such an awkward position. Everyone - every Republican who comes on this show and a lot of other shows, they're asked about it and you can see how uncomfortable they are.

KEILAR: That's right, because they want to be focused on moving their agenda forward. And they have this side show going on, like Chris explained. And I think there is something to explore when it comes to the Trump administration's relationship with the media. I think it's sort of a bigger conversation than talking just about this drama. And Republicans don't want to talk about that. It gets in the way of exactly what they want to do. And they also are in this position of having to sort of tacitly say it's OK just to kind of go along with it. You know, you hear some criticism, but I think actually in private you would hear a lot more criticism from them. So they're in this terrible situation of having to put up with, you know, stuff that they think is ridiculous.

CILLIZZA: And, remember, Wolf, I mean, this is not a one-off, right? He did this - now, not this exact thing as related to Mika Brzezinski. He has said inappropriate things about women. About Carly Fiorina. About Megyn Kelly.

[13:30:03] KEILAR: Megyn Kelly.

CILLIZZA: I mean there's lots of them.

KEILAR: Blood coming out of her eyes, you know.

CILLIZZA: This - right. We didn't - we didn't think that Donald Trump was something other than what he is now acting like as president, and that's - to Brianna's point, I think that's what gets