Return to Transcripts main page


Mattis: U.S. Analyzing N Korea's First ICBM Test; South Korean Pres Says He'd Meet With Kim Jong Un; Tillerson: Russia Sees N Korea "A Little Differently"; Tillerson: U.S. Hopes China Will Pressure Kim Jong Un; CNN: Russia Steps Up Spying Efforts After Election. Aired 4:30-5p ET

Aired July 7, 2017 - 16:30   ET


BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: -- necessary step for North to enter the Earth's atmosphere impact. That would be a necessary step for North Korean ICBM to hit a target. Then there's the issue of placing a nuclear warhead on top of the missile.

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R), HOMELAND SECURITY CHAIRMAN: They're trying to miniaturize this warhead to put it on top of this ICBM delivery system. So I think it's a very serious threat.

STARR: A threat that for now the U.S. is confronting peacefully.

JAMES MATTIS, DEFENSE SECRETARY: This is a diplomatically led international efforts to stop a worldwide threat that they are bringing to bear.

STARR: But what does that looks like? Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the Trump administration's goal is to roll back North Korea's nuclear and missile program.

REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF THE STATE: Stopping where they are today is not acceptable to us.

STARR: So one of the big diplomatic questions is this, would talking to North Korea directly even help? So far, no indication. Pamela?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Barbara Starr, thank you so much for that and Senator Chris Coons, back to you now. So bottom line, your view, can the U.S. do anything at all to prevent a nuclear capable North Korea?

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-CT), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well Pamela, both Putin and president Trump have said publicly, they intend to follow diplomacy first that they're trying to mobilize a world effort. And some of the things that have been done in the United Nations at the G20 suggest that some of our key allies also see it the same way that they're willing to support tougher sanctions on North Korea.

The key country here is China. This is China's problem, because this is destabilizing pet Korean Peninsula, it's destabilizing the region, but China hasn't yet taken tough enough actions to actually impose some cost on North Korea for this destabilizing action. My main question is up for pursuing diplomacy first. And this is one of our most important national security questions, then why is president Trump advancing a budget that would cut the state department by almost a third? That seems to me like were you in a lottery disarming our most important tool or weapon in a diplomatic effort against North Korea?

BROWN: When you talk about diplomacy, you mentioned China is key in all of this. But if China hasn't done enough up to this point, why are you confident that they could?

COONS: I'm not confident. In fact, I'm not even optimistic. I'm concerned that China is balancing their concern that if the North Korean regime collapses, there will be humanitarian crisis on the border and loss a key ally versus their concern that the rest of the world will coalesce around making them pay a high price.

I think we are in a race against time. And frankly race that we may well loss. We may be facing a North Korean nuclear armed country that has an ICBM capable of hitting the United States within two years. We don't have a lot of time. That's why we need to focus on the diplomatic effort and we need presidential leadership that engages all of our allies around the world. This is not the time for President Trump to be under mining NATO or the E.U. or the G20 or our partnerships with the rest in the world.

BROWN: So you think within two years, North Korea will figure out the technology miniaturizing warheads and they will have -- it will be fully --

COONS: That's just a rough guess. In open source reporting, that's been talked about as the time it likely will take them. I think this latest missile test took a number of us by surprised in being more successful than expected by as you've just heard Secretary Tillerson say, they're still analyzing it. So that's a rough guess, two years.

BROWN: -- what's clear is that North Korea does not shows any signs of backing down?

COONS: No signs of backing down. And this is very risky for the United States. We need to focus on this and we need to bring all of our resources to bear.

BROWN: I want to ask you. I want to circle back to Russian reporting. We just saw from -- for me and my colleagues showing for the pass (ph), an event for us about spying by Russians inside the U.S. and the fact that Russians are stepping up their efforts even after the election. And what we're told is part of the calculus is that really the Russians haven't faced severe retaliation for the election meddling, according to the intelligence community. How concerned are you about this?

COONS: I'm very concerned. I think Vladimir Putin will only stop when we stop him. And he will only stop when he and his nation pay a significant price. Meddling directly in the American presidential election that was at the very heart of what it means to be a democracy. Remember what they've done recently, invaded and occupied a portion of a neighboring country, Ukraine, where we had guaranteed in writing an agreement there at territorial sovereignty. Taking the side of Bashar al-Assad, a murderous leader of the Syrian regime and Military where Russia intervened and really has prevented in his collapse and when United States had committed to his removal from power and interfering directly in our elections.

They don't share our priorities. They don't share our values. They've attempted to undermine NATO, distance the United States from its Key North Atlantic allies and to affect our elections. We need to take tougher action.

BROWN: But what about during the Obama administration because the argument hasn't made, the Obama administration didn't do enough?

COONS: I would agree with that. I'd frankly say that the Obama administration in abundance of caution didn't act more decisively right before the election. Out of a concern, that would be proceed as partisan. But the Obama administration did take strong steps to make sure that the intelligence community was focus on this threat, produce a broad consensus report and that will share both with leaders and congress and with the incoming Trump administration.

[14:05:11]BROWN: Let me just ask --

COONS: It's the administration that has taken the steps that were needed to follow up on the intelligence.

BROWN: -- let me just ask you this, because our sources tell us also part of the concern was that it could launch cyber warfare.

COONS: That's right.

BROWN: And I'm hearing from people I think doing the intelligence community that Russians have been very focus on penetrating the supply chain, particularly, telecommunications companies. We know nuclear plans. There were recent hacks. How much does that factor in the concern that they would be able to cost great harm in retaliation on that?

COONS: I think that's a very legitimate concern. I think Russia is the most capable cyber adversary that we face in the world. They have a very sophisticated intelligence service. They have a fairly sophisticated military. And they have made the cyber domain. There priority area is actually against the United States.

So I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the administration to hesitate before taking really strong escalatory action against Russia particularly in the run up to an election where some sort of the utility black out or some sort of a financial services crash could have really destabilized our election. But frankly, the longer we go without having president Trump forcefully say publicly that Russian meddling in our future elections and in future elections in Europe will not be tolerated along the way or exposed to a repeat of this threat. BROWN: And, of course, secretary Tillerson said today that he did press Vladimir Putin on the issue during the meeting at the G20 Summit. Senator Chris Coons, thank you very much.

COONS: Thanks again.

BROWN: And coming up right here on THE LEAD, energy secretary Rick Perry gave an economic lesson. What he said that lapse many people scratching their heads? The panel discuss that and more, up next.

Plus, "Everybody still loves Raymond" one of the stars of the mega hit com is here to look back at the '90s with us at least the party remembers. Stay with us.


[14:11:00] BROWN: Wwelcome back. In Germany tonight, world leaders and their spouses sat down to dinner at the G20 summit. And after spending more than two hours with president Trump this morning, Russian president Vladimir Putin was seated next to first lady Melania Trump for dinner. Wonder what they talked about?

My political panel joins me now to break down the day's news, so much to discuss in the wake of this meeting there at the G20 summit. Brian, I want to go first to you because, of course, you were part of Hillary Clinton's campaign. What is your reaction to the meeting today with Vladimir Putin and the fact that president Trump did bring up election meddling?

BRIAN FALLON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, he apparently he did bring it up, but then there is -- he said over exactly whether he accepted Vladimir Putin's assurance that he didn't have anything to do with this hack. And unfortunately based on Donald Trump's public actions, there is no reason to assign any credibility to the identity. We gave a stern talking to Vladimir Putin, because just yesterday, you hadn't give a very mealy mouth explanation about whether he cited with his own U.S. intelligence agencies that it said overwhelmingly that this is the work of the Russian.

He said, maybe it's the Russian, maybe it's not. He could clear up any uncertainty by coming out and issuing a public statement in his name today saying, he agrees with this -- the 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies that signed that joint statement, saying, it was the worked of the Russians, and he does not accept Vladimir Putin's denial, but he's not doing that.

He also could be taking the further step and be strongly backing some sanctions to attach some consequences to this action by the Russians. Instead, we're hearing reports that the White House has been trying to dilute the sanctions bill that was passed by the Senate overwhelmingly. They don't do anything on a bipartisan basis, but they did passed a Russia sanctions bill recently. Donald Trump and the White House have been slow walking it.

BROWN: Of course, Secretary Rex Tillerson also said today though that they really want focus on the future and prevent interference in the next election. But as Brian pointed out yesterday, president Trump did sort of meddle this and his attorney came to Russia.


BROWN: He said, he's cast out on the intelligence community assessment (ph) that he's been staying for month. And then today, this was apparently the first thing you brought up in the meeting with Vladimir Putin according to Secretary Tillerson. What did you think about that?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER & EDITOR AT LARGE: Yes, I mean it did a contradiction. I have it here because I'm -- so this was Donald Trump yesterday in Poland. Not six months ago, yesterday in Poland camp, I think it was Russia but I think it was probably also other people and/or countries about election interference.

BROWN: Which is something that James Clapper said yesterday, former head DNI?


BROWN: That he had seen no evidence --

CILLIZZA: In the FBI, in the CIA. I mean that's -- this is not a -- this is not on the one hand. Some people say Russia was involved, and on the other, some people say that it wasn't. This one everyone basically says they were.

Given that, and t Brian's point, everything that he said up until now, which he has been the person most unwilling with the new republican party to say yes the Russians meddle at the election. It's odd to me a little bit that he decided to lead off with this. And would represent a change of heart, frankly, from just yesterday when he was unwilling to even say, yes, Russia was primarily responsible.

BROWN: Right, so what do you think of that?

CILLIZZA: Well, there were four people in the room. One of them, Tillerson we heard from. We were -- I think unlikely hear from Trump, although who knows, he does in the sort of feed. Sergey Lavrov', the Foreign Minister in Russia as Brian noted, they provide a little bit of a different account not that Trump brought up election interference, but how he reacted to Putin as we would expect to say we had nothing to do with that.

Again, though, it seems to me, and I know we won't get any answer on this, but it seems to me that we should get an answer on, did Donald Trump change -- did he -- was he presented with something between Poland on Thursday and Germany on Friday that led him to say, I'm going to lead off with this, because remember the reporting leading up to this --

BROWN: Right.

CILLIZZA: -- foots (ph), while he's probably not going to even bring it up. But always the --


BROWN: I think he does, he won't dwell on. I mean the per se, right?


BROWN: But if you look at his wording, Christine, he said, I want to talk to you about the concern of the American people. He didn't say, I want to talk to you about my concern. Do you think that was -- those were wisely chosen words?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I think that may be sort of splitting here. Is there -- I think it's actually kind of silly that we now have a lot of folks who have said Russia is sort of enemy number one and Russia did all these horrible things in the election and are now sort of willing to accept the version of events presented by the Russian Foreign Minister who we have no reason to believe, in fact, over our government's own Secretary of State. I find this an odd contradiction, must be hard to be a Democrat right now with two folks that you don't trust presenting opposite point of view on what happened in that meeting. I certainly think what Donald Trump just has this sort of bizarre fixation with not acknowledging that there was Russian interference at the election, I think because the stories become so meddling, like you really -- or become so mixed up where he really wants to say, my victory was legitimate. And anytime this comes up, it feels like its saying his election wasn't legitimate. So frankly, as a Republican, I wish he would stop going there and I wish he would focus on issues. But I don't think that it's likely that the version of events coming out of this meeting really matches up with what the Russian Foreign Minister said.

CILLIZZA: I agree. Kristen is right about that. I hate that piece that went out, that what Lavrov said that Trump agreed to and what Kristen said. If you believe our Secretary of State which he was one of the four people in there, which none of us were. He said, the first thing that Trump brought up in this meeting was election interference and he pressed -- pressed is Tillerson's word -- pressed Putin on this. My point, forget the Lavrov version of events because I think Kristen is right. (INAUDIBLE) I don't think we should take Russia's word for it on all of this stuff. But that in and of itself is super interesting given that he has repeatedly said and raised questions about the conclusions of the intelligence agencies and the intelligence community regarding Russia's meddling. And yesterday in Poland, he went out of his way to make that point.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: So then, can you give him credit. I mean, from the President's perspective, you know, Democrats were saying, he should bring it up, that would be a missed opportunity. He did bring it up. And not only that, it was the first thing he brought up in this meeting.

BRIAN FALLON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt that it was raised. I don't trust that it was with any force, I think it probably was in a joking, cavalier way. But however, he brought it up, if he did, credit to him. But now, the Russian officials have gone out and contradicted how the conversations ended and we haven't heard from the administration in an undirected way.

BROWN: Like Kristen said, are we going to -- are we going to trust Lavrov?

FALLON: Well, so let's -- so let's not let Lavrov be the last word. Let's hear from the White House now. And will Donald Trump say that I don't accept Vladimir Putin's denial. Because here's the issue, intelligence officials have warned us that this is going to happen again in 2018 and 2020. And so, clearly, the Russians are not receiving this as any stern threat. There's no determine effect achieved here. Let's have the United States government speak with one voice that we will not accept this, and we're going to back it with strong sanctions as a result. Otherwise, they're going to -- why would Vladimir Putin admit to this when Donald Trump is holding open the possibility that he's not guilty of it.

BROWN: OK, I want to switch to something else, and that is the jobs support. It was better than expected today, Kristen, showed that the U.S. added 222,000 jobs last month. That's nearly 50,000 more than predicted by Wall Street economist. So what do think, what is your reaction to that?

ANDERSON: So, I think presidents always get more credit and more blame for the economy than they deserve, either direction. I think in the very early days of Trump's administration when economic numbers were coming in great, and he was taking credit for it, I think that was a little bit sort of figurative thin case to men. Like he's only been in office for a few weeks. He's now been in office about six months where we're a healthy way into his term. And so I think, to the extent that presidents have control over these things, the expectations in the business and corporate community in America are that we're going to get things like tax reform, that we're going to have a more favorable environment. And so people are a little more willing to hire. And so, again, I think Presidents often get too much blame, too much credit, but I don't think you can say that President Trump's election had nothing to do with this.

BROWN: And what do you think very, very quickly. Is this a -- the fact that we're eight years out of the recession? The President who -- (INAUDIBLE)?

CILLIZZA: Yes, Kristen is exactly right. You always get -- presidents -- and if Hillary Clinton was president, she'd claim the same thing. The economy is doing better because of policies I put in place and it would be roughly half true like it is. This is his best story though, right now in world with not make a good stories, this is a story. If the economy does continue to grow, it works for him politically.

BROWN: All right, thanks so much Chris, Brian, and Kristen. Appreciate it.

Well, everybody loves the 90s right? After Brad Garrett from Everybody Loves Raymond joins me to help him get ready for the big CNN Premier of "THE NINETIES" this Sunday night, stay with us.



[16:50:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Give me that.

BRAD GARRETT, AMERICAN STAND-UP COMEDIAN: Raymond said I could have it. You would rather throw it in the garbage than give it to me?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's the only way you'll learn.


BROWN: Welcome back in the "POP LEAD," Everybody Loves Raymond. It was one of the last network sitcoms that was appointment TV for the entire family. Of course, before TVOs and DVRs were standard in your household, and it's featured in the new CNN series "THE NINETIES," looking back at a decade of dialogue that started with flannel and ended with frosted tips. And joining me now is actor and comedian Brad Garrett who played Ray's brother Robert Barone. Thank you for coming on.

GARRETT: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Let me first ask you, why do you think everyone loves Raymond and connected with its audience so strongly?

GARRETT: Well, you know, it was what always makes sitcoms I think relatable and successful. It was about family and dysfunction and the love and competition, and you know, the camaraderie that exists sometimes or sometimes not in a family. And I just think it came at a point when everybody could really relate to it and kind of needed to get that family around the TV again. And of course --

[16:55:08] BROWN: And let's take a look. Go ahead.

GARRET: Sure, no, go right ahead.

BROWN: Well, I wanted to play this clip that really sums up what you're saying about the Barone family. Let's watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, leave a message.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello? Everything is fine now. You can bring the cake back over. Frank, pick up! Robert! Raymond? Are you eating that cake? You better not have started that cake. That cake is for all of us. Frank! I'm coming over!

GARRETTl: Save yourself.


BROWN: That must have been a fun scene for you to be in, eating all that cake.

GARRETT: Yes. It was all three takes.

BROWN: Exactly. I'm sure there were a few takes. You know, the cast has already suffered many heartbreaks, heartbreaking in losses, too many of them, including your TV mom and your dad Doris Roberts and of course Peter Boyle. Share some memories of them with us if you would.

GARRETT: Well, you know, I remember when I got the pilot and I met Ray for the first time. You know, we were both stand-ups for years but we had -- we had never met on the road and we didn't know each other. And when we knew that Doris Roberts and Peter Boyle were going to play our parents, it was really, you know, very, very exciting. I mean, these were two big stars, and you know, Doris came from theater and television, and Peter was a movie star in his own right. And I remember when Ray looked at me and he goes, "hey, you know, this is going to work out great because Peter is young Frankenstein and you can easily be his son." So -- and then we met them and it was just -- both of them, it was incredible. We all had a different type of way of working and a different dynamic. And Ray and I came from stand-up and we were relatively new actors and so we all brought something to it. But we learned a lot from Peter and Doris, and of course, Patty was amazing.

BROWN: Well, as we know, the '90s don't seem to go away. They were even rehashed during the 2016 election. Why do you think people keep going back to that decade?

GARRETT: Well, personally for me it was pretty much of a blur, so I'm still working on getting over the '90s. But it was -- there was a lot of change going on, I think, and politically, you know, looking at our political situation right now, I'm ready to go back to the'90s, I think. But there was a lot of change going on. I think in television especially and film, I think that's what was interesting about Raymond was, you know, a lot of the television was kind of about friends, and they were great looking and funny and single and sexy, you know, and we were just this oddball, you know, circus that was taking place every week that had a very different type of feel. So I think that was even for the'90s, our show was kind of almost like a set back a bit. But looking back to the '90s, it was -- it was a great time for music, just for a lot of things.

BROWN: OK, so final question.

GARRETT: And I was thinner, I was thinner. That's what I mainly miss about the '90s. And the things I owned before the divorce was wonderful. Sometimes I look at pictures and that --

BROWN: I'm sensing a lot of nostalgia from you over the '90s.

GARRETT: Yes, yes.

BROWN: So, on that note, three words to describe the '90s for you.

GARRETT: I'm very sorry.

BROWN: I'm very sorry. Those are your three words.

GARRET: That's it.

BROWN: All right, well, we will leave it at that, Brad Garrett. Thank you so much.

GARRETT: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Don't miss it. Set your VCRs if you have to. See what I did there? See, that's "THE NINETIES" premiers 9:00 p.m. Eastern this Sunday.

And that's it for THE LEAD, I'm Pamela Brown in for Jake Tapper. Jake is back on Monday. Be sure to watch CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION" this Sunday morning. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and former Defense Secretary Ash Carter join the show. It all starts at 9:00 Eastern, Sunday morning. And now I turn you over to Jim Sciutto in for Wolf Blitzer in "THE SITUATION ROOM."

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Happening now, breaking news, two-hour tango.