Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump and Macron Talk Climate Change, the Paris Accord, Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails, Olympics in Paris, Terrorism, China. Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired July 13, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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

EMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, regarding climate, well, we have a number of disagreements which are in particular due to the commitments taken by President Trump vis-a-vis his -- during the presidential campaign.

[13:00:00] So did I. I'm aware of how important that is, but we therefore talked about our disagreement. And we actually discussed the matter even before President Trump reached a decision.

Next, should that have an impact on the discussions we're having on all other topics? No. Absolutely not. This is the reason why we share the same views and some major common goals on many other topics, on all other topics, which we've been discussing today and which I'll move forward together.

Next, well, of course President Trump will tell you about it, but he's made enough commitments. We're going to be working together. And my willingness to continue to work with the United States and the president is very major topic.

I understand that it's important to save jobs. And that being said, we shall leave the United States of America to work on what is its road map and continue to talk about it.

So today, nothing new, unprecedented. Otherwise we would have told you about it. But I believe there is a joint willingness to continue to talk about this, and try and find the best possible agreement.

As far as I'm concerned, I remain extremely attached to the framework of the Paris Accord, which has been a major international breakthrough. And it is within that framework that I'm working on a priority (INAUDIBLE) for the European Union.

Lastly, as you know, I never very much want to comment who we are and what we are doing personally. But I can tell you that this evening at the Eiffel Tower, it will be a dinner between friends. Because we are the representatives of two countries that have been allies forever, and because we've been able to build a strong relation, which is dear to me because it matters a great deal for both our countries.

It will, therefore, give me great pleasure to have dinner together with you tonight.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that I can reiterate. We have a very good relationship, a good friendship. And we look forward to dinner tonight at the Eiffel Tower. That'll be something special. And yes, I mean, something could happen with respect to the Paris Accord. We'll see what happens.

But we will talk about that over the coming period of time. And if it happens, that'll be wonderful. And if it doesn't, that'll be OK too. But we'll see what happens.

But we did discuss many things today, including the cease-fire in Syria. We discussed the Ukraine. We discussed a lot of different topics. We briefly hit on the Paris Accord, and we'll see what happens, OK?

Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Thank you. Merci, Mr. President.

Mr. President, your FBI nominee said if someone in a campaign got an e-mail about Russia like the one that your son Don Jr. received, that they should alert the FBI, rather than accept that meeting. Is he wrong?

Also, were you misled by your team in not knowing about this meeting?

Mr. President, thank you very much.

You have heard President Trump say that it may have been Russia, it may have been others who interfered with the U.S. election. Is President Trump taking a hard enough line on Russia, as you see it?

Merci.

TRUMP: Well, I'll start off by saying, first of all, I believe that we will have a great FBI director. I think he's doing really well. And we're very proud of that choice. I think I've done a great service to the country by choosing him. He -- he will make us all proud, and I think someday we'll see that, and hopefully someday soon. So, we're very proud of him.

As far as my son is concerned, my son is a wonderful young man. He took a meeting with a Russian lawyer. Not a government lawyer, but a Russian lawyer. It was a short meeting. It was a meeting that went very, very quickly, very fast. Two other people in the room, they -- I guess one of them left almost immediately and the other one was not really focused on the meeting.

I do think this. I think from a practical standpoint most people would've taken that meeting. It's called opposition research, or even research into your opponent. I've had many people -- I have only been in politics for two years, but I've had many people call up, "Oh gee, we have information on this factor or this person or, frankly, Hillary."

TRUMP: That's very standard in politics. Politics is not the nicest business in the world, but it's very standard where they have information and you take the information. In the case of Don, he listened. I guess they talked about -- as I see it, they talked about adoption and some things. Adoption wasn't even a part of the campaign.

But nothing happened from the meeting, zero happened from the meeting. And honestly, I think the press made a very big deal over something that really a lot of people would do.

Now, the lawyer that went to the meeting, I see that she was in the halls of Congress also. Somebody said that her visa or her passport, to come into the country, was approved by Attorney General Lynch. Now, maybe that's wrong, I just heard that a little while ago, but a little surprised to hear that. So, she was here because of Lynch.

So, again, I have a son who's a great young man. He's fine person. Took a meeting from a lawyer from Russia. It lasted for a very short period and nothing came of the meeting. And I think it's a meeting that most people in politics probably would have taken.

Mr. President?

MACRON: Yes, to answer the question, I (INAUDIBLE) not to interfere in others' domestic life.

TRUMP: What a good answer that is.

(LAUGHTER)

MACRON: And -- and -- and I do believe that both of us have direct relationships with Russia. President Trump had two hours -- more than two hours meeting with President Putin during this past G- 20. The last G-20, and myself, I had two very long meetings with President Putin, The first one in Versailles, and the second one during the G- 20.

And this relationship is very important. We have a lot of differences. We have a lot of discrepancies, obviously, with Russia. But in the current environment, especially in Middle East, it's a necessity to work together, to exchange information, to share these agreements and to try to build solutions. So, that's my relationship with Russia. And we don't have, obviously, the same relationship as the one with the U.S., but that's a long-standing relationship with Russia as well. And I think it's important that both of us have direct discussion and contact with President Putin.

TRUMP: One of the great things that came out of that meeting, by the way, even though it's not part of the question, was the fact that we got a cease-fire -- fire that now has lasted for, I guess, Mr. President, almost five days. And while five days doesn't sound like a long period of time, in terms of a cease-fire in Syria, that's a very long period of time. And that was a result of having communication with a country.

So, during that five-year -- five-day period a lot of lives have been saved, a lot of people were not killed. No shots have been fired in a very, very dangerous part of the world and this is one of the most dangerous parts of Syria itself.

So, by having some communication and dialogue, we were able to have the cease-fire and it's going to go on for a while. And frankly, we're working on a second cease-fire in a very rough part of Syria. And if we get that, and a few more, all of a sudden you're going to have no bullets being fired in Syria. And that would be a wonderful thing.

Mr. President, you have a question.

QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Good evening, Mr. President. (INAUDIBLE) from BSN TV (ph), a question to President Macron.

Are you willing to (INAUDIBLE) in order to support Paris bid for the Olympic Games?

And on this occasion you somehow criticized President Trump's policy. Without naming him, you said that France made a very clear choice to leave its border open and not to build walls, walls to protect its people. Do you condemn the Muslim ban and the building of a wall between the United States and Mexico?

Regarding Syria, as it was just mentioned by President Trump, is France ready to talk directly with Bashar al-Assad in the negotiations that he mentioned?

QUESTION: You've mentioned a friend, Jim (ph), who told you that Paris is no longer Paris. You were implying at the time that Paris was not safe anymore. You've also said that France and Germany are infected by terrorism and, quote, "It's their fault because they let people enter the territory."

Those are very strong words. Would you repeat them today? And do you still believe that France is not able to fight terrorism on its own territory?

Thank you.

TRUMP: You better let me answer that one first. That's a beauty.

(LAUGHTER)

He's the one that asked the question; that wasn't even one of my picks.

TRUMP: You know what? It's going to be just fine because you have a great president. You have somebody that's going to run this country right. And I would be willing to bet, because I think this is one of the great cities, one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

And you have a great leader now. You have a great president. You have a tough president. He's not going to be easy on people that are breaking the laws and people that show this tremendous violence.

So I really have a feeling that you're going to have a very, very peaceful and beautiful Paris. And I'm coming back. You better do a good job, please, otherwise you're going to make me look very bad. (LAUGHTER)

MACRON: And you're always welcome.

TRUMP: Thank you.

MACRON (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Regarding the first question, like I said, I believe that the discussions that we've had today is the proper answer to terrorism. The right answer is (INAUDIBLE) cooperation between our services, and never-ending fight against terrorists no matter where they are.

This is what I was referring to. This is what we're working on actively together. So in this respect, there is no difference and no gap between the French and the American positions. When I'll have something to say, I'll say it clearly. And I do say who I'm aiming at.

And when I refer to those who've been my opponents in the French political battle, I also mention the names (ph). So, let us not mix up (ph) everything.

And regarding the fight against terrorism, I think that the right approach is to have strength and cooperation in the field of intelligence, is also to be working together on all the theaters (ph) of oppression where we are (INAUDIBLE) and I think that the decisions with which they will enable us to do more.

Your question regarding Bashar al-Assad, which is an important one. Let me put it simply. Indeed, with -- we now have a new approach of Syria because we want some results, and we want to be closely working together with our partners, including the United States of America. We have one main goal, which is to eradicate terrorism, no matter who they are.

We want to build an inclusive and sustainable political solution. Against that background, I do not require Assad's departure. This is no longer a prerequisite for -- from -- to work on that. Because I can only tell you that for seven years, we did not have an embassy in Damascus, and still we have (INAUDIBLE).

Next, we also have a common red line together with President Trump. He intervened before I was elected. And I said it to President Putin after my election, no use whatsoever of chemical weapons. Any use will lead to reaction -- an attack against -- a reaction regarding the storage places.

And next, we also want humanitarian corridors. Also, we want to build a sustainable political ability for Syria. This is our road map. In order to stick to it, we made the climactic (ph) initiative beyond the military action. This is what we've been agreed upon -- agreeing upon, because we want to take an initiative with the members of the Security Council and the members of countries involved in the process (INAUDIBLE).

Of course, there will be representatives of Assad that will enable us to put in place a road map for after the war. But there will also be representatives of the Syrian opposition and people with different backgrounds. And we will talk to all of them against that background.

One last question, for an American journalist.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): (INAUDIBLE) TV of China.

For both presidents. Mr. Macron, you had your first meeting with the Chinese president during the G-20 summit. What will France do? How will France cooperate with all of these areas with China? And what do you personally think about Mr. Xi Jinping?

Thank you very much.

TRUMP: Well, he's a friend of mine. I have great respect for him. We've gotten to know each other very well. A great leader. He's a very talented man. I think he's a very good man.

He loves China. I can tell you, he loves China. He wants to do what's right for China.

We've asked him for some assistance with respect to North Korea. Probably he could do a little bit more, but we'll find out.

We're now working on some trade deals. He's been very nice. He's let, as you know, beef go back in, certain financing go back in, credit card financing, and various other things go back in, at my request, which is a great thing for our farmers.

So, lot of good things are happening. But we're going to be working on some very major trade components.

But President Xi is a terrific guy. I like being with him a lot. Any he's a very special person.

OK? Thank you.

MACRON (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I first spoke to President Xi over the telephone, then I got to meet him in the margin of the G-20 Summit in Hamburg. Earlier - early next year I will be traveling to China. We've agreed to it. So I cannot say that he's a friend of mine or that I know him very well, because I very much want to say things as they are, but we had some initial contacts, which were extremely fruitful and positive. I have a lot of respect for President Xi and I would like to say that over the past few months he did express his willingness to have a vision for multilateralism and wanted to commitment himself on a number of topics.

I think that many of us remember his words and - in Davos and he - they are very strongly expressed his vision overall of China. We have a number of joint commitments, including on climate. He's very committed to that. And he told me that he wanted to do more in the field. And I can only be happy about it. He wants some (INAUDIBLE) operation. And like President Trump said, we also have trade issues and regarding

the number of activities. They are issues, they are differences, but a joint willingness to sort up - sort them out. And as members of - permanent members of the Security Council, we want to work together on all of the topics we've been discussing today.

And China, in this respect, is a key partner in order to build peace all around the world. And I share what President Trump just said, that China is to play a very specific role regarding the rising tension, the growing tension in - with North Korea. And it's important that China can play (INAUDIBLE) in the region.

In summary, I'm thinking he's today one of the great leaders of our world, implementing a major and ambitious reform of China, society and the economy in China and, therefore, my willingness, and it's respect as well, is to have a strategic dialogue. The purpose of which is to continue to talk about the industry of - civil nuclear industry, economic matters and talk about any difficulties we may have together.

Very well. Allow me to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and, once again, thank President Trump for his visit. And I will be seeing him in a few moments in a friendly atmosphere.

TRUMP: Thank you very much. A great honor. Thank you.

Thank you.

MACRON: Thank you.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France. They talked about quite a bit, including the climate change accord accords, the Paris Accords, and their disagreement over that. They talked about Syria and the fight against ISIS. They talked about Ukraine.

President Trump, of course, was asked about the latest controversy in the Russia probe. This one involving his oldest son Donald Trump Jr.

Let's bring back our panel to try to has it all out. We have CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash with us, CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger, CNN's senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson, and CNN national security analyst and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers.

So much to dissect, but one thing I do want to note, and I'll start with you, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rogers, President Trump just now acting as if it's not a big deal to meet with an adversarial country, Russia, and what was billed as government officials, or a government lawyer from that country, to get opposition research about a campaign opponent. That is not normal. That is not the norm in campaigns in this country. And I understand his desire to protect his son, certainly, but just for anybody watching, that is not how opposition research is done in this country.

[13:20:09] MIKE ROGERS< CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I would hope not, number one. That should have been about a 15-second answer. He should have showed support for his son and then moved on to some more important issues. That long and rambling answer is exactly the way Donald Trump gets himself in trouble.

When you have a country that has an adversarial intelligence service targeting the United States of America, and they do here, they do abroad, they do - they attack - target our allies. They are one of the most aggressive intelligence services in the world. To say that when the government of that country says they have information about someone who was, by the way, a former senior government official -

TAPPER: Secretary of state.

ROGERS: Secretary of state, the first call is not even your counsel, it's to the FBI, saying, I don't know - I'm not sure what to need to do with this but I don't want to take the meeting. And we should never set the standard of anything short of that.

And I think he made a mistake. I don't - I, you know, I - we shouldn't go in and try to figure out an intent. I think that's what the investigators will do. But this is not something that is normal. It is not something that should be normal. It is not something that campaigns should adopt in the future.

TAPPER: Dana.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And he didn't answer the question. The question was, what do you say to your FBI director nominee -

TAPPER: Christopher Wray.

BASH: Who said just yesterday what you just said, it is not OK and the first call should be to the FBI. And so he didn't answer the question because he clearly was undermined by his - his FBI director nominee. And I think that, you know, we were talking about this as we were watching. It's - and it's important that you said this to the viewers everywhere, that - sure.

TAPPER: Sorry, just to interrupt.

BASH: Sure.

TAPPER: We're just looking at live pictures of presidents Trump and Macron as they - as President Trump, I guess, is leaving Macron, the Elysee Palace. Go on, Dana, I'm sorry.

BASH: Yes. This is a very classic Trump tactic. If you say things over and over again, you - you believe that people will believe you. And the thing that he has now said twice is that - is that he absolutely thinks that this is OK, anybody would have taken the meeting. And, again, it is not correct.

TAPPER: That's not correct.

CNN White House correspondent Sara Murray joins me now from Paris.

Sara, tell us about who got to ask the president questions there, because there were - it's not necessarily who he normally calls on?

SARA MURRAY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. I mean, President Trump has made a habit of calling on news outlets that the White House believes are sympathetic to their plight. We've seen that time and time again when he's abroad. So the first question, he called on another American television network or reporter from there and she asked a question.

His second question was a little bit of a surprise. He called on a Chinese reporter, not on a - an American reporter in the sort of normal traveling press pool in order to ask a question about China. So they do seem to be taking a different tactic in how they deal with the media. Obviously, that's no longer a surprise from this administration.

And the other thing that we have seen is they sometimes let people know ahead of time when they're getting questions. Unclear if that was the case this time. I can tell you the French journalists were aware that they were going to be getting questions of President Macron. Unclear if this Chinese journalist, in particular, knew that he would be getting a question today. But certainly a surprise and a different - from the format we're used to seeing in these kind of two and two press conferences, Jake.

TAPPER: Just ask you, China's not exactly known for its free press. When you say a Chinese journalist, do you know the outlet?

MURRAY: Well, we did not hear what the outlet was. They appear to be from a Chinese television outlet. But that's just from what we could see in the row over, but we did not catch the call letters on what that might be. So we're going to go try to figure that out now.

TAPPER: All right, thank you so much, Sara Murray.

Gloria.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I just want to add on to what Dana and Mike were saying, because I also agree with you that the president went on too long about this because in this response he also made the point that this Russian lawyer, as he said, was not a government lawyer.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Right.

TAPPER: Although -

BORGER: Although, in the - in the e-mail -

HENDERSON: IN the e-mail, right.

BORGER: It makes it very clear that, in fact, she was.

HENDERSON: Uh-huh.

BORGER: And he also, you know - I mean, he also deflected and said that this lawyer had walked the halls of Congress and, of course, her visa was approved by none other than former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, therefore putting her visa approval smack in the, you know, back in the Democratic side. And so -

TAPPER: And we should say, that's based on reporting in "The Hill" that said that the Justice Department -

BORGER: Exactly.

TAPPER: In the Obama administration approved the visa. That's -

BORGER: We don't know how long it lasted for.

TAPPER: I just read the story by John Soloman (ph) in "The Hill."

BORGER: Yes.

TAPPER: It says nothing about Loretta Lynch specifically doing it.

BORGER: Right.

HENDERSON: Right.

BORGER: And so that's by way of saying, well, if she was a Russian agent, why would the Democrats have approved her visa? So, again he's making -

BASH: We've got a lot of Russian agents here.

BORGER: Again he's, you know, he's making the point that this was just another Russian lawyer.

HENDERSON: Yes.

BORGER: I mean to your point, Mike, do you - is that -

HENDERSON: I mean -

[13:25:07] ROGER: Listen, you know, the Russian intelligence services are very clever. And so what you want to do, if you were actually trying to figure out if there's someone that you can gain access to a campaign - and, by the way, some notion that they weren't trying to get access to someone in the Clinton campaign, we ought to - we ought to make sure we all understand, they would try to penetrate any, a Senate run, they're going to be engaged in this activity. So they're going to try to send someone.

I found it interesting that they would say it was from the government. And a lot of times they call it a dangle in the intelligence business. I'll dangle out enough information so that if you take the meeting, I know I'm going to get a second meeting or a third meeting if you've taken that first step. So that's, my guess is, investigators are going to follow on, on what happened next? Not that he took the meeting. He was fairly a neophyte in both national politics and certainly in the intelligence business. So what happened next?

HENDERSON: Right. ROGERS: That's going to be a very key question to answer in the

investigation. But, again, that's why when a foreign government says that they have information for you, that isn't related to some business arrangement that you already have, then it's time to pick up the phone and call somebody who knows what they're doing.

TAPPER: So, Chairman Rogers, let me just ask you a few questions for people at home. Mike Rogers, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also a former FBI official. So I understand the cutout idea, the idea that if the Russians are going to reach out to the Trump campaign, they're going to do it through this oligarch and his son who are already acquainted with the president. That's typical Russian KGB or the - or the successor organization stagecraft.

And I also understand the dangle, which you just talked about. But would it be normal to do one of these meetings and then not actually provide anything, which is what both Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Jr. say happened. I don't know that that's what happened, but that's what they say. Wouldn't they provide something?

ROGERS: Depends. Now there may have been people in the meeting that they were not anticipating to be in the meeting. That may have thrown them off. But the most important part of that meeting would have been, if this were a Russian operation, if they weren't going to go directly into that meeting and try to do something there is to say, hey, we need a follow-up meeting on that information. Who do we talk to? And so that's what I meant, the investigators are going to look at what happened next. Did they say, we want to meet with other people that may have been in the meeting that would - that isn't even reported yet? We don't know. That's what you'd look for. Or that follow-up e- mail, follow-up phone call, follow-up contact saying, that information can be delivered and, by the way, we want you to meet x, y or z.

BORGER: Don Jr. made the point that that never occurred.

ROGERS: And it may have never happened. That's what I'm saying. They may have made the assessment when they went in. All of these will be assessed, right? So the intelligence services will look at that and say, hmm, OK, maybe this is not the right way to do it, but we took it - we took a shot at it. But, again, as much information that was in that e-mail tells me that they were looking for something subsequent to that. Could they find a way - and, by the way, it didn't have to be witting, either. It doesn't mean that anyone who walked into that meeting was witting to work with the Russian intelligence service. I don't believe that at all. As a matter of fact, the Russians would prefer that you would be an unwitting access point and that happens a lot, unfortunately, across the government.

BASH: Easier to manipulate.

ROGERS: Yes, it's much easier to manipulate. There's always distance between them and the intelligence service. And the information that they get gives them other leads in a way that doesn't compromise that individual and allows them to do their work. So, to me, when I looked at it, and you look at the e-mail chain and you look at exactly how they did it, how they got this person this close, the cutouts that they used to get them there, you say, boy, somebody was thinking through an operation. Doesn't mean it was success. Doesn't mean that they walked into this meeting thinking they were working with the Russians. I think that's really important to point out.

TAPPER: That's really interesting the idea, Nia, of unwitting because this was, Sally Yates, the Justice Department attorney, the holdover from the Obama administration, who was concerned about Mike Flynn, then the national security adviser, concerned about him being compromisable -

HENDERSON: Right. Right.

TAPPER: Because of information that the Russians knew that President Trump and Vice President Pence did not know about the contents of his conversations with a Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.

HENDERSON: Right, and that was her warning to the White House, that Michael Flynn could be susceptible to blackmail, susceptible to coercion. And in this instance, the Russians, particularly - at least this lawyer, this Russian government lawyer, knew that these conversations had happened, and also knew that the public stance of his White House, the public stance of Donald Trump Jr., was very different. So in essence you imagine that that could be an interpretation of that, that Donald Trump Jr. could have been susceptible to blackmail as Sally Yates warned of the White House about Michael Flynn.

[13:29:48] I do want to talk about Donald Trump again in terms of how he is reframing this whole Donald Trump Jr. thing. He's calling him a wonderful young man. He's not really that young. I think he's 39. I think he's the same age as Macron is. And he's also, I think, changing Donald Trump Jr.'s story, right?