Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Plan to Fix Obamacare; Stabilizing the ACA; Lawsuit Against Fox; Trump On Russia Statement; Trump Defends Social Media. Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired August 01, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: -- any role in the statement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: The president was not -- did not draft the response. I do want to be clear. The president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement. I wasn't involved in the statement drafting at all nor was the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta who's joining us from the north lawn at the White House.

Jim, the president's attorney, Jay Sekulow, you just heard him pushing back against what is the charge in this "Washington Post" report. What is he now saying?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it's interesting. The denial coming from Jay Sekulow is not quite as emphatic as what you heard in the clips from "Meet The Press."

Let's put this up on screen. This is what he released last night to CNN. It says, apart of being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate and not pertinent.

Wolf, that is not a blanket denial that this story is completely untrue. It's saying that the story is inaccurate which means that parts of it may or may not be true. And so, we're going to have to find out what the White House has to say about all of this at the press briefing that's coming up in about an hour from now which will be on-camera, by the way.

But this is, once again, another situation where the White House is having to play some damage control over misstatements or statements that did not turn out to be accurate, that they've issued to us in the past, regarding the Russia investigation.

And, of course, nothing could be more critical to this Russia investigation than the activities of, of course, the president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who eventually acknowledged.

Remember, initially, that statement said that, well, this meeting was just about Russian adoptions. And then, Donald Trump Jr. released those e-mails, those four pages of e-mails.

Of course, we don't know what -- any of those other e-mails might say about all this. But those four pages of e-mails that were released to the public obviously revealed that this Russian attorney might have damaging information on Hillary Clinton. That the president, then candidate at the time, Donald Trump was being supported by the Russian government.

So, this is a very critical part of the investigation. I talked to a top congressional source earlier this morning, Wolf, who said that if this is true, it further implicates the president in all of this. And it, obviously, raises questions that the president, himself, will have to answer, at some point.

He's obviously not been eager to talk about these issues. But the question is certainly out there for the president to answer them.

BLITZER: According to "The Washington Post" report, Jim, the president rejected the strategy of some of his advisors to be more forthcoming about Donald Trump Jr.'s Russia meeting over at Trump Tower in June of last year. Is this the kind of situation where his new chief of staff, General Kelly, might be able to intervene going forward?

ACOSTA: Well, he might be able to intervene going forward, Wolf. But I don't think General Kelly can put the toothpaste back in the tube here. If the president's advisers were involved in the drafting of what was a misleading statement, even if they were cautioning the president not to put out a misleading statement. And there is some indication of that in that "Washington Post" story, then obviously the special counsel will want to talk to those individuals. Obviously, congressional investigators will want to talk to those individuals.

And that's why CNN was reporting, you know, weeks ago when some of this came out that, that statement, the drafting of that statement, that whole controversy, had potentially had made things difficult for aides over here at the White House. Potentially opened them up to questioning by investigators on all of this.

And one would have to think, Wolf, moving forward, General Kelly, because he has been, sort of, playing things by the book and wanting to bring order and discipline to this White House, he's -- I don't think he's going to be the kind of person to stand in the way of that -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, good point. Jim Acosta at the White House for us. Thanks very much.

The report that the president actually dictated what's described as a misleading statement about his son's Russia meeting creates more headaches for the administration. It could open the president up to more political and maybe even some more legal scrutiny.

Let's bring in our panel to discuss that and more. We have Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for "USA Today," CNN Politics Reporter and Editor-at-Large Chris Cillizza, and CNN Legal Analyst, former federal prosecutor, Laura Coates.

Laura, what kind of legal jeopardy, if any, would this statement aboard Air Force One put the president in?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, now, we have revisited the obstruction of justice territory. And the reason for that is because you have a president of the United States who's been very adamant about his non-involvement in either drafting or being a part of any conversation with anyone involved with Russia during the campaign.

Now, you have the dragnet honing in on the president, because his involvement is suspicious at best. And it looks as if he's saying to himself, well, I need to have a hand, in some way, to craft this narrative.

The question is, why did he feel the need to do that? Why feel the need? And number two, when did you know that this meeting with the Russian lawyer was more than about the adoption? Did you know it at the time of the campaign? Did you allude to it on the campaign trail? And if so, doesn't that sound like the very thing that the criminal probe is about? The involvement of the Trump campaign with anyone from Russia?

[13:05:00] BLITZER: Like that old cliche, Chris. What did the president know? When did he know it? What is your reaction when you saw that story in "The Washington Post"?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER AND EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Wow was the first one. Because, to Laura's point, what I don't -- what is hard to understand. If you're the president, you've been told by James Comey repeatedly, we now three times, as Donald Trump said, that you were not under investigation, when Jim Comey was head of the FBI, in relation to this probe.

Why would you suddenly inject yourself into it by getting involved in the dictation of a statement on behalf of your son? Your son is not 19 years old. He's in his 30s. He's a big boy. He's running your company, in fact. So, that's strange.

The other thing that is strange and I would note is, that first Donald Trump Jr. statement was misleading but not a lie. There's nothing in it that is inaccurate.

There's just a lot of things in it that are very carefully worded to make the best case. They talked primarily about adoptions. It wasn't a campaign issue.

If Donald Trump did write that statement or dictate that statement, it's hard to square that with the, I didn't know anything about any of this stuff. Because that statement is a very carefully wrought document, based on what appears, at least to me when reading it, a fuller knowledge of the situation than what's in that statement.

BLITZER: I want you to listen, Susan. This is the president speaking at a joint news conference with the French president last month. Listen to this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have a son who is a great, young man. He's a fine person. He took a meeting with 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, is this a father simply defending his son? Is it a father who honestly believes his son did nothing wrong? He took a meeting. Maybe he was going to learn something about Hillary Clinton, this dirt, if you will. What do you think?

SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, "USA TODAY": Well, of course, since then, we've had not a single person who has run a campaign, presidential campaign, before, saying, yes, this is a meeting I would have taken. I think that is something to note. The portrayal of this is just politics as usual. I think has not been shored up by evidence afterwards.

And I think we don't know. I think that's why we have an investigation going on. I -- it's possible that this will turn out to be someone who just wasn't aware. Doesn't understand the seriousness of some of the territory in which he's steps or it may turn out to be something different.

That's why there's a special counsel and that's why even Republicans on the Hill are increasingly defensive of the -- of the special council, increasingly willing to say to the president, you cannot impair this investigation, at this point.

BLITZER: A lot of lawyers now involved, representing all the various characters in all of this. But I'm increasingly focusing in on Jared Kushner. The son-in-law's attorneys, as you know, Jamie Gorelick, a former attorney general during the Clinton administration; Abbe Lowell is a well-known lawyer here in Washington. They are highly experienced in these kinds of matters.

And I assume they're instinct was not to put out the statement that the president put out supposedly, if you believe "The Washington Post," from aboard Air Force One. But to -- you know what? They've got all of the information. Jared Kushner has informed them. Has shared the e-mails. You've got bad news. You release it. You don't wait for your adversaries to release it.

COATES: Well, you know, you want to get ahead of the story, because you wanted to undermine any allegation intent. That's the goal of these lawyers, at this point, to say, look, we would like to have this compelling narrative of the, I didn't understand. I'm politically naive. (INAUDIBLE) to our benefit for the campaign. But when it comes to a legal prosecution, perhaps, my naivete is a story that I want to get to.

So, it's hard just to wrestle with the idea of these highly experienced attorneys who are in uncharted territories, in the -- of this area of the Trump administration, who are sticking to a narrative about being naive.

But it changes the dynamic, when you have somebody like President Trump who is carefully crafting a narrative. Because carefully crafted narratives have lawyers' fingertips all over them.

I find it very hard to believe that on Air Force One, coming back from the G-20 Summit, perhaps, he didn't have conference with a single attorney who said, I wouldn't say that. But if you're getting involved in some way, then say it this way for the love of the law.

I think you've got a number of different areas that you have to pursue as a -- on the defensive as an attorney. But as somebody who is trying to defend against a probe by Mueller who has not been very vocal at all about what he is doing or the parameters of investigation, you are seeing attorneys who are trying to crack the narrative on the only way they can, Wolf. Which is saying, you've got to stick to the story that you had no idea it was happening. Because if you knew, if you are the intelligent genius you want me to be on any other campaign trail, you're in for it legally.

BLITZER: He did tweet. He started tweeting again this morning, Chris. Only the fake news media and Trump enemies want me to stop using social media, 110 million people only wait for me to get the truth out.

[13:10:02] CILLIZZA: Oh, OK. No reporter -- I feel comfortable saying this. No reporter thinks, man, I wish Donald Trump never used Twitter. I mean, it's just -- this is the most false construct humanly possible.

We've said it time and time again. This is a window into how the president thinks and feels at any given time. And as we've seen in the first six-plus months of his administration, that is often at odds with what his White House is talking about. No reporter will ever want to give that up.

I also think, by the way, for the first few hours of this morning, there was talk of that General Kelly had reined in Donald Trump's Twitter habit. I mean, how many times are we going to run at that football why Lucy pulls it away and we fall on our head? I mean, he's going to keep tweeting.

BLITZER: Susan Page is a reporter. Do you look forward to those tweets or do you want him to stop tweeting?

PAGE: No. You know, I think Chris is exactly right. So, it's a window into what he's actually thinking. It's something we've never seen with a president before. We are quite sure these aren't filtered, because, man, if they were filtered, they wouldn't be saying the things they're saying.

And Laura made the point that, for legal reasons, you'd want to be -- put everything out at once. Don't have this drip, drip, drip of disclosure. You know, for political reasons, too. Politics 101. You've got a scandal. Find out the facts. Put it all out there so that they're out under your timetable and with your spin. Not somebody's else's. And that is not something this White House has done.

CILLIZZA: And, by the way, that statement, if Donald Trump did dictate it, as "The Washington Post" was reporting, they had to go back two or three times in the next 72 hours. To say, well, yes, I knew it was -- and it led to Donald Trump Jr. releasing e-mails, which, to me, are the biggest evidence yet of, you know, the allegation, at least, that this evidence of collusion needs to be looked into.

BLITZER: Well, remember, they released the e-mails after, what, "The New York Times" got ahold of the e-mails. And "The New York Times" were about to release the e-mails so they released them in advance.

All right, guys, thanks very, very much, Laura, Chris and Susan.

Coming up, an explosive lawsuit claims the White House worked directly with Fox News to push a fake story in an attempt to discredit the U.S. intelligence community's assessment. We're going to have details.

Plus, from the lawsuit to Donald Trump Jr.'s misleading statement on his meeting with a Russian lawyer, the press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, getting ready to answer reporters' questions. Lots to discuss in today's White House briefing, which begins supposedly right at the top of the hour. We'll have live coverage.

[13:12:28]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:21] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Despite the failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, health care reform may not necessarily be done. President Trump taunted Congress over its failure, even suggesting he would cut off payments for insurers and members of Congress and their staffs if the Senate doesn't go back to work on a repeal bill. And now there are discussions going on behind the scenes.

The House bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus is working on a plan of its own to try to fix some of the problems of Obamacare. This is a coalition of some 40 lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, who are aiming to stabilize the Affordable Care Act markets.

Martha McSally is a Republican congresswoman from Arizona. Josh Gottheimer is a Democratic congressman from New Jersey. They're both members of this caucus.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

And, Congresswoman McSally, what's in these new proposals that you and your caucus are putting together. What's different, for example, from some of the earlier Republican bills?

REP. MARTHA MCSALLY (R), ARIZONA: Well, we've been working on this proposal quietly for the last few weeks and we have been laser focuses on where we can agree on stabilizing the individual insurance market. It's where about 7 percent of Americans get their insurance. And this is really what is collapsing across the country. Forty percent of counties only have one choice. Many counties have no choices. Prices are going up over 100 percent in some places, like Arizona. So we said, look, guys, we disagree on some other things, but can we focus on where we can provide some stabilization and relief for the individual market? 2018 is coming fast. And also provide some relief for small business from the mandates. So we have a four-point plan.

BLITZER: So, congresswoman, I just want to be precise.

MCSALLY: Yes.

BLITZER: So what you're trying to do is fix, repair some of the problems of Obamacare, but you're not trying to repeal the whole thing, is that right?

MCSALLY: We -- what we're trying to do is stabilize the individual market. Often this gets -- then people get their shirts and skins on. Is this repeal or is this repair? Look, this is stabilizing the individual market for individuals and families that are being impacted by 2018, which is coming fast.

So we've got, again, some good points in there. It's bipartisan. We had some spirited discussions and debates. But it provides relief, stabilizes with a stability fund that focuses on those high-risk individuals with pre-existing conditions, which is in both the House and the Senate plan, by the way. It funds the CSRs but brings them under congressional authority, which was important to us. It provides a list in the employer mandate from 50 employees working 30 hours a week, all the way up to 500 working 40 hours a week. This is a real game-changer for job creation for small businesses.

BLITZER: All right.

MCSALLY: And one other piece being, giving more flexibility to states. So Josh can give you some more details, but this is a really great plan and it's good news.

BLITZER: Well, all right, so -- so you think you can get a whole bunch of Democrats onboard, because it sounds like it isn't a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it's simply trying to fix some of the serious problems of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, congressman?

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D), NEW JERSEY: Well, Wolf, I mean that's exactly right. What we were dealing with, and you've had 43 members of Congress come together, Democrats and Republicans. And instead of screaming at each other, actually sitting at the table and working together to say, how do we deal with the crisis at hand, which is a destabilizing marketplace with people worried if they're going to have health care next month, premiums up 15 to 20 percent around the country and Kaiser Foundation and others said if you can actually stabilize the cost-sharing payments to the states and actually help deal with some of the people with pre-existing conditions and help the states a little bit, you can get premiums down 15 to 20 percent, which is what we're dealing with in New Jersey and what Martha talked about.

And what -- Wolf, the big headline here is, Democrats, Republicans, trying to find a way forward. We can't -- we're not going to solve everything, but we're trying to deal with the problem at hand, and that's exactly what we did.

[13:20:05] BLITZER: Congresswoman McSally, have you spoken to anyone at the White House about this?

MCSALLY: We have kept some people in the administration informed that we were working on these efforts. Since we've rolled them out yesterday, I have not talked to anybody. We've been doing a lot of media interviews, Josh and I, again, proclaiming this good news, that Democrats and Republicans have sat down together. Again, had a rigorous discussion, but have come up with a plan to start solving the problem of this individual market, and providing relief to small businesses. And this really is a big story and creates the space for moving forward.

BLITZER: Well -- well, let me ask Congressman Gottheimer, have you spoken with the Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives? Are -- is Nancy Pelosi, for example, with you?

GOTTHEIMER: Well, I'll tell you, I spoke to Leader Pelosi and I've spoken to others who say this is -- we need to let 1,000 flowers bloom here. And the key -- the big breakthrough, and I'm hearing this, and I know Senator Schumer came out and spoke about this and other leaders across the aisle, the big breakthrough is, you actually have people willing to work together to deal with the immediate crisis, which is premiums skyrocketing and people concerned about the future of any kind of health care. And we need to fix -- in my opinion we need to fix it, not throw things out. We actually need to stabilize things and look to tomorrow.

And the big news -- and, again, I really, as Martha has stressed a lot, is the fact that now we've got some place to start to move forward. Nothing's perfect. But right now, instead of screaming at each other and wearing our respective political shirts, we're actually trying to build consensus and move forward. And what you're hearing is a lot of positive feedback. "The Washington Post" came out with a great editorial today on this from our -- I've heard from people in my state that this is exactly what they want. They want someone who's going to actually talk to each other and figure it out. So that's the headline here. And I really believe we're on to something.

BLITZER: Do you think, congresswoman, there's any chance that you and your caucus can go to the White House and meet with the president and try to talk him into what you're doing?

MCSALLY: Well, we would love to have that opportunity, both with the administration and with the Senate and the House on both sides of the aisle. This is 43 members coming together, again, we didn't love what the others were asking for on either side, but we said, all right, if we can get this, we'll tolerate that. And we had to get over 75 percent of our caucus to vote yes and over 50 percent on each side for us to make this bold statement yesterday. So I think we've created the space to solve this problem. Again, 2018

is coming fast. And as we work through our sincerely held differences on other issues, let's work together to stabilize the individual market, to help families in the community and provide relief to those small businesses. Moving that number up to 500 employees really will provide some economic growth opportunity.

BLITZER: And very --

MCSALLY: So these are singles and doubles. It's not a home run for everybody --

BLITZER: Very --

MCSALLY: But we're here to govern.

BLITZER: Very quickly, Congressman Gottheimer, how many Democrats, how many Republicans make up your caucus, your Problem Solvers Caucus, of 43?

GOTTHEIMER: It's about -- about split evenly. We've got 23 Democrats and 20 Republicans. So -- and I'll tell you, I know that Tom Reed, my co-chair in the caucus with Martha and others have heard from others. Our phones are ringing off the hook of people that now want to jump in from both sides who say, how do we be part of this?

MCSALLY: Yes.

GOTTHEIMER: Because, gain, this is about -- as Martha pointed out so right, Wolf, it's about helping families, it's about helping children, it's about helping seniors. They all want some certainty to know that tomorrow when they wake up they're going to have coverage. And they can't afford to have their premiums keep going up. This will stabilizes things. It will bring premiums down. I think that's what everybody's looking for on both sides of the aisle. Nothing is perfect, but building a consensus is never perfect and you're not going to get everything you want. And that's the idea here that we actually need to move forward and govern.

BLITZER: I've heard from so many of the Democrats, especially the Democratic leaders, they really want to fix, to improve, to repair Obamacare. As long as the Republicans don't insist on a formal repeal, they want to work together. We'll see if you guys can make that happen.

Representatives Martha McSally, Josh Gottheimer, thanks so much to both of you for joining us.

GOTTHEIMER: Thanks, Wolf.

MCSALLY: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Coming up, jaw-dropping claims that the White House and Fox News may have concocted a fake conspiracy about a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer. We have details. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:28:37] BLITZER: Fake news and the Trump administration. That's the allegation in a new lawsuit against Fox News from a private investigator, who's also a paid contributor for the network. He alleges that not only was he misquoted in the story about a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer here in Washington, but that before it aired the report made its way across the desk of President Donald Trump.

Joining us now from New York is our senior national correspondent Alexander Marquardt.

Alex, take us through the accusations here and the allegations aimed at the Trump administration.

ALEXANDER MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf, these really are explosive allegations that the White House worked hand in hand with Fox News to concoct a story, really more of a conspiracy theory, to distract from the allegations that the Trump administration colluded with Russia.

Now, at the center of this story is the tragic death of a young man named Seth Rich, a 27-year-old. As you mentioned, he was a staffer at the Democratic National Committee who was shot and killed last summer.

Fox News had reported, both online and on-air, pushed particularly hard by host Sean Hannity, that Rich had been murdered because he had leaked tens of thousands of DNC e-mails to WikiLeaks.

Now, this lawsuit, which was first reported by NPR, was filed by Rod Wheeler, a former detective, who was a Fox on-air contributor. He alleged that the motivation behind the article was to establish that Seth Rich had provided WikiLeaks with the DNC e-mails to shift the blame from Russia and help put to bed speculation that President Trump had colluded with Russia in an attempt to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

[13:30:09]