Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Firm Used By Trump Campaign; Classified Briefing On Attack; Tax Reform Discussions; Rubio on Cuban Attacks; Classified Briefing on Niger; Team Attacked in Niger. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 26, 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 1:00 p.m. here in Washington. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Explosive revelation. The data firm used by the Trump campaign asked WikiLeaks for access to Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Was it legal and who knew?

Code names and captures. As lawmakers get a classified briefing here in Washington on the Niger ambush, we're now learning about a secret operation involving the team and a terror leader.

And five decades after the JFK assassination, President Trump expected to release highly anticipated government files on what happened. You're going to hear what to expect. Stand by.

Let's start, though, with a new revelation about the 2016 presidential election here in the United States. Sources tell CNN, a company linked to the Trump campaign reached out to a controversial WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, in an attempt to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton. The target was Clinton's e-mails from her time as secretary of state.

Let's go to our White House Reporter Kaitlyn Collins. She's working the story for us. Kaitlyn, what more do we know about the company and its links to the Trump campaign and has there been any reaction so far from the White House?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Wolf, we know that this is a data firm that was hired by the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016.

And what we learned yesterday is that the CEO of that company, Cambridge Analytica, reached out to the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, in hopes of obtaining these 33,000 e-mails of Hillary Clinton's from when she was secretary of state on her private e-mail server.

Now, Clinton argues that those e-mails are private in nature. And we know that yesterday Assange said he rebuffed the request from Cambridge Analytica.

And at this moment, the White House is not responding to this, beyond referring reporters back to the Trump campaign.

Now, Michael Glassner, who is the executive director of the Trump campaign, put on a statement yesterday, essentially distancing themselves from this firm that reached out to WikiLeaks, saying that they relied on the Republican National Committee for voter data.

But what this really shows is someone who was working on behalf of the Trump campaign, reached out to WikiLeaks in order for political gain -- Wolf.

BLITZER: They spent, what, almost $6 million with this firm, Cambridge Analytica, to get information. And Jared Kushner, who was a senior adviser during the campaign, the president's son in law, Kaitlan, he bragged about the use of this firm in that interview after the election, right?

COLLINS: Yes, that's right, they did. And then, we also saw the president repeatedly refer to WikiLeaks on the campaign trail, saying, hey, I hope you guys can help me find these 33,000 e-mails.

So, what this definitely raises are some fresh questions about just how involved the Trump campaign was on this.

BLITZER: And why that statement yesterday did not reveal all of that information from the Trump reelection campaign.

Kaitlan, we're also going to be hearing shortly from the president. He's about to make a major announcement about the opioid crisis here in the United States. What will we hear and what does it mean?

COLLINS: Yes, here in the next hour at the White House, the president is going to sign this memo that directs the acting Health and Human Services secretary to declare the opioid crisis as a public health emergency.

But, Wolf, that's stops short of what the president said back in August that he would declare a national emergency. Essentially, the two differences between a public health emergency and a national emergency is that a national emergency has federal funding attached to it. A public health emergency does not. Instead, it allows them to use grants and it eases up some certain laws and regulations.

And it, essentially, communicates to these agencies just how important this crisis is. Now, this emergency only lasts for 90 days but the president can repeatedly renew it for as long as he sees fit.

This is something that the president has cared about multiple times. He talked about it at length during the campaign and back in March he founded that commission with Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey, at the helm.

But the question now is what impact this decision of declaring this a public health emergency will truly have on this opioid crisis which kills 100 people a day == Wolf.

BLITZER: Kaitlan Collins reporting for us, our White House Reporter. Kaitlan, thanks very much.

And joining us now, Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican from Florida. He's a key member from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Intelligence Committee, the Appropriations Committee. Lots of hard work going on up there.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: Thanks, Wolf. Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: We have lots to discuss. I want to go through some of the news of the day. First, I want to ask you about the news from the presidential campaign that a data analytics company linked to the Trump campaign actually reached out to WikiLeaks, trying to get ahold of Hillary Clinton's e-mails. What's your response? Does this surprise you?

RUBIO: Well, it'll be == as I said, the Intelligence Committee that I sit on is continuing its work, hopefully reaching a conclusion here fairly soon. At least something we can begin to share with the American people to give them more clarity.

[13:05:04] And it's my sense that that -- you know, anything remotely related to something like that would be a part of that endeavor, potentially.

But beyond it, I mean, I just have chosen not to comment on media reports like that in the midst of the investigation until all the facts are out.

What I want is all the facts to be out, no matter where they lead. And then, obviously, people can reach their own conclusions about things. But we've got to get the facts out there first.

BLITZER: I just want to be precise. You don't regard this whole Russia investigation as a hoax, do you?

RUBIO: Yes, I think if people recall, back in October, when I was running for reelection, I said, repeatedly, that I was hoping Republicans wouldn't be using any of the stuff that was putting -- being put out there. Because I felt it was the work of a foreign intelligence agency and it was used undermine our election.

And I told people repeatedly that today it's them, but tomorrow it could be us. So, I've always felt this was a serious thing. And we're going to look at it.

Most == I don't think there is any doubt that Russian intelligence tried to divide us against each other and play an influence in the direction of our elections. On that issue, there is no doubt.

On some of the other issues people raised, like collusion and the like, now, obviously, that's what Mueller is looking at and so forth. And we'll let all those things play out.

What I want is very simple. Get to the truth. Lay out the facts. And we go from there.

BLITZER: Yes, that's a good point.

Let me get a quick reaction to the dossier that's in the news, all of a sudden. And, now, it has been confirmed, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund the research for that dossier.

We also know, though, and President Trump, himself, confirmed this yesterday, that the research was actually started first by an unnamed Republican. The president indicated he knows who that Republican is.

Do you know? And I've got to ask you the question. Was it your campaign? Because you were running for the nomination at the time as well.

RUBIO: Yes, I don't know who it was.

So, the one thing we do know is that this thing about the dossier that you're discussing. All those press accounts -- and I'm just going off press accounts. They all make it abundantly clear that the work that Mr. Steel did on the dossier didn't even start until April or May or June after the Republican primary was over.

So, that was the DNC and that was the Clinton campaign.

And as far as whether it was my campaign, it wasn't. And I'll tell you why. Because I was running for president. I was trying to win. If I had anything against Donald Trump that was relevant and credible and politically damaging, I would have used it. I didn't have it.

BLITZER: So, your campaign never funded any of the initial research. And you're right. That initial research was done before Christopher Steel, the former British spy, got involved.

But I just want to be precise. Your campaign had nothing to do with it, right?

RUBIO: With GPS, that group, absolutely not.

BLITZER: All right.

RUBIO: You know, and I think that == you know, I think that's abundantly clear from all the reporting that == you know, that it wasn't a campaign-driven thing.

But, again, you know, we'll see where it all leads.

BLITZER: The Russian sanctions bill, that passed the Senate over the summer by a lopsided 98 to two vote, passed the House, 419 to three.

Before the vote, you said you didn't think President Trump would have a problem with new sanctions on Russia, even though he strongly opposed the legislation, and reluctantly signed it into law knowing he didn't have the votes to override a congressional veto. We're now over three weeks past the October first deadline in the law for the White House to act on the sanctions to implement the law. It hasn't happened yet. Do you think the president still has no problem sanctioning Russia?

RUBIO: Well, I'd say they have no problems because they told me they wouldn't have any problem. And then, they did have a problem, but they ultimately signed it anyway.

So, that's called the Executive Branch. And the job of the Executive Branch is to execute, to carry out the law. Congress passed a law. He had a choice to veto it or pass it or sign it. He signed it. And now, it's the job to implement it.

Now, their argument is they haven't been able to identify all the companies and the firms that need to be sanctioned yet. And I think I response would be, well, sanction the ones you already know and then add new ones later as you gather more information.

But I think they need to execute the law and they need to do it == they're already late in doing it. And there is -- I don't believe that it is legitimate to argue, I'm not going to execute the law because I don't like it.

BLITZER: Well, what -- some of your colleagues are already recommending some steps that the Senate can take if he continues to slow walk implementing the law.

What would you do if he doesn't do anything? There's some speculation, as you know, he doesn't want to do anything until at least after he meets with Vladimir Putin in Asia in November.

RUBIO: Well, I think laws need to be followed. And if the law was passed by Congress and signed by the president, the president has an obligation to execute the law.

And if there is some why he can't that we're not aware of and they want to share, I'll be open minded about that part. But, ultimately, the law should be executed.

And if they don't -- and that's speculation. I'm not saying they're not going to eventually do it. But if they don't and there's something Congress can do about it, then I will most certainly be supportive of it because I voted for it and I support sanctions.

BLITZER: On the deadly ambush in Niger, what are you being told? Were you aware of the size of the U.S. military footprint in Niger, almost 1,000 military troops there?

[13:10:00] RUBIO: Well, I think the families are owed more than they've gotten. As far as what we've been told, not much. I know we'll have some more information later today. I'm not sure it's information that I could share in the press, unfortunately. But I do believe the families deserve answers to what happened in more detail.

And so do the American people, by the way, about what happened. For two reasons. To bring closure but also to make sure we're not repeating mistakes that could lead to something like this happening again.

BLITZER: Do you support the Senate passing legislation, a new authorization for the use of military force?

RUBIO: I would so long as it's properly crafted. I want an authorization for use of force that authorizes us to go after terrorists. And I think if you start limiting it geographically or you start limiting it, in terms of the names of the groups, the groups change names all the time.

We forget ISIS is a spin-off and Al Qaeda. In essence, it is a -- it is associated -- it was originally Al Qaeda members that started a new organization.

The same is true for geographic limitations. If you get too strict on that, these groups know exactly where they can go and avoid you. So, as we see now, that this fight against radicalism has spread to multiple continents. And we need to have the ability to reach them and degrade them wherever they are.

BLITZER: Senators == your colleagues, Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, as you well know, they've stepped out to seriously question President Trump. The President and the White House have pushed back very strongly with personal attacks on both of those senators. You're calling it a moment of realignment for the party. Where do you stand in this realignment?

RUBIO: I called it a moment of realignment for both political parties and for every institution in society. You've got to == you know, the whole statement has got to be take in there.

What that means is we're living in a time of incredible changes and realignment, economic realignments, geopolitical realignments, cultural realignments, societal realignment. And everybody. The media is having to reinvent itself. Political parties are having to reinvent themselves to, sort of, deal with the new realities.

And within the Republican Party, there is a debate about what the crux of the party is and what it should stand for. It's a big bought party with a lot of different views and a lot of different issues.

I would argue the same thing is happening in the Democratic Party. Where all of the energy, right now, seems to be in the, sort of, Bernie Sanders' wing of the party. And that's not where Joe Biden or some other people == or certainly Bill Clinton came from 25 years ago. So, this is happening everywhere.

It just so happens that when you have a president in the majority, you're going to get more attention on some of the internal debates that are happening.

BLITZER: Let's talk about tax reform while I have you. It's a big issue. The House just followed the Senate. They passed the budget. Now, you can go forward. You can make major changes in taxes with only 50 votes in the == in the Senate, as opposed to 60 votes there.

You want == and you're working with Senator Mike Lee for a major expansion of the child tax credit as part of this overall reform. What if it isn't included? What are you going to do?

RUBIO: Well, let me tell you what happens. If we don't do the child tax credit and we don't make it refundable against payroll taxes, then the middle class and the working families in this country will have a tax increase. Not a tax cut, not even break even. They'll have a tax increase. The president is not going to sign a tax increase on working families. And that bill actually wouldn't even pass.

So, the bottom line is we either put it in and it passes or it doesn't get in and it won't pass and-or he'll veto it. So, that's why I know it's going to happen. And they've just to keep working and make sure it's crafted appropriately.

BLITZER: Will you support changes in the 401Ks, the tax deductions, as far as 401K's retirement plans which are very popular, especially with the middle class?

RUBIO: Well, I'm not even sure that's a serious proposal or just something they're floating == staff or somebody's floating just to see what the public reaction to it is. Look, there's a litany of what they call pay-fors or, sort of, tax treatments within the code that add to about $4 trillion. There's a whole list of them. That's one of probably hundreds and hundreds of items that people are discussing.

I'm not sure how that -- I don't think they've settled on anything like that. And, ultimately, you know, we're going to see the entire package. And I promise you this. Tax reform is not going to have everything I want. OK? I'm not == it's not going to have everything in that bill that's perfect the way I see it.

But in a constitutional republic, you don't get everything you want. And the question becomes, does this make things better or does it make things worse?

And if we put together a tax reform package that makes things better for the country, for our economy, for global competitiveness and for working families, I'm going to vote for it. We must do tax reform. We have no choice for our country, for its future, even for our national security.

BLITZER: Cuba, an important issue right now. They now claim, the Cuban government, that they were == that the == they were not involved in those sonic attacks on American diplomats. They say all of those allegations against the Cuban government are science fiction.

What do you say to the response? Because, what, about a couple dozen American diplomats are suffering right now from, perhaps, permanent ear damage.

RUBIO: Yes. Well, it's not science fiction that people are hurt and hurt badly. Now, either the Cuban government did it or they know who did it. I mean, Cuba, Havana in particular, and these places where these attacks are happening, are some of the most closely monitored places in the world.

The idea that someone could carry out sophisticated attacks against Americans who the Cubans monitor when you go there. If you're an American diplomat or an American working at the embassy and you travel to Cuba, you are being monitored 24-7. You're not just walking around randomly. They're watching you.

[13:15:08]

The idea that someone like that could be attacked in a sophisticated way, upwards of 20 people, and the Cubans not know who did it is absurd. It's ridiculous. So if they didn't do it, they know who did it. And there's no doubt about that. And anyone who's serious about that issue will know that to be true.

BLITZER: You've -- related to Cuba, you've introduced legislation on Cuba and airport security. You write in your legislation that the U.S. government, in your words, needs to ensure robust security measures are in place in order to keep Americans safe. What are the fears? What are the possible threats that you're so concerned about Americans boarding flights in Havana, for example, to fly to Miami or New York?

RUBIO: The same as anywhere else on the planet. You know, when you fly into the United States from a foreign airport, you have to meet -- in the United States, you have to meet certain TSA requirements. And we inspect that, we work with those countries to make sure that's the case. That hasn't been the case in Cuba. They're just telling us they do, but there's been no inspection, no follow-up. Why should flights from Cuba be any different than flights from the Bahamas or anywhere else in terms of meeting our security standards? I don't know how you justify that.

BLITZER: Senator Rubio, thanks, as usual, for joining us.

RUBIO: Thanks, Wolf. Thank you.

BLITZER: And just coming into CNN, lawmakers wrapping up a classified briefing on the investigation into the Niger ambush, as we learn why an operation to capture and kill a terror leader was actually canceled.

Plus, for decades many of the U.S. government's files on the JFK assassination have remained classified. Today, President Trump expected to release those secret documents. You're going to hear what we're learning and what it means.

And CNN goes inside North Korea as Kim Jong-un's regime issues a new warning to President Trump, as nuclear tensions clearly rise.

Stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:05] BLITZER: We're learning new details about the deadly ambush in Niger that killed four American soldiers earlier this month. The 12 man green beret led team was given several tasks before it was attacked. One of those tasks focused on a man with the U.S. code name "Naylor Road." He's a terrorist leader operating in Niger. The team was on standby to assist in case another U.S. Nigerian military group needed help with its capture or kill operation of that terror leader, but that mission was canceled before it even was launched. And that's because the team received word that "Naylor Road" left his encampment in Niger and entered neighboring Mali. So the mission changed again.

Now the 12 man team was sent to gather any possible intelligence in his abandoned area. They did not encounter any enemy forces there. The team searched and then left.

On the way back to the operating base, the team stopped at a separate village so they could replenish supplies. U.S. troops met with local leaders as a courtesy and then they were ambushed. U.S. officials say it's quite probable that someone in that village tipped off the ISIS affiliated terrorists that the U.S. forces were there.

Obviously, we still have many unanswered questions. The Senate Armed Services Committee just wrapped up a briefing behind closed doors on Niger.

Let's go to our chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, who's following all these developments. He's up on Capitol Hill right now.

What more have we learned, Jim?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, we've spoken to a number of senators as they've left this classified briefing here. One concern, spoke to Senator Jeanne Shaheen, is that U.S. forces in Africa, and Niger specifically, don't have all the resources they need. That's been a complaint even from the AFRICOM commander, specifically about surveillance drones, et cetera, in the air.

But another question is, just how the position of these U.S. forces were tipped off, how and when to ISIS forces, that led to this pretty sophisticated ambush that they ran into, deadly ambush as it would turn out.

Listen to what Senator Tim Kaine had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D), VIRGINIA: What I'm most interested in is, how did such a well-executed attack occur? I think it clearly would have required some advanced planning. And that would have required knowledge about what our troops would be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Our understanding to this point was that when that team stopped at a village -- this is as they're returning to base to replenish supplies -- when they left that village, their concern was that they might have been delayed there and that someone -- it's the belief of the U.S. military now we've been told and we've reported -- that someone or some people in that village tipped off ISIS fighters to those U.S. forces presence and that's when they ran into this ambush.

But, as Senator Kaine said, it was a pretty sophisticated ambush. It had -- it included heavy machine guns, mortars -- mortars, RPGs. That would require some time, planning to get those -- get those forces and that weaponry in place. Did they need even more time than getting a tip off from those villages? It appears to be there are some unanswered question here.

And we understand from senators who were briefed today, Wolf, that the military says it will take another 30 days before they have some final answers.

BLITZER: Yes, they're doing a thorough investigation. They want to learn lessons from this so it doesn't happen again.

Jim Sciutto, thanks very much.

Let's discuss all of this. The former defense secretary, William Cohen, is here with us.

Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for joining us.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Thank you.

BLITZER: So what's your initial reaction to this new information?

COHEN: Well, it doesn't surprise me. When you deploy your forces, even if they're only there for training and support missions, that they're in a dangerous position and you need to have reinforcements on the ready to take care of any kind of contingency that might happen like this. But that's something that the Senate and the House obviously want more information about. I'm sure that Secretary Mattis wants more information about it as well.

BLITZER: The president says he did not specifically give authorization for this mission. He says he trusts the generals. He's letting the generals decide what to do. What's you -- is that normal? What's your reaction?

[13:25:07] COHEN: Well, normally the commander in chief would certainly have a briefing presented to him on a regular basis. The president has indicated he doesn't like to read the presidential daily briefing. That would be important under any circumstances.

But notwithstanding that, I think he wants to give the military more latitude in terms of operations. And that's fair enough, provided you accept responsibility when things go wrong. So the president can't be involved in every operational detail. And that's unfair to suggest that he should. But he should have a general awareness of the kind of missions that we're on, why are we in Niger, is it really critical to our safety or that of our allies, is it part of the counter terrorism, what are the rewards what are the risks? And what are the resources necessary to carry out the operations? All of those questions should be presented to him before we engage in any kind of a mission like this. And I'm sure they have been.

Then the question becomes, no, he can't know every issue that's on the table, but he has to accept responsibility. When they're right, he gets credit. When they're wrong, he has to assume the responsibility.

BLITZER: There are about 1,000 U.S. troops in Niger. Maybe 6,000 U.S. troops throughout Africa right now. The ISIS affiliated groups, Boko Haram among others, they're gaining strength right now. These are dangerous missions.

But the Pentagon calls what the U.S. military personnel are doing training and assisting, which is not necessarily completely honest, is it? They're doing a lot more than simply training and assisting if they're going out on a mission to try to kill terrorist leaders.

COHEN: Well, the question is, were they part of the mission to capture and kill? It's not clear, from what I've heard in the briefing, that that was the original mission or a change. So if they're going to be involved in capture and kill missions, they obviously they need to have a different force component. You have to have a different contingency plan. You may have to have more people. You can't put a limited number of people in an operation in a country that size and expect not to run into difficulty.

So I think a lot of questions still have to be answered. I'm sure they will be. I'm sure that Senator McCain will get that information. I'm sure that Secretary Mattis will provide it, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

BLITZER: But even if Niger -- forces from -- Nigerian forces were going out there to kill a terrorist leader, but they were assisted in that operation by U.S. green beret-led forces, that's a lot more than simply training and assisting. They're a part of the operation.

COHEN: Well, the assisting is part of it, that they may be providing intelligence. There may be drone surveillance, identifying where that individual is. So training is not behind enemy lines, so to speak, just showing them how to operate equipment, it also is how to carry out effectively these kind of counter terrorist missions. It may involve capture and kill. But if that's the case, better be very specific in terms of what kind of sources and resources you provide those men and women who are out there.

BLITZER: Very quickly, before you were secretary of defense, you were U.S. senator from the state of Maine. Should Congress pass new legislation authorizing for the use of military force in Africa and elsewhere?

COHEN: I think we have -- Congress should, in fact, call a series of meetings to say, tell us what the missions are. Tell us -- we want to give authorization for these, but we want to play a role. We're a co- equal branch. This is not giving you carte blanc authority to engage all over the world. I think in terms of North Korea, by way of example, there is a proposal on The Hill to have Congress really be involved in saying we're going to give you authority if that's what you're seeing but you can't act on a preemptive basis or a preventive basis on your own. That's contrary to the Constitution as far as I'm concerned.

BLITZER: And a lot of people are saying they really need to pass this kind of legislation.

Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us.

A firm used by the Trump campaign asked WikiLeaks for access to Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Was it legal? A member of the House Intelligence Committee standing by to join us live.

Plus, President Trump expected to release highly anticipated files into the JFK assassination, which have been classified for decades. You're going to hear what we're learning and I'll speak live with the U.S. Secret Service agent who jumped on JFK's car in Dallas that day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)