Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Grassley Says Trump Exchange with WikiLeaks was Innocuous; Sessions Criticized for Memory; Sessions Floated as Alabama Write-in; Tax Bill with Obamacare Repeal. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired November 15, 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, 8:00 p.m. in Harare, Zimbabwe and 12:00 a.m. Thursday in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Make or break. All eyes on President Trump, who has yet to speak up on the fate of Senate candidate Roy Moore. As more Republicans denounce Moore, will Trump call on Moore to quit? The pressure builds.

Plus, Jeff Sessions being floated as the answer to the seat in the U.S. Senate. So, if the attorney general leaves, what does it mean for the Russia investigation?

And hail Mary. The Republicans going for it all by targeting Obamacare in their tax bill. And there are new signs the risk might work.

But up first, the waiting game. Will President Trump finally weight in on Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore of Alabama? So far, he's been silent.

He told reporters during his overseas trip that he hasn't had much time to devote to the issue. But the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, says he has talked to the president about the scandal.

And now, McConnell is floating an interesting, if not controversial, fix to launch a write-in campaign for the former Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions who is now the U.S. Attorney general.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: The name being most often discussed may not be available.

But the Alabamian who would, you know, fit that standard would be the attorney general who is totally well-known and extremely popular in Alabama. That, obviously, is -- would be a big move for him and for the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The second top Republican in the Senate, Senator John Cornyn, has just come out in support of this idea as well.

And the move could potentially kill two birds with one stone. First, it could keep the Senate seat in Republican hands potentially. Secondly, it could pave the way for a new attorney general, one who could oversee the Russian investigation, instead of having to recuse himself or herself like Sessions.

There is a chance it could backfire, though, by splitting the GOP ticket. Because as of right now, Moore is showing it absolutely no signs of giving up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROY MOORE (R), U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE, ALABAMA: After 40 something years of fighting this battle, I'm now facing allegations and that's all the press want to talk about.

But I want to talk about the issues. I want to talk about where this country's going. And if we don't come back to god, we're not going anywhere.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: With pressure mounting for the president to speak, I want to go to Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny. He's joining us from the White House.

Jeff, so what's the thought process behind the president's silence so far?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, good afternoon. The president is definitely taking a wait-and-see approach on this, at least publicly.

But I am told by a variety of officials here that he is closely watching this. And they're closely watching the larger implications for what this means for control of the Senate. That's, of course, why this is such a big deal.

But he has had conversations with the Senate majority leader, and he is watching this.

I am told he that is waiting, in one respect, for outside voices to weigh in and offer their view on this. One of those is Sean Hannity. Of course, the Fox News -- the Fox News program host. The conservative host talks to this president all the time.

And he, yesterday, gave Judge Moore 24 hours to make a decision or to better explain himself on this.

So, the president may weigh in on this today. He may not weigh in on this. Aides here simply don't know. But he is watching this very carefully.

Wolf, I am told, though, based on our reporting this morning, that the Jeff Sessions write-in scenario is certainly one option. But I am told that it is likely not a preferred option, at least at this point.

For one reason, Jeff Sessions is not interested in going back to the Senate. Of course, if the president asked him to, he always, you know, has that option and may follow suit on that. But that is something that is seen as something that could divide the vote here.

So, the preferred scenario is for Judge Moore to step aside. But, of course, as we just heard there, he has not indicated a willingness to do that.

We do know that Steve Bannon, of course the former chief strategist here at the White House who is the head of Breitbart News who supported Roy Moore, is still with him, at this point.

Our colleagues, Jeremy Diamond and Dana Bash and others, are reporting that Steve Bannon is still supportive of Judge Moore.

But, Wolf, this is a fluid situation. But we have not heard from the president on this topic. He's been tweeting about a variety of topics, since waking up this morning here at the White House. He returned, of course, last evening from his trip to Asia.

I am told that we could expect to hear from him later on this afternoon about his journey as well, his trip, but that is not yet announced. But that will potentially be coming.

[13:05:00] But, Wolf, the president certainly watching this, even though he's not talking about it as of now.

BLITZER: We'll see if he does. All eyes are on the president on this very, very sensitive issue.

Jeff Zeleny, thanks very much.

I want to bring in our panel. Joining us, David Chalian, he's our CNN Political Director. Also with us, Carrie Cordero. She served as a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security. She is also an adjunct law professor at Georgetown University.

So, do Republican lawmakers want the president to weigh in on this issue right now?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: They do, especially Mitch McConnell would like the president's voice added into the notion that Roy Moore should step away.

So, Republican lawmakers and Republican operatives around town that I've spoken to about this say the president's voice here is going to be important. It may not be definitive for Roy Moore, Wolf. He may stay dug in and not bow out.

But that while every senator now, it seems every Republican senator or most of them, are saying he needs to get out of this race. Having the president added -- add his voice to that is something that the Republicans on the Hill would like to see. BLITZER: And Mitch McConnell, the Republican Majority Leader, John

Cornyn, the number two Republican, they both want Jeff Sessions to give up his role as the attorney general of the United States and go back to what he used to do, be a United States senator from Alabama and go as a write-in candidate.

Is that realistic?

CHALIAN: Well, you just heard Jeff Zeleny reporting that that is one of the options that folks at the White House are looking at. By no means is that a definitive option or the only way that some folks see their way out of this.

Here's the thing, Mitch McConnell said it in that sound bite you played at the top of the show, Wolf. Jeff Sessions is known throughout all of Alabama, much more so than Luther Strange. I mean, he has a deep relationship with the voters of Alabama.

BLITZER: Luther Strange is the sitting senator.

CHALIAN: He is the sitting senator who was appointed. And so, having Jeff Sessions write in his name gives you a real shot at people being able to write in that name on the ballot. It's not easy to get people to write in on the ballot.

Remember, no matter whether Roy Moore stays committed to this race or he and the Alabama state party decide to end his nomination, his name remains on the ballot.

So, having someone like Jeff Sessions -- that's why Mitch McConnell thinks it's such a good idea because he's so well known.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the possibility. Let's say Sessions gives up, resigns as the attorney general.

Carrie, walk us through the process because then there would have to be a nomination for a new attorney general, presumably to someone who wouldn't recuse himself or herself from the Russia investigation and from any potential special counsel being named to investigate Hillary Clinton and all of that.

CARRIE CORDERO, FORMER COUNSEL, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: Right. So, there's a lot of ifs, then whats.

But the first step would be that if he resigned, then, immediately, there would need to be an acting attorney general.

So, the question would be, would that be the acting -- the current deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, in which case he is supervising is the special counsel anyway and that would probably just continue?

Or a different acting could be announced. So, in other words, they could have the current number three at the Justice Department, Rachel Brand, the Associate Attorney General. She could become the acting attorney general. And then, the next question is, who would be nominated? And it could

be either of those two, who could be nominated for the attorney general position. Or it could be someone else entirely.

BLITZER: Because as you know, David, the president has made it no secret. He has been disappointed in the current attorney general, Jeff Sessions. He's tweeting about that. Spoken about that. Hated the idea that he recused himself.

So, presumably, the president would be happy if he were to go.

CHALIAN: Right. Imagine that he's able to solve a lot of problems, potentially, in one fell swoop. Tell Jeff Sessions he really wants him to be the write-in candidate. He then gets rid of an attorney general where there's clearly no love lost between them.

He would get to bring in somebody who may not have to recuse themselves. And, therefore, a full Trump loyalist who would have oversight from Rosenstein. Is that not the case, whether somebody who now has to recuse himself would then be able to have oversight over the Mueller investigation?

CORDERO: Right. It's more likely that somebody who would not have to recuse himself would be nominated for that position.

But let's be clear. If there was a hearing for a new attorney general, the first question that's going to be asked is, are you going to fire the special counsel? And I cannot imagine a scenario where anybody who would be leaning towards getting rid of the special counsel would be able to be confirmed.

But the president has also tweeted some nasty things about the current deputy attorney general. And so, I do think it's possible that they would look to the number three, Rachel Brand, instead of the deputy to come into that position.

BLITZER: Yes. Well, if there were a nomination for a new attorney general, the confirmation hearings before the Senate, that could be lively indeed.

CHALIAN: Every other questioner, namely a Democrat, would make it all about the Russia investigation.

BLITZER: We'll see what the -- if that happens. We're still not there yet. But we're all waiting to see what the president has to say, if anything, today. A lot of pressure on him to speak out, finally, on this issue.

Guys, thank you very much, Carrie and David.

Let's get to the tax fight up on Capitol Hill right now. Senate Republicans raising the stakes on tax reform by reviving the health care fight.

The Senate GOP tax plan now includes the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate. That's the requirement that individuals get health insurance or pay a penalty.

[13:10:00] Republican supporters, in both the Senate and the House, agree on the need to get rid of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN, U.S SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: So, obviously, we're in favor of repealing the individual mandate. But didn't want to needlessly complicate the passage of tax reform, given we did not have the votes before to get this through the Senate.

So, we want to see the Senate go first and see if they can -- if they can get that done. And then, we'll discuss whether or not it gets included at the end.

SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R), OKLAHOMA: You have pretty strong agreement among Republicans that we don't like the individual mandate. And the reason is it's a tax put directly on people that can afford it the least.

In my state in Oklahoma, 81 percent of the people that pay the individual mandate tax make less than $50,000 a year. So, this was a tax that was intended to push people to be able to buy the product. But it's actually landed on people that can afford it the least. So, we're trying to repeal it.

It doesn't take away the subsidies. Individuals can still get on it. They can still get full subsidies. All those things change but we're going to remove that tax penalty for people that actually can't afford it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's take a closer look at the Senate tax plan and what the repeal of the individual mandate, as it's called, would actually mean. Jim Tankersley is the tax and economics reporter for "The New York Times." Jim is with us right now.

So, what would repealing the Obamacare individual mandate mean for this entire tax bill?

JIM TANKERSLEY, TAX AND ECONOMICS REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, what it does is it gives Republicans more money to use in their bill, revenue, tax revenues, to expand the amount of tax breaks that they're giving to the middle class. $238 billion, in fact, is what CBO says they would get.

That's because the government spends less money on health care. People sign up less for Medicaid. People, they pay out less in subsidies. So, more money.

Now, there are trickle-through effects that happen to people on health care. So, their premiums go up as the market gets a little bit destabilized, CBO says, and 13 million people are left uninsured.

BLITZER: Over the next 10 years. TANKERSLEY: Yes.

BLITZER: That's a significant number. There would be several million in the first year, potentially, as well.

TANKERSLEY: What happens, over the 10 years, is this is the full amount and the number of people, yes, go down. And what's really going on here is a swap for the Republicans in the bill. They are expanding middle-class benefits at the expense of particularly middle and low-class -- middle and low-income people in -- on health care.

BLITZER: Let's talk about the middle-class tax brackets in the Senate bill right now. Walk us through that.

TANKERSLEY: So, this is part of what they do with that money. They are reducing rates from 22.5 percent to 22 percent. From 25 percent to 24 percent. From 32.5 percent to 32 percent.

They're also expanding the child tax credit up to $2,000 per child. What the goal is of each of these, and the mechanics of it work, is that middle-class people pay and low-income people pay a little bit less on their taxes. They get larger breaks for having kids.

And, again, that offsets some of the other things that go away. Benefits for middle class people that go away in the bill, like the state and local.

BLITZER: So, these reductions, relatively modest reductions, in these respective brackets for middle-class tax -- middle-class families.

TANKERSLEY: Right. The guess is that what this will do is reduce the number of middle-class families who see a tax increase under the bill, particularly with the child tax credit.

So, there were a lot of families, millions of families, who looked like they were might going to see their taxes go up. That number now is going to fall, over the first several years of the plan.

Now, the other trick that's been tossed in here though is that all of these benefits sunset, after the end of 2025. And so, if Congress doesn't reauthorize them, then all of those folks would see their taxes go back up again.

BLITZER: Jim Tankersley of "The New York Times." Thanks very much for that.

One Republican says that Donald Trump Jr.'s secret communications with WikiLeaks is no big deal. But I'll speak with a Democratic senator who strongly disagrees.

Plus, new today, North Korea launching a parade of threats at President Trump, calling him a mean trickster, a human reject and saying he'll pay dearly for insulting Kim Jong-Un.

And harassment up on Capitol Hill. There are explosive allegations that two current lawmakers are harassers and that $15 million has been paid out to accusers. Stand by. We have new information.

[13:14:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:18:19] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: A potential snag for Democrats who want to see Donald Trump Junior called before Congress for secretly corresponding with WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee now says he doesn't necessarily think it's a big enough deal to warrant a public hearing. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley told CNN, I'm quoting him now, I read those e-mails. He only responded to two or three of them and they were very innocuous. So I don't even know why you'd be asking about him if you read them.

Want to note that the president's own CIA director, Mike Pompeo, has described WikiLeaks as, quote, a non-state hostile intelligence service that's often aided by state actors like Russia.

Joining us now, Democratic Senator Ben Cardin. He's the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator, thanks for joining us.

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D), RANKING MEMBER, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Wolf, it's good to be with you. Thank you.

BLITZER: Do you agree with Senator Grassley's assessment that Donald Trump Junior's communication with WikiLeaks was not very significant? What's your analysis?

CARDIN: Oh, not at all.

First of all, we know that WikiLeaks has been working with Russia in regards to what happened in our election. Now we know there was communication between WikiLeaks and Donald Trump Junior about using the information of WikiLeaks. Shortly thereafter, candidate Donald Trump issued a tweet in regards to WikiLeaks.

This is more than just having information that's interesting. This is extremely troublesome and it really does require a congressional hearing.

BLITZER: Well, what -- does it just require a congressional hearing or more than that? Do you want the special counsel to be investigating anything along those lines?

CARDIN: Well, I'm certain that the special counsel is looking at this. Mr. Mueller has a reputation of being very thorough. I expect that is certainly a part of his investigation.

[13:20:10] Yes and no, this goes to a complete investigation. These are -- this is information that is beyond just having one bit of information that doesn't connect. We now have connections.

BLITZER: The attorney general, Jeff Sessions, as you know, he was grilled for several hours yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee about various inconsistencies in his earlier statements when it comes to contact between the Trump campaign and Russia. Some of those questions tested his memory. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I do not recall such a conversation.

I don't recall it.

I don't recall.

I don't recall it.

I don't recall it.

I don't recall it.

I don't recall that.

I don't recall how that exact occurred.

I do not recall.

But I did not recall this event.

I don't recall.

I don't recall at this moment sitting here any such discussions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: More than 20 times he couldn't recall certain specifics. He insists, though, he always told the truth, and I'm quoting him now, to the best of my memory. And he blames his hazy memory on the chaos of the Trump campaign. Do you believe him?

CARDIN: Well, I can just imagine Attorney General Sessions as Senator Sessions hearing that testimony and how he would have responded.

No, that's unacceptable. It's just -- you know, he has a responsibility to respond completely to the questions. And the way that response took place is unacceptable.

BLITZER: Speaking of Senator Sessions, as you know, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has now floated the idea of the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, becoming or giving up his position at the Justice Department and becoming a write-in alternative to the Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore, who's facing an enormous sexual misconduct scandal. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MAJORITY LEADER: The name being most often discussed may not be available. But the Alabamian who would, you know, fit that standard would be the attorney general, who's totally well- known and extremely popular in Alabama. That, obviously, is -- would be a big move for him and for the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, senator, as you know, senator -- Attorney General Sessions had fallen out of favor with the president due to his decision to recuse himself from the entire Russia investigation. Are you concerned at all about what might happen if Sessions were to leave his post as attorney general and that there would be a new attorney general presumably would not necessarily have to reduce himself or herself from that oversight of the special counsel?

CARDIN: Well, first, the voters of Alabama will select the next United States senator. And we expect Doug Jones will get that nod. A very qualified person.

In regards to --

BLITZER: He's the Democratic -- he's the Democratic candidate.

CARDIN: He's the Democratic nominee. He has an incredible background. So we're expecting the voters to make the right choice.

In regards to Attorney General Sessions, there is no indication he's leaving office.

We are very concerned about the White House interfering with the Department of Justice. We hear tones about that every day. The most recent about requesting another special counsel in regards to Hillary Clinton.

Look, we want an independent Department of Justice. Attorney General Sessions did the right thing in recusing himself. The Mueller investigation must be given the confidence and credibility to complete its investigation without interference from the White House or from the attorney general.

BLITZER: Very quickly, in an unrelated matter, Senate Republicans, as you know, they've announced their revised tax plan. It will feature a repeal of the Obamacare requirement that all Americans have health insurance or pay a mandate or a fine or a tax, whatever you want to call it. You sit on the Senate Finance Committee. What's your reaction to this move? What's the prospect as far as you can tell that it will pass?

CARDIN: Well, it was added late last night. There's been no hearings, obviously, in our committee. We're being asked to take it up without any real consideration.

What we do know is that it will result in 13 million more Americans losing health coverage, will not have insurance. We know that the premiums will go up for those in the individual marketplace by 10 percent. And we know that all of us will pay more because of uncompensated care of those who have no health insurance using our emergency rooms and not paying for their bills. So this is really bad news from the point of view of what will happen to our health care system if this were to become law. BLITZER: Senator Cardin, thanks for joining us.

CARDIN: Thank you.

BLITZER: President Trump asking if the UCLA basketball players released by China will thank him after he asked the Chinese president to intervene. So will they? The players getting ready to speak moments from now.

Plus, North Korea with new threats against President Trump, and new insults involving his trip to Asia.

[13:25:05] Stand by for those details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: An old lunatic, a mean trickster, a human reject. Those are just some of the insults North Korea is now heaping on President Trump today after he referred to the regime as a country ruled about a cult and a hell that no person deserves. And as if the rhetoric wasn't even enough, North Korea's state-run newspaper also published this response to President Trump. Quote, he should know that he is just a hideous criminal sentenced to death by the Korean people. He will be forced to pay dearly for his blasphemy any moment, closed quote.

[13:30:05] Joining us now, someone who understands full well the threat that North Korea poses, the former U.S. ambassador to China under President Obama, Max Baucus.

Mr. Ambassador, thanks very much for joining