Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Lawyer Urged Sessions; "Fire And Fury" Is Out. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 05, 2018 - 13:00   ET

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

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yesterday who is a friend of the President who said to me - look, this isn't a matter of the President losing it, I think this is a question of the President's competency. Which is also troubling, which is another issue that si raised in this book. If you - Sarah Sanders was asked yesterday about the President's mental acuity, that's not a question any White House wants to get.

But even if you set that aside, I think the read question here, right now that can be talked about is this question of competency as President. I mean, the portrait that I painted in this book is of somebody who is incurious and is uninformed and who has a short attention span and is often childish and I think those are issues that need to be dealt with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I just say, all those things are troubling, but I think those are all OK if you're surrounded with strong staff. Its various levels of experience, of curiosity of even competent. What I think is more troubling and like you, we're in no position to make the kind of assessment that some people are.

Just go by what the president says, how he behaves, what he tweets. He's obsessed, he is incredibly thin skinned, he doesn't tell the truth very often including things that are provable like whether he had access - he gave Michael Wolff access and talked to him and he's so erratic. For a president of the United States to behave in all those ways has to be worrisome to everyone regardless of party Y.

We're looking at all of this in the context of political fights and running the government which is a big enough responsibility, what about in a real crisis that involves life and death where the decision making on the part of a president becomes lonelier, becomes instantly more consequential because it's singular.

I single decision can have such impact. That's what people should be concerned about and I'm concerned about that just based on how he reacts to people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You were talking about the staff around him and et cetera. I remember back in the day when people were concerned about Ronald Reagan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And they there were concerns to which were eventually proven to be true. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the end of his second term.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At the end of the second term but the staff was pretty good and there was a sense that well, if the president is having some problems that the staff is so experienced and can continue and can go on and I don't think that is the case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But those were serious issues, Iran, didn't he remember all of this ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly. Right. That came out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... and it was - that's a big deal, too. But here, we're talking about someone who is so obsessive and willfully ignorant of how government ought to work and here's the bigger point, disrespectful of all these institutions, he doesn't care. And people say about Michael Wolff well this is tragedy - it's this, that and the other.

This is the swamp that Donald Trump has been swimming in his entire adult life when he's been a big part of the tabloid world, so to somehow be surprised that this kind of book would come out or that he'd cooperate with people, I'm not surprised in the least.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Which is why he wants Roy Cohn as his attorney general.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he's not going to get Roy Cohn, not happening ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, he isn't.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, guys. Stand by, there's a lot more going on. I'll also speak live with a republican on the House intelligence committee, you'll see him right there. We'll talk about these explosive new revelations in the New York Times.

The obstruction of justice case apparently that's ongoing right now and a lot more congressmen stand by and also breaking right now, the feds we're told actively investigating the Clinton foundation over whether donors were made promises involving policy or access to then secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Back now to the bombshell talking the Russia investigation and the latest revelation that the White House council Don McGahn trying to convince the attorney general Jeff Sessions not to recues himself from the investigation and in effect, trying to protect President Trump.

Walter Shaub was the director of the Office of Government Ethics at the time, let left that office in July. This is what he said about don McGahn's actions when he appeared earlier today on CNN's Newday. WALTER SHAUB, AMERICAN ATTORNEY: He can try to hide behind the I was only following orders but that didn't work at Nuremberg and it's not going to work here because as an attorney, the president is not his client, the office of the president is his client and he's ultimately answer to the American people.

This is just - I don't have words I can use on TV this morning to describe how angry I am to learn this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joining us now from Salt Lake City, Utah republican congressman, Chris Stewart, he's a member of the house intelligence committee. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

CHRIS STEWART, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Good to be with you all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, Walter Shaub, you just turned to him. What do you have to say about Don McGahn, at one on the also describe him as a cancer. What do you think of his assessment?

SHAUB: I don't know that I can comment on it as directly as you have wanted me to. If you read this report by the New York Times, once again, it's anonymous sources. Once again, we have some people who deny what is reported there and we've seen history or reporting where we have anonymous sources and many times it's been wrong.

I guess we'll wait and see. But I've got to tell you, just putting that aside, my concerns about the brassily of the reporting. I don't know why it would surprise people or why it would be considered some time of nefarious archiving for the president, in not want his attorney general to recues.

I wished he would not have recued himself, I think he needs to be involved with this. I think he needs to be far more aggressive than he's been and he's not able to do that now because he has taken himself out of this investigation -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you know, congressman, you know - in describing what happened leading up to his decision to go ahead and recues himself.

He said yes, he did have meetings with Russia officials that he didn't necessarily talk about during his confirmation process before the senate. Hold on one second.

SHAUB: OK. All right.

MALE: And he said the ethics advisors over the department of justice basically all told them yes, on this sensitive issue because you were directly involved in the campaign, because you did have undisclosed meetings with Russians. The best thing to do for the investigation is (recusal), so go ahead.

SHAUB: Yes. Look, I've had that conversation with Mr. Sessions and once again, I wished he wouldn't recue himself. But when you hear things like he had meetings, for most people they think of a meeting as come into my office, let's sit down, shut the door and we'll spend a half hour together and we'll take notes on that meeting.

One of these was in passing at a hotel and he simply forgot about it and when you see his testimony before in his confirmation hearings, it's very clear that he was answering the question as he understood it. Not in some deceptive way, he just genuinely didn't think that saying hello is a passage at a hotel would qualify as a meeting.

On a lot of things I've defended Mr. Sessions, although I'm so disappointed that he's (recuesed). I am convinced that he was telling the truth as he understood the question and it's too bad that -

MALE: It was his decision to go ahead and recues himself -

SHAUB: I understand, yes -

MALE: - even though he knew the president didn't want him to recues himself and others didn't want him to recues himself but that was his decision. This other really explosive change in this New York Times report and I don't know if you want to respond to it.

That Sessions also went to a congressional staffer seeking to discreet debt information that could discredit the former FBI director, James Comey. You saw that part of the story, I'm wondering if you wanted to discuss that.

SHAUB: Once again department of justice denies that. and I have had experience after experience after experience over the last year where we have seen things reported in the press that I knew at the time were not true or that we learned later were not true. Again, justice is denying us; I just think we'll leave it at that.

New York Times is reporting this, other people are denying it. I don't know why I would comment on a rumor like that.

MALE: Let's talk about two of your key republican colleagues, in the House, congressman Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. They think that they attorney general should step down; they say he's lost control of the justice department. Do you agree that Jeff Sessions needs to step down?

SHAUB: This is hard for me, it really is because I think Jeff Session is one of the most honorable men in Washington D.C. and I mean that sincerely. And once again, didn't ever intend to deceive but we have been weakened in our investigation into very important concerns.

At the department of justice and at the FBI because Jeff Sessions isn't able to take the reigns and to direct that investigation. And I - for probably different reason that Mr. Meadows and Mr. Jordan but I believe we are - if we hadn't approached it, we are rapidly approaching the time when Mr. Sessions for the good of this investigation, looking at the FBI, looking at the department of justice, we need a director there who can take the reigns and can be assertive in that.

He can't do that once he's (recuesed). I believe it may be time for him to step aside. MALE: Well that's a significant statement coming from you, a key member of the House Intelligence Committee. Let me get a final thought from you, congressman, on one of the avenues now being explored we're told by Robert Mueller, the special council. Follow the money, as they used to say. Money laundering, all of these allegations, if that something your committee, the intelligence committee is looking at as well?

SHAUB: Well, you can't not look at these different elements. It's probably not our focus and let's review if we could, for months and months we heard collusion, collusion, collusion and then there wasn't evidence. And then we heard the Dossier, the Dossier and then we found out that Hillary Clinton paid for it. They used a foreign agent and Russian sources.

And then no one wanted to talk about the Dossier any longer and now we're talking obstruction or maybe money laundering, some of these other elements. I just think we ought to do what we did with the other previous parts of the investigation, let's see what the evidence tells us. Let's see what the questions may in form us.

I don't know, maybe there's some case you can make for obstruction but we certainly haven't seen evidence and I think we've reached a legal threshold at this point.

MALE: Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah, as usual, thank you so much for joining.

STEWART: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: up next, I'll get a different respective. A democratic senator standing by, we'll talk about the president's fitness, the breaking news, the feds and investigating the Clinton foundation, new information, we're just learning about that. Plus, just in a special and rare interview, CNN just sitting down with the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson will debut the first part of that interview. That's coming up as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: According to "The New York Times," an aide to Mr. Sessions approached a Capitol Hill staff member, asking about whether the staffer had any derogatory information about the FBI director.

Sessions wanted one negative story a day, according to the paper. The Justice Department denies this is happened.

Let's talk more about these revelations, the possible affect about the Russia investigation and the Trump administration. Here with us, our Justice Correspondent Pamela Brown, CNN Legal Analyst Laura Coates, Political Analyst David Gregory and our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

Gloria, we already knew that the president was upset with the attorney general when we recused himself, but this goes one step further. GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it does. I mean,

he told the White House counsel to go visit Jeff Sessions and tell him not to recuse himself. And, according to the Times, when Don McGahn comes back to the White House and tells the president that Sessions is going to recuse himself, the president explodes.

It tells you an awful lot about the role the president thinks the attorney general has. He believes that the attorney general should be his personal lawyer and his defender and his protector. As he asked according -- I believe it was in Michael Wolff's book and now I'm getting a few things conflated here.

He wants the attorney general to be like Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn was a very controversial attorney that was -- that was Trump's attorney. And he was -- he was, kind of, an attorney that defended at all costs.

And that's what Trump wants. And that's what he wants his attorney general to be.

He doesn't want the attorney general to represent the people of the United States. He wants every lawyer to represent him. And it also gives you an insight into how afraid he was of this investigation expanding under a special counsel.

BLITZER: This is a big deal, David, right?

DAVID GREGORY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, it's a huge deal.

I mean, what's clear is that the president's erratic behavior and obsessiveness about this investigation all goes back to him and the fact that he has brought so much of this on himself.

So, if there's no evidence of collusion, there's no evidence that the Russians actually tilted the election, what we're seeing is more and more evidence that the president's own actions have accelerated and, perhaps tilted the scales of this investigation against him.

Because he fired the FBI director, because he wanted -- remember, he said to say one thing about Eric Holder who was the attorney general under President Obama, that he was loyal to Obama. That's what he wanted out of Sessions.

Look, this is someone who is willfully ignorant about the independence of the Justice Department, of the Judiciary for that matter if we go back to the travel ban instances.

And, look, he also wants to shut down the publication of this book that's on the desk here, "Fire and Fury" by Michael Wolff. So, he is -- he is, kind of, lashing out in all kinds of directions.

And it comes back to one place which is he is his own worst enemy, the president.

BLITZER: He asked -- according to this report, Laura, he asked his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to go and tell Sessions, don't recuse yourself. What, if anything, is wrong with that? LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there's a lot wrong with that.

Number one, there's the White House counsel, whose job it is to protect the office of the presidency, not a specific occupant. That's a very key distinction here.

Also, as journalists, you ask the question of who, what, when, where? But a prosecutor looks at the question why? And what was your intent? And why did you want the insulation? Was it because you had corrupt or nefarious intent? Is there some reason you wanted to have Jeff Sessions there?

Not because you believe that as the political appointee. He serves at your pleasure which he does. But was it because you were hoping to guide the course of the investigation?

And in that question, why, that's what Mueller's team is going to look at. Was there a nefarious intent in some way? Was there an attempt to obstruct? Or was there some way to have a hand in your ultimate legal fate?

BLITZER: The other very disturbing element in this report in "The New York Times" is that Sessions asked a Hill staffer to come up with dirt, if you will, derogatory information, about James Comey, only days before the president fired him. He wanted, supposedly, one story a day that was very damaging to Comey. That's very worrisome.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE AND SUPREME COURT CORRESPONDENT: It is. And we should point, first off, the Justice Department is denying that that ever happened. But if true, it is highly unusual.

Look, we knew that they were trying to find cause (ph) to fire James Comey. The president brought in Rosenstein, Sessions, and said, look, I want to fire James Comey. Write a memo and make -- you know, write out an explanation why that should happen. But to take it to the next level, sending an aide to Capitol Hill, to try to dig up dirt to then plant in the media to generate negative stories about the FBI director, is highly unusual. I've never heard of that personally.

And it also shows, again, if true, a certain level of desperation on the part of the attorney general to please the president. Because, at that time, as we know, he was so unhappy with him recusing himself that he was doing whatever he could, it appears, to please him.

[13:05:00] GREGORY: And, again, if this is true, I mean, Sessions deserves credit for recusing himself, resisting the pressure of the White House. Resisting the kind of pressure we've seen in our recent history during Watergate. When John Mitchell's attorney general was acting -- was head of the committee to reelect the president under President Nixon, who was actually responsible for a lot of illegal activity.

But, if this is true, to be such a political hack, which is what Sessions would be, to be acting this way. And there have been other examples of that. So, there is a mixed picture here with the attorney general. BORGER: There is. And I also think -- getting back to the president,

himself, I think we have to know a lot of detail about the conversation he had with Don McGahn, the White House Counsel.

If he said to Don McGahn, find out what's going on with Jeff Sessions, because there were press reports, at the time. If he said, you know, just go find out what's going on with Don McGahn -- I mean, with Jeff Sessions. See if he's really trying to recuse himself. I would rather he didn't. And why don't you go figure that out.

It's very different from a president of the United States saying to Don McGahn, you ordered this. You tell him that I am ordering him that he needs to stay on this investigation to protect me. That's a whole different story.

COATES: That benign explanation could very well be what took place there. It could have been that benign conversation. We'd would like to hear from Don McGahn, I'm sure, to figure out whether he should actually testify to Congress.

Ultimately, remember, to Jeff Sessions' credit, he did, in fact, recuse himself. So, even if the conversation was to pressure him not to do so, he chose the more prudent course to actually recuse himself.

GREGORY: And there is a little bit of context, Wolf, as you remember covering the Clinton White House.

And what a terrible relationship the White House had, the president had with Janet Reno, the attorney general at the time, Rahm Emanuel who was a senior advisor used to call and ream them out on various issues.

That's a different issue than what's being talked about here. But there are instances where there's a real bad relationship.

BROWN: And, as Gloria said, you know, he should testify in front of Congress. And I'm sure a lot of us would like to see that.

But I'm just curious what your thoughts are, in terms of executive privilege, whether it would be covered under that? Would he be allowed to?

COATES: Well, it certainly will.

And, of course, Donald Trump Jr. has inserted privileges that don't really exist and had no bearing on this thing. But he probably will.

But, remember, the privilege belongs to the president of the United States. And so, the president would have to be the one to assert that privilege and tell him whether or not he could actually speak.

It's not on behalf of John McCain alone to say, I'm going to give you a heads up and I'm not going to answer the question until the president says so.

That's what Jeff Sessions did in many of his hearings and said, I'm not going to answer the question because there might be executive privilege.

And, of course, we, as Americans, all covet (ph) that privilege. We want our top advisors to be able to have these open doors of communication and not have to feel like everything is going to be held to public scrutiny.

But, again, it's who actually holds that privilege. And, so far, the president hasn't been able to exercise it.

BORGER: They have not chosen to exercise it.

COATES: No.

BORGER: We don't know if that's going to change.

COATES: Right.

BORGER: But, so far, they haven't.

BLITZER: And Jerry Nadler, who's the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, issued a statement.

He ended the statement with these words: so, we also need to learn what role McGahn and others played in any effort by the Department of Justice to solicit Congressional staffers for information that would discredit former FBI director Comey. I expect that Mr. McGahn will volunteer his testimony now before he is eventually compelled to provide it.

BORGER: Right. Well, I'm not surprised.

BLITZER: That's Jerry Nadler.

BORGER: I'm not surprised.

BLITZER: From the House Judiciary Committee.

Everybody stand by. A lot more going on.

An important note to all of our viewers. Pamela Brown, hosting a CNN special report you won't want to miss later tonight. The Trump-Russia investigation, right here on CNN, premiers 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

Pamela, good work. We're all going to be watching your special report.

Now to the bombshell look. The author today saying that 100 percent of the people around question his fitness to be president. You're going to hear from him.

Plus, new revelations and accusations from the book, including Steve Bannon now saying that Ivanka Trump is, quote, "terrified" that Robert Mueller's investigation has gone into the family finances.

Stand by. We're getting new information.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The White House dismissing it as a trashy tabloid fiction. An explosive new book portraying a White House in chaos hit the shelves today. "Fire and Fury" are raising troubling questions about the president's competence and including bombshell quotes from those around him.

In an NBC interview today, the author, Michael Wolff, was asked about the book's descriptions of the president's mental fitness.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE, HOST, NBC: One of the more disturbing observations you make in the book is that the president's close advisers, people around him, have noticed him repeating stories, expression for expression, you say, within a short period of time.

MICHAEL WOLFF, AUTHOR, "FIRE AND FURY": In a shortened period. So, they've all tracked this. That it used to be -- I know people would point out that in the beginning, it was, like, every 25 or 30 minutes he would get the same three stories repeated.

Now, it's the same three stories in every 10 minutes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And what's the suggestion there? Because that goes beyond saying, OK, the president's not an intellectual. I mean, what's -- what are you arguing there? You say, for example, he was at Mar-a-Lago and he didn't recognize life-long friends.

WOLFF: I -- he -- I will quote Steve Bannon. He's lost it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Earlier today, the president tweeted this about Michael Wolff, the author. I authorized zero access to the White House and actually turned him down many times. For author of phony book, I never spoke to him for book. Full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don't exist. Look at the guy's past and watch what happens to him and sloppy Steve.

That's the tweet from the president. That reference to sloppy Steve is a reference to Steve Bannon, the former chief White House strategist.

David and Gloria are back with us. Gloria, what do you make of, first of all, Michael Wolff's claims in this book? And we have a copy of the book. About the president's mental health?

BORGER: I think it's really disturbing. Clearly, he's spoken with people, including Bannon, who believes that the president is losing it, as Bannon says. And I'm in no position, honestly, to judge that one way or another.

[13:15:00] I spoke with somebody yesterday who is a friend of the president who said to me, look, this isn't a matter of the president losing it. I think this is a question of the president's competency which is also troubling which is another issue that is raised in this book.

[13:14:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

1315