Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Collusion Allegations; Vital FISA Section 702; Bipartisan Dreamer Deal; Gang of Six Deal; White House Skeptical of Deal. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 11, 2018 - 13:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:00] WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 7:00 p.m. in Paris and 9:00 in Moscow. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We start with confusion and contradictions over at the White House centering on President Donald Trump.

A morning tweet throwing a key House vote into question for a while, but now the president's attorneys are also trying to clarify a statement he made about the possibility of talking with the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'll see what happens. But when they have no collusion, and nobody's found any collusion at any level, it seems unlikely you'd even have an interview.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta.

Jim, let's start with the president all of a sudden saying he sees no reason for him to have to talk to Robert Mueller. It's unlikely. Very different from what he said earlier last summer.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf.

And, remember, last summer, he said he was 100 percent willing to talk to Robert Mueller about the Russia investigation.

Now, of course, that has changed. The president yesterday saying that, well, he's not sure yet whether or not he wants to talk to Robert Mueller.

But I did talk to a source from the president's legal team this morning, Wolf. It should be pointed out that this source told me that, in the view of people inside the president's legal team, he got a little ahead of himself, is the way this source described it, in his comments yesterday at that news conference with the prime minister of Norway.

And that, at this point, they have not closed any doors on this question of whether the president will sit down with Robert Mueller's team. And so, they are very much leaving that possibility open, at this point.

The other thing that we want to talk about, Wolf, in addition to that confusion that the president caused yesterday with his comments about the Mueller investigation, there is this confusion that was created over here this morning when the president, once again, was on Twitter. And he fired off some tweets that, really, just railed both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

We can put this up on screen and show you what we're talking about. These are tweets that the president posted this morning about the FISA program. That is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that's up for reauthorization.

The House just voted to reauthorize it. It allows U.S. authorities to surveil and investigate foreign actors trying to commit espionage here in the United States.

And this is what the president tweeted. House votes on controversial FISA act today. This is the act that may have been used with the help of the discredited and phony dossier to so badly surveil and abuse the Trump campaign by the previous administration and others. And then, he had to correct that or walk back that tweet, I guess.

And in about an hour and 45 minutes later, he says, with that being said, I have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office.

And today's vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it. Get smart.

Now, Wolf, this raised all sorts of questions. One of those questions being, and this came from Democrats and Republicans, is whether or not the president even understands the foreign surveillance program.

He is throwing out an accusation there that it was used during the course of the campaign to surveil his campaign. That has not been proven. That has not been shown.

And, in addition to that, the president talks about that discredited -- he calls it a discredited dossier.

Wolf, you know the dossier has not been discredited. That is the dossier that has been alleged to show some ties between the kremlin and the Trump campaign. That is all a part of the Mueller investigation which, of course, has not concluded.

The president said yesterday at that press conference -- we talked about this yesterday. The president said, it's been determined that there was no collusion.

Of course, the Mueller investigation still ongoing so it hasn't been determined yet. A lot of confusion on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. And I suspect that's going to be a big topic at today's briefing -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, the president certainly tried to clarify some of that confusion with that second tweet, set the stage for the House of Representatives passing the Surveillance Act authorization.

Now, it goes to the Senate.

Jim Acosta over at the White House. Thank you very much.

Supporters of this Surveillance Act say it's absolutely essential to help keep the United States safe.

Earlier today, the former FBI director, James Comey, tweeted this. Thoughtful leaders on both sides of the aisle. Know FISA Section 702 is a vital and carefully overseen tool to protect this country. This isn't about politics. Congress must reauthorize it.

Bob Baer is a CNN Intelligence and Security Analyst, and former CIA operative. Bob is with me here right now.

Bob, walk us through, first of all, FISA. Tell our viewers here in the United States and around the world what it is, specifically this Section 702.

BOB BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: 702 collects meta data, text, e-mail, telephone calls, cell phone intercepts on foreigners. Occasionally, there is collection on American citizens. It's (INAUDIBLE) collection, as we call it.

[13:05:00] Their names come up. It's reviewed by the National Security Agency. If a crime has been committed, they report it to the FBI. Then, the FBI then seeks a warrant with probable cause.

But there is no part of 702 that's collecting on American citizens directly. It's just not true.

And it's clear to me, the president doesn't understand this. He's alluding to this -- his original accusations that the Trump Tower hardwires were tapped which is not true.

And the campaign was not targeted by anybody, by the FBI or the National Security Agency.

BLITZER: Do we know of specific cases where the FISA law helped prevent a terror attack on the United States?

BAER: Oh, absolutely. This Afghan in Colorado, Zazi. You got his picture here. He was going to blow up the subway. He had the explosives.

He was ready to do it at Scotland Yard. Picks up the information and passes it on to the FBI. And then, they get a warrant to listen to his phones. He's eventually arrested.

FISA saved, what, how many lives? Sixty lives in New York City, thanks to FISA.

BLITZER: This is Najibullah Zazi.

And then, Abu Muhammad al Adnani, another incident where FISA, reportedly, was directly involved in helping to prevent a terror attack?

BAER: Yes. Adnani was running external operations. And the only inroads do we have into his networks in the United States is through FISA. Without FISA, there'd be a lot more dead Americans.

We simply do not have sources in Syria or Iraq inside these organizations. But it's all covered under the FISA law that's keeping us safe.

BLITZER: What about concerns over privacy for U.S. citizens and what you call incidental collection of information?

BAER: It doesn't happen. You've got a lot of lawyers sitting on this. This stuff is not disseminated for political reasons.

I've seen cases where CNN anchors have been intercepted and their names were kept out. I mean, you had to call up the National Security Agency and know somebody to get them -- to get the names.

Americans -- you know, it's this libertarian idea and hard right that this -- that the deep state is after them and it's just not true. It's paranoia.

BLITZER: Bob Baer, thanks very much for the explanation.

Let's bring in Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier of California. She serves on the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees.

Congresswoman, thanks for joining us.

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE AND ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEES: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: So, you just voted, no, on the reauthorization of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Why?

SPEIER: So, first of all, let me say that the men and women who serve us in the NSA and CIA who rely on 702, I totally support.

But I will say that this particular reauthorization actually expands 702. And the privacy communities and advocates that are around the country would prefer to have reauthorization of the existing law, rather than this new proposal.

So, while I support 702, what they have added to it, with what's called about collection, is deeply troubling.

And we have to remember that warrants are necessary from time to time. There are -- there is the opportunity to allow for warrantless searches when there is a national emergency, when there is a terrorist attack or a concern about national security.

So, there is the opportunity to use 702 without a warrant, even under the law. But it is expanding this so that the warrantless searches can happen more regularly.

BLITZER: Well, you were on the losing side of the vote today. So, it's going forward, apparently, for the next six years, assuming the Senate follows suit and the president signs it into law.

The president, speaking of him, he tweeted twice on this bill earlier today. The first tweet criticizing it. The second one dramatically walking back his earlier comments. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, he tried to clarify the tweets, saying the president has concerns about the domestic FISA law.

But that is not what they were voting on. Do you think the president knew what they were voting on?

SPEIER: No, I don't. And this should send out a huge, red flag to every American. Because what we now have is someone who's acting as the president.

He's a reality president who watches Fox News. And based on what he hears there, he tweets.

I think his Twitter account should be shut down, and he should listen to the experts who he is surrounded by, who have really important information to share with him, rather than getting all of his information from one outlet that has a particular bias.

It is going to make us less safe as we move down the timeline.

BLITZER: Last June, the president said, 100 percent he'd be ready to be interviewed, under oath, by the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

But now, he says it's unlikely he will have to meet with Mueller about the Russia probe into allegations of Trump campaign allegations, of collusion during the 2016 election with Russia.

[13:10:10] His lawyers now say he got ahead of himself. Why do you think the president, at least yesterday, backed off his initial commitment to agree to an interview?

SPEIER: Well, I, often times, think the president is shooting from the hip. And thinks that he is omnipotent. He thinks that, somehow, he is above the law.

The truth of the matter is that he can be subpoenaed. He can be required to appear before the special counsel. That certainly was the case with then President Bill Clinton who was deposed. And it was in a civil matter that he was deposed.

But so, there's no question that if Robert Mueller wants to call him, he will be called and he will be forced to answer questions.

BLITZER: Let's talk about DACA and the dreamers. It looks like there's not going to bill -- be a bill, a clean bill, which is what you and so many other Democrats want.

Are Democrats giving into the president's demands right now, that in order to allow the 700,000 or 800,000 dreamers, these individuals who were brought here as children illegally by their parents, have grown up here in the United States. That there will have to be a deal on border security and other related issues, in order to allow them to remain?

SPEIER: I am willing, personally, to negotiate with the president and with Republicans for border control, enhanced border control. A high- tech wall, if you -- if I may use that term. To make sure that these 800,000 kids stay here. This is their home.

I have a young man who's at the University of Pacific, 18 years old, studying math and economics who wants to be a professor. He was brought here when he was seven years old. He knows no other country.

And I think we have an absolute obligation to these DACA kids. And I think the president agrees the extent to which we have to negotiate enhanced border control of some sort.

I'm willing -- I'm not interested in building a useless wall that's not going to provide us the kind of security we need when we have technology now that can do it better, faster, more effectively.

BLITZER: Will you support the spending bill? The government runs out on, what, January 19th. You don't have a lot of time. If DACA is m oved aside, there's a March -- there's a March 5th deadline for DACA.

But will you support keeping the government running, not shutting it down, even if there's nothing in there that gives new life to DACA?

SPEIER: Well, it certainly depends on what's in the bill, beyond just a continuation of the spending. I don't want to see the government shut down, but I want us to take seriously the responsibility we have to protect these DACA kids. And it shouldn't be a last-minute action.

BLITZER: So many of the are in California where you are, the district that you represent as well.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier, thanks for joining us.

SPEIER: Thank you, Wolf. Great to be here.

BLITZER: Coming up, a physical wall, a river, some fencing, the cornerstone of President Trump's winning campaign, seems to be evolving right now.

Plus, the president's administration announcing today, they're paving the way for states to make some Medicaid recipients work.

And there's a scandal that's erupted in Missouri after the governor there admits to an affair but rejects reports he blackmailed his mistress with a nude photo.

[13:13:24]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:38] BLITZER: Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona has just told CNN that a group of bipartisan senators, Democrats and Republicans, that the group has reached a deal on immigration and he says that they will be discussing it with the White House so they can move forward and get those dreamers, those 700,000 or 800,000 dreamers to remain in the United States legally. It's the only game in town, Flake says. There's no other bill.

I just want to caution everyone, this -- even if they have such an agreement among moderate Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, it's not necessarily a done deal by any means. Got to get through the Senate. Got to get through the House of Representatives. This would only be a first step. Maybe a very significant step.

Phil Mattingly is going to be joining us in a moment, our congressional correspondent.

But Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota is joining us right now from Capitol Hill.

We're going to get some specific details on what these bipartisan senators have come up with. But what's -- I don't know if you're familiar with what they were talking about, but what can you tell us?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R), SOUTH DAKOTA: Well, we've agreed that we won't discuss the details until we've all agreed to discuss the details. I am familiar with it. I think it's moving in the right direction. It does encompass a number of the areas that most of us have been talking about that have to be addressed. It does include issues surrounding a border security program or a plan. Some people will call it the wall. It -- but it does include provisions for that. It also includes provisions addressing specifically the dreamers. And it goes a little bit beyond that as well. But I think rather than trying to lay out details that I was not directly involved in negotiating but I'm aware of, as a courtesy I think those individuals who have done the negotiations should be allowed to lay it out in the appropriate format.

BLITZER: So basically the dreamers, they would be allowed to stay as part of this deal. There would be some enhanced border security. I take it that there's no longer a desire to build a 2,000 mile wall. It would be a few hundred miles, some fencing, some sensors, some additional protection, but not necessarily that huge wall that President Trump used to speak about when he was a candidate.

ROUNDS: Well, I think the president has suggested on several different occasions, in some cases the wall could be invisible. The wall can take a lot of different forms. We want to make it the best, the one that's the most efficient way to get it done. And I think the president really does agree that that's an appropriate way to handle it.

[13:20:09] And I think, for most of us in the Senate, and I won't suggest that I'm speaking for everyone, but I think most of us agree, we do want border security. That's critical in this case. But border security means you use the best technologies available as well. And in some cases it's a structure. In other cases it's electronic surveillance. But in all cases, it means the appropriate manpower. And it also means going back in and talking about those employers who are hiring individuals illegally and making sure that they -- that they're not doing that in the future and also that employers have access to the appropriate records so they can determine who is legal and who is not legal.

BLITZER: Would this legislation be part of the spending bill or would be standalone legislation?

ROUNDS: I honestly can't tell you that. I don't know.

BLITZER: Because that spending bill's got to be passed before January 19th to avoid a government shutdown.

So I understand border security part of the deal. I understand the dreamers, part of the deal. What about what the president calls chain migration, family reunification and the lottery system in various countries that would allow immigrants to come to the United States? Are they also, those other two parts, included in this tentative deal?

ROUNDS: They are addressed. I'd prefer not to lay those specifics out at this time. I'll allow Lindsey and some of the other folks who have been working on this to be able to lay out those provisions. I think that's only appropriate.

BLITZER: And so this would be a first step. The president, the other day at that bipartisan meeting with senators and members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, said he would then go forward with what is called comprehensive immigration reform. Not just dealing with the 800,000 dreamers, but dealing with about 11 million or 12 million immigrants, illegal immigrants, here in the United States, undocumented immigrants, and find presumably some pathway to citizenship, legal residency here in the United States. All of that, the comprehensive immigration plan, that would be the next step, right? That's not included in this initial step.

ROUNDS: It is not included in the initial step. It is the multibillion or even the trillion dollar part of the challenge, recognizing that there has been a violation of law, but also recognizing that you've got to find a way forward without incentivizing others in the future to take the same path. And so that means you've got to actually have an operating immigration system long term. Our country needs that. We need the manpower. We need those bright individual who want to come to this country once again. So a comprehensive -- or at least an immigration reform package is critical long term to the viability -- the economic viability in this country. And I think most members in Congress recognize that.

BLITZER: I want you to stand by, if you can, senator. Phil Mattingly, our congressional correspondent, is getting some more information.

Phil, update our viewers on what you're learning on this tentative bipartisan deal among U.S. senators.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so, Wolf, this has been the gang of six, the group that has been working now for months and certainly meeting day in and day out trying to figure out some pathway forward on this. It's been a separate group. It's not a group necessarily endorsed by leadership.

What we know at this point is they have basically been moving towards a final agreement right now. Senator Jeff Flake's office saying they believe they've reached a deal. Other people saying that they are in agreement on the broad principals. Basically that they are at the point right now where they need to start talking to their conferences, to their caucuses, and, frankly, to the White House about what this would entail.

Now, we know some of the outlines of what they've been working on, but I think one of the key components about how serious these negotiations have been, Wolf, and you know this town quite well, when things aren't leaking out of negotiations, that generally means they're actually going well and actually moving in a good direction. That's been the case with these negotiations over the last 48 hours.

To put this in context here, this is the proposal that a lot of people assume, whatever this proposal ends up being, that a lot of people assumed would be the train that leaves to address the DACA issue. This was a bipartisan proposal. This had three Republicans and three Democrats in a room working on it, have been working on it for a long period of time.

That said, I've been talking to Republican leadership sources in both the House and the Senate over the course of the last couple of days and they have grown very skeptical of this proposal, skeptical of this working group. We've seen over the last 48 hours, Wolf, several different working groups kind of sprout up, several different groups of senators who have had some resistance to where things might be going. And I think in the wake of that White House meeting where everybody kind of took what they wanted out of that particular meeting, a lot of people have been trying to figure out what the actual proposal is that would move forward.

Here's another important point to keep in mind. A proposal, any proposal that gets put on the table, that can actually addresses the DACA issue, which everybody involved says needs to be addressed, has to be considered viable at this point because point because people are trying to reach out for something to try and prevent a government shutdown, to try and address what an issue that both immigration advocates, Democrats and a lot of Republicans say is an urgent issue. That means that this proposal, when it comes out, whatever it ends up looking like, is in play.

But, Wolf, I do think it's important to note, Republican who control the House, control the Senate and control the White House have grown more skeptical by the day of where this was headed. They will decide whether or not this heads to a Senate floor or to a House floor or to the president's desk. So there's a lot of things that are moving around right now. [13:25:14] But, it's worth noting that the proposal that a lot of people have been waiting for, that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been pointing to for weeks now as the answer to the potential solution, it looks like they are on the verge of reaching that point where they're at least going to start briefing their members, briefing their colleagues and briefing the White House on what they've come up with, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, and Senator Rounds is still with us. We're going to get back to him in a moment. Senator, I want to get your reaction.

Dana Bash is with us as well.

We're getting some initial reaction, our Jeremy Diamond, over at the White House, that there's skepticism at the White House. The White House apparently has not yet been fully briefed on this tentative, bipartisan deal.

DANA BAS, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And they will very shortly. And Phil laid out perfectly as usual the real dynamics going on behind the scenes, that this is a very important group, bipartisan group of senators, three Republicans, three Democrats, who have been working to try to find a deal.

The issue is that these are senators in both parties who are very eager to get a deal. These are the people who are most likely to be OK with kind of whatever it is that they can come up with. The key and the way to crack the code on actually getting this into law is, first and foremost, making it so that this is something that the president of the United States and those at the White House who are working on this are OK with. Because there will be skepticism among House Republican leaders. There will be skepticism among Senate Republican leaders because they don't want this albatross around their neck because they have been there many, many times before where they're endorsing something that the base can't stand and then they get burned for it. That is why when the president said the other day he is willing to take the heat. That is the most important thing that we need to remember to take away from this.

If and when this group brings this proposal to the White House, and if the president says, yes, OK, that is going to be the moment where they begin to really sell this. Because just take the House, for example. This kind of deal, anything, frankly, even if it has border security to the nth degree, anything that -- along with that allows people who are undocumented to stay in this country illegally, or even have a path to citizenship, which presumably, according to my sources, that's where this deal was heading --

BLITZER: For the dreamers?

BASH: For the dreamers. For the dreamers.

BLITZER: Yes.

BASH: Thank you. That -- that that is not allowed. So my point is, is that it is going to need not just political cover

from the president, who still has good will among his base, but a lot of Democratic -- Democrats to support it. And the Republican leadership in the House and Senate have to be willing to kind of, you know, hold their nose and jump in that deep end knowing that they are going to make a lot of people in their base unhappy --

BLITZER: Yes.

BASH: But they'll need the cover from the president.

BLITZER: I want to go back to Senator Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican.

Senator, to me it sounds, correct me if I'm wrong, that you're open to this -- this tentative deal worked out by this bipartisan group of six, three Republicans, three Democrats, among them, Dick Durbin, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and others. You're open to it, right?

ROUNDS: I'm open to it. I think they're moving in the right direction. It doesn't mean it's going to be perfect. But the key is whether or not the White House is prepared to back it. We need this president to say either yes this is a movement in the right direction and offer positive comments on it. If not, it won't go very far.

On the other hand, if the president and the White House are able to get behind it and to explain to the team just exactly what this means long-term for our economy and so forth, then I think we've got a real good chance of probably coming up with a final version that would move forward.

And we don't have a lot of time before the end of this time -- or before we've got to have this addressed. And part of what we all have to do is to look and say, do we want the perfect to be the enemy of the good? And so this may not be perfect. But is it better than what we have today? And the answer clearly in my opinion is, yes, it is better than what we have today. It takes care of a lot of the emergency issues that are up in front of us right now. But it also lays the groundwork for future immigration reform that's critical to the long term success and viability of our economy.

BLITZER: It will allow the 600,000 or 700,000 or 800,000 dreamers, as they're called, to have a legal presence, to stay here in the United States. Does it get into specifics as far as you know, Senator Rounds, about a pathway to citizenship for the dreamers?

ROUNDS: It is addressed. But, once again, I'm going to allow those individuals that have worked so hard on it to be able to lay out in a format that they're comfortable with exactly what their plans would propose. And so I really -- it's not up to me. I shouldn't be the one that's sharing that with the rest of the country. I think they're the ones that need to share that and I think they've worked long and hard at it. I'm not going to take anything away from their thunder.

[13:30:11]