Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Tweets about Trump Tower Meeting; Jay Sekulow Admits Mistake; Trump Gates May Testify Against Manafort Today. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired August 06, 2018 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00] JULIE BYKOWICZ, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Kind of changing topics. Just look at that tweet about LeBron James right before going to Ohio.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Right. Right.

BYKOWICZ: What a random thing to tweet about.

KING: And going to Ohio. Yes, uh-huh, that's why Republicans love him so.

Thanks for joining us on INSIDE POLITICS. See you back here this time tomorrow.

"WOLF" starts right now. Have a great day.

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.

Dirt and deceit. The president outright admitting the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians was for dirt on Hillary Clinton and, in turn, admitting the original narratives about it were a ruse. The new legal exposure for the president and his family.

Plus, moments from now, the president of Iran will respond to the U.S. restoring sanctions since President Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal.

And once again, the first lady of the United States contradicting her husband in a very public way. This time over the president's criticism of LeBron James. What message is Melania Trump sending?

All that coming up.

But let's start with that online admission by President Trump. Here's the tweet. Quote, a complete fabrication that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son Donald had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal, and done all the time in politics.

Our White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins is joining us from Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, that's near where the president is vacationing at his Bedminster resort.

What are we hearing, Kaitlan, from there today on the president's statement that Donald Trump Junior met with the Russians with the expressed intent to get, quote, dirt on Hillary Clinton and whether the president will finally sit down with the Special Counsel Robert Mueller?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it's been total silence from the White House so far, which isn't surprising given that those same officials are the ones who maintained vigorously for months that the president had no role in the drafting that statement from Donald Trump Junior, which we now know, according to the president's legal team, that he actually dictated. The president tweeting this -- tweeting saying that that meeting was, in his most explicit statement yet, saying that meeting was actually to get dirt on Hillary Clinton and not about Russian adoptions as he initially maintained.

Now, while the president is also claiming in this tweet that that meeting was routine. He's portraying it as something above the books. But then it raises the question of, if it is so routine and if it is perfectly legal, then why did they publish that misleading statement in the first place saying that it was about Russian adoptions and not about obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton?

Now, Wolf, you can't ignore the backdrop to all of this, which is that latest CNN reporting that the president is growing increasingly concerned that his son, Donald Trump Junior, may be exposed in the Mueller probe. He's been worried about his family for months now being affected by this, that they could possibly be entangled in this, particularly his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was also present in Trump Tower on that day meeting with those Russians.

But in recent weeks, sources who speak with the president frequently have told CNN that the president's attention has turned to Donald Trump Junior here.

Now, in that tweet, the president is defending Donald Trump Junior sitting down with those Russians. He's saying that it's perfectly routine. But, Wolf, he does distance himself from it at the end saying that he had no knowledge of that meeting beforehand.

BLITZER: Kaitlan, thank you very much. Kaitlan Collins reporting from New Jersey for us.

This Trump Tower meeting story has evolved significantly over time. Let's take a look back.

July 8, 2017, "The New York Times" first reports on the meeting and Donald Junior responds with a statement claiming it was about, quote, Russian adoptions.

One day later, "The New York Times" reports the president's son was promised dirt -- dirt on Hillary Clinton at that meeting. Then Donald Junior issues a second statement saying Clinton was mentioned, but the meeting was mainly focused on adoptions. Two days later, Donald Junior releases his e-mail exchanges with the

publicist Rob Goldstone (ph) discussing the possibility of dirt on Hillary Clinton before the meeting. Also, President Trump denies knowing about the meeting beforehand.

Turn to July 12th. Multiple reports indicate that while on Air Force One, the president was involved in preparing Donald Trump Junior's initial statement about the meeting claiming it was about Russian adoptions. The president's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, denies Mr. Trump had any involvement in releasing that statement.

But on August 1st, the story flips. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders admits the president, quote, weighed in on that statement. Later, Donald Junior tells the senate Judiciary Committee in September he doesn't recall the details of any White House involvement but says he never spoke to his father about the initial statement.

And then, in a major flip in January of this year, the president's lawyers tell the Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a letter that Mr. Trump dictated the statement himself.

Fast forward to late last month, CNN reporting that Michael Cohen is willing to tell the special counsel that the president did know about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting in advance despite numerous denials from President Trump and his team.

[13:05:13] And that brings us up to speed. The president now admitting the meeting was designed to get information on an opponent, but once again claiming he did not know about it.

And now Jay Sekulow admits he was wrong when he denied the president was involved in that first misleading statement. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: I had bad information at that point. I made a mistake in my statement. I talked about that before. That happens when you have cases like this.

I think it's very important to point out that in a situation like this, you have, over time, facts develop. That's what investigations do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, joining us now to discuss all of this, CNN's chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, our legal analyst and defense lawyer, Ross Garber, and CNN's chief political analyst Gloria Borger.

It sounds like this is a pretty incriminating series of events.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure it is because the president effectively came out and said this was not a meeting about Russian adoptions. This was a meeting about getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. What we don't -- and we know that the statements that were made about the president dictating that statement on Air Force One were intentionally misleading. We know that. They've tried to correct the record.

There's a question about whether the president would have to testify on this. Will he talk to Mueller about this? Is this something in these negotiations that his lawyers would allow him to answer questions on? I kind of doubt it. Maybe in writing.

So -- and then there's also the other question. We have reporting from Jake and Kaitlan about him being worried about Don Junior. And, by the way, the CFO of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, is also talking to the special counsel. So there's a lot of stuff unraveling right now.

BLITZER: Yes, he's been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury.

Here's what the law, Ross, says, and I'll put it up on the screen. This is the specific law.

It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value or to make an express and implied promise to make a contribution or donation in connection with a federal, state, or local election.

The key words here, I think, other thing of value, quote, dirt, opposition research, which is clearly a thing of value.

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. In the president's tweets, he says it's not illegal. And, honestly, I think there's actually a fairly good argument that it's not illegal, that information would not be considered by the courts to be a thing of value, largely because of the First Amendment. Once you start saying that us talking to each other constitutes a thing of value, it winds up being a slippery slope.

And then the other thing the president points out, actually fairly, is that if information is a thing of value, well then what about the information that came from Russian nationals to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through Steele? And that -- and that's a fair point also.

BLITZER: Well, let me get to that in a moment.

But here specifically is the exchange. And I'm going to put it up on the screen also and let you weigh in, Jim.

This is what Rob Goldstone, the publicist, told the -- Donald Trump Junior. This is obviously in advance before the meeting took place at Trump Tower.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information, but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump, helped along by Aras and Emin -- those are the two Russians who were also involved -- to which Donald Trump Junior, in his e-mail respond says, if it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer. Specifically the dirt later in the summer, closer to the November election.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Listen, Trump and his aides have been caught in a series of lies about this meeting. The facts show it. The e-mails show it. They initially said it was about adoptions. They only admitted that that was a lie or changed the story when there was physical proof to the contrary.

And now, you know, over the course of time, as you've had people testify under oath before the special counsel, it raises the question why now is the president sort of definitively changing that original story.

So, you know, the facts show a series of lies there. The question -- I'll leave the legal question about what constitutes material support to the lawyers.

Ultimately, though, let's just be frank, it's going to be a political question. If Robert Mueller's able to substantiate what support even beyond this offer in that Trump Tower meeting, it will become a question for the Congress and really for the American public as to whether accepting help from a foreign adversary is something that a president should do.

[13:10:00] And, keep in mind, there's history here, because other American presidential candidates have been offered things by Russians. Hubert Humphry. Just go to the past. Go to -- and they've also been offered dirt on their opponents, if you go back to 2000, and they refused it and reported it to the FBI.

BLITZER: Here's the argument, Ross, and I want Gloria to weigh in as well.

Campaigns pay for opposition research. That is a thing of value. The law says that a foreigner cannot provide, quote, other thing of value, in addition to money or a donation, to a candidate for federal, local, or state running for office. So what's -- the argument is that that opposition research is a thing of value.

GARBER: But here's the issue. In the case of Clinton, there's no argument that --

BLITZER: We're not talking about Clinton.

GARBER: No, no, I know.

BLITZER: We're talking about Donald Trump -- Donald Trump Junior was offered a thing of value --

GARBER: But -- but it's --

BLITZER: And he colluded --

GARBER: Yes.

BLITZER: If you will, he colluded with Goldstone and the others to try to get that thing of value. Is that conspiracy to obstruct the law? GARBER: See, I think we're going to -- where we're going to wind up is

on the question of conspiracy. I do think --

BLITZER: Which is the same as collusion?

GARBER: Well, it --

BLITZER: It's a different word for collusion.

GARBER: In some ways, it is a different word for collusion. In terms of the thing of value, I do think that becomes a slippery slope, and there are First Amendment issues there.

The question I think --

BORGER: It's a First Amendment issue.

GARBER: It's going to be, people have the right to talk to each other, to listen to each other, and --

BLITZER: But you don't have necessarily the right, according to the law, to go to a representative of the Russian government and seek that kind of dirt on Hillary Clinton.

GARBER: Right. Well --

SCIUTTO: An adversary power (ph) in the midst of an influence campaign on a U.S. election, right? I mean --

GARBER: Again, I think ultimately, under the law, that is not going to be considered a thing of value because of the slippery slope of it.

BORGER: But this is from a foreign national, right?

GARBER: Yes. Exactly.

BORGER: And that's not legal.

GARBER: Well, but, again, in -- we should talk about the Clinton situation because it's not dissimilar. In the Clinton situation, there is information coming from Russian nationals to the Clinton campaign through somebody else. And nobody's paying the Russian nationals.

But, Wolf, you hit on something that I think is going to be the key to it, which is conspiracy. Is, what else, if anything, was happening here? What else did Donald Trump Junior or anybody else know about the Russian government's efforts?

BLITZER: Because Donald Trump Junior says in that e-mail --

GARBER: Yes.

BLITZER: To Rob Goldstone, the British publicist who's working as a liaison with the Russians, if it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer. What does that say to you?

BORGER: It means, I want it, I want it later in the summer when we're -- when we're closer to the, you know, to the election.

And, you know, the question is, how much of this was going on? If you were running a campaign, say you were the general counsel of a campaign, OK, and somebody in the campaign said, you know, we got these Russians coming in, and they want to give us some dirt, wouldn't you expect to get a call as the general counsel, and what would your advice be?

GARBER: Look, it's a -- it's a terrible idea.

BORGER: But what would your -- but what --

GARBER: It's a terrible idea.

BORGER: OK, so you'd -- you'd say --

GARBER: It's a terrible idea.

BORGER: So you'd say --

GARBER: Putting aside -- yes, putting aside whether that particular act is illegal, it's a terrible idea.

BORGER: Yes.

GARBER: And also because it raises tons of red flags about other issues.

BORGER: So you say don't do it?

GARBER: It's a -- look, it is a terrible idea. But then it's a different question about whether it's illegal.

And, again, I think in the broader context, you do have to wind up looking at (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: If you were the general counsel, it was stupid for them to have that meeting, right?

GARBER: It was a terrible idea. A terrible idea.

SCIUTTO: The other issue, look at the context, right? This happens in the midst of an influence campaign on the election where Russia was trying to influence in a whole host of way, including stealing information from Clinton aides, et cetera, exposing them at times, you know, for maximum impact.

But keep in mind also the context of this specific meeting, right? They ended up talking just about adoptions, OK. What is that about? That's about the Magnitsky Act. That is about something that the Kremlin hates because it imposes severe financial sanctions on oligarchs and other businessmen close to the government who are involved in human rights abuses, OK. So what you have in that context then is the quid pro quo. We're going to offer you dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign. By the way, can we talk about these sanctions that we've hated for ages in which the Russians brought up repeatedly? I just think that you have to look at the broader picture there to understand what the context of that exchange might have involved.

BORGER: Well, and then there's the next level, which is Michael Cohen says, well, the president knew. So the president says, I didn't know. Does that add another level to the conspiracy?

GARBER: There are so many more things that we would need to know to be able to size that up. All I'm saying is right now, based on what we know, just that meeting, I don't think a court would say that just that meeting, even if there was dirt or opposition research, just that meeting, I don't think there's a crime. I think the question is going to be all of the optics, all of the things that you and Jim and Wolf are discussing, what else was there? What else did the Trump campaign know about, if anything? And I think we're going to -- we're going to learn more about whether that stuff exists or it doesn't exist in order to be able to size it up.

[13:15:07] BLITZER: And you made a good point, a very good point earlier, Gloria, when you say Allen Weisselberg, who was the chief -- and still is the chief financial officer for the Trump Organization --

BORGER: Financial officer of the Trump Organization.

BLITZER: For 40 years, if not longer, I know this is deeply irritating the president of the United States, and he's been called before a federal grand jury as he obviously knows a lot about what, if any, Trump Organization, business deals were going on with Russians in the '80s, the '90s, and the 2000s and beyond. So that's a source of enormous concern to the president of the United States.

SCIUTTO: As would Michael Cohen.

BLITZER: And Michael Cohen for 12 years but Allen Weisselberg for 40 plus years was deeply involved in all these kinds of business related decisions. And I know the president is deeply irritated. And that's one of the reasons, presumably, why he's been speaking out and tweeting as angrily as he has in recent days.

Guys, good discussion. Thank you very much.

Moments ago, the trial of the president's former campaign chairman resuming. And the star witness, Rick Gates, he's set to testify, we're told, fairly soon. Stand by.

Plus, Senator Rand Paul raising eyebrows again, this time you're going hear what he told Russian lawmakers during a visit to Moscow.

And the president's criticism against LeBron James is being called racist and hateful. Now the first lady of the United States is contradicting her husband. We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:47] BLITZER: Happening right now, the trial of President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort has just resumed -- just resumed moments ago. The big question right now is will Manafort's former business partner, Rick Gates, testify against him possibly today, possibly later this week. Gates, as you might recall, pleaded guilty to two criminal charges and cut a deal with the prosecutors. He's now cooperating with them.

We also know today's session is starting off with the cross- examination of Manafort's former accountant who testified last week that she helped him prepare fraudulent tax returns.

Joe Johns is over at the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, for us.

Joe, is there new indications right now if we can expect to see Gates testify today, tomorrow, later this week? What's the latest indication?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Right. Wolf, it isn't clear right now. It could be today. It could be tomorrow. We may hear a little bit more about timing in just a little bit. That timing could be affected by, number one, what you already mentioned at the top, the testimony of the accountant, Cindy Laporta. She testified on Friday. And her cross-examination continues today. And that's the first thing.

Another thing that's going on is the government has asked to put a couple FBI forensic accountants on the stand to read, essentially, the e-mails of Paul Manafort. The government is trying to make a case that he was a very hands-on manager of his affairs. And depending on how the judge rules on that, he's been really trying to push this thing through. If he says yes to those new witnesses, that, of course, could affect the timing on Rick Gates.

Now, of course, he's a critical witness for both sides, the prosecution and the defense here. Rick Gates was a top associate of Paul Manafort for a long time. He even served as the deputy campaign manager in the Trump campaign around the time when Manafort was actually running the show.

Gates has pleaded guilty already to some related offenses. He's awaiting sentencing. He's cooperating with the government. So a star witness for the prosecution.

For the defense, they see him as the guy they can pin the entire case on. The defense has already made it clear that in their view Gates is the person who was behind the scenes, pulling the strings, and, if you will, creating the underlying illegality that's at the root of this case. So hopefully we'll learn in just a few minutes whether this thing is going to go quickly with Gates today or perhaps tomorrow.

Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: All right, you'll keep us up to speed. We'll keep a close eye on this, of course. Joe Johns over at the courthouse, thank you.

Meanwhile, a Democratic lawyer getting ready to respond live to the president's outright admitting that the purpose of that Trump Tower meeting was to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. You're going to find out what this Democrat says what should happen next. Stand by for that.

Plus, Senator Rand Paul, he's in Moscow. And he invites Russian lawmakers to Washington. We're now learning through Russian state media what he allegedly told the Russians.

Stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:28:40] BLITZER: An online admission about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians. President Trump now changing his story, saying the purpose of the meeting was to receive dirt or intelligence from people with ties to the Russian government -- direct ties to the Russian government, on his opponent at the time, Hillary Clinton.

Joining us now, California Congressman John Garamendi. He's a Democrat. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

What is this revelation from the president, this latest tweet over the weekend from him, what does that say -- mean for the Russia investigation right now?

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA: I think it's extremely important. It's one more piece of a mosaic that clearly spells out that during the 2016 election, the Trump campaign was deeply involved in getting information from the Russia, and throughout that campaign, the Russians interfered in the election. So this mosaic is a very, very bad one.

And you add to that the continuing reluctance of the president to say anything at all bad about Putin or the Kremlin. You go, something is seriously wrong here. One more piece of a very, very bad mosaic.

BLITZER: The president claims that even if -- even if he colluded, he says collusion is not a crime. So what kind of jeopardy do you think his son, Donald Trump Junior, is in after this revelation from the president?

[13:30:05] GARAMENDI: Well, I think you have a conspiracy here. And a conspiracy is a crime. It's based upon an illegal act that is obtaining information from a foreign government