Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

NYT: Trump Tells Pentagon Chief He Does Not Want War with Iran; U.S. Claims to Have Multiple Images Showing Iranian Commercial Vessels in the Persian Gulf They Believe are Carrying Missiles; Mnuchin Expected to Miss Deadline to Hand Over Trump's Taxes; New Evidence Reveals Michael Flynn Helped Robert Mueller in Obstruction Probe; Bill Barr Says Americans Should be Concerned Officials Abusing Power. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired May 17, 2019 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: -- investigators and calling into question how the Russia probe even began.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm trying to get answers to questions and I found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate and I've also found that some of the explanations I've gotten don't hang together. So in a sense I have more questions today than I did when I first started.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: More on Barr's comments in just a moment. First let's go to CNN's Evan Perez on more on the possible attempts to block Michael Flynn from cooperating.

I mean, listen, you look at this and it just raises big picture questions, right, about why there was not sufficient evidence to charge for obstruction of justice, but let's speak specifically about what General Flynn testified to here.

Who from the administration or Congress was getting in touch with him and how were they pushing him?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, yes, Jim, I mean, this is a really brand-new information that we're getting. We knew that there was some of this outreach, but what it -- the specificity of this that is coming out in this new -- in this document that was newly unredacted really goes to show that there was this big effort to try to get Flynn perhaps to change his testimony or to not cooperate fully with the special counsel.

It does raise the question as to why no one got in trouble for that, perhaps that still could happen, but the Mueller investigation has wrapped up and no one was charged with this. And you know, you really get a sense from these documents that Flynn was a very valuable witness to the special counsel. That's one reason why they recommended no jail time for him as a result of pleading guilty to false statements to the FBI.

And as you said, you know, there was somebody connected to the administration, somebody connected to the -- to Congress who was doing this outreach and trying to get Flynn to essentially withhold some cooperation according to this -- to this document.

SCIUTTO: So tell us about this voicemail because if there's a taped conversation, far harder for the president and his allies to dismiss. What do we know about it?

PEREZ: Right. Exactly. And so in the Mueller report there is a reference to this and so now this document sort of gives us a fuller explanation of this. In the Mueller report there is a voicemail according to the report it says that there is a -- one of the president's lawyers reached out to Flynn right as he was agreeing to cooperate with the special counsel and it says in part -- there's a part of it that says it wouldn't surprise me if you have gone on to make a deal with the government, if there's information that implicates the president, then we've got a national security issue. So you know we need some kind of heads up.

So clearly someone is trying to get to Flynn just, again, as he's about to cooperate, right when his lawyers have notified the White House that he is no longer going to share information. Again, this is something that was obviously concerning to people close to the president.

SCIUTTO: As it should be. No question.

PEREZ: Right.

SCIUTTO: Evan Perez, stay with me.

For more on what Barr is saying this morning, let's speak to CNN justice correspondent Laura Jarrett.

So he has telegraphed this for sometime saying he was going to investigate the investigators and now he seems to be saying that the preliminary results of that investigation presents issues that are of concern to him.

LAURA JARRETT, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Concern indeed, Jim. The attorney general is in El Salvador, ostensibly there to meet with officials about MS-13, talk about immigration, something that's obviously a president's priority, but all roads seem to lead back to Russia and he is opening a new front this morning talking about his review of the counterintelligence investigation and the surveillance of the Trump campaign.

In two different interviews telling the "Wall Street Journal" that he's specifically interested in what happened before the FBI officially opened that investigation in July 2016. Again, not going into any detail on the basis for his concern, but then telling FOX News that he's seeing more things that just don't add up. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARR: People have to find out what the government was doing during that period if we're worried about foreign influence for the very same reason we should be worried about whether government officials abuse their power and put their thumb on the scale. And so I'm not saying that happened, but I'm saying that we have to look at that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JARRETT: Now, as you hear there, Barr saying I'm not sure that happened, something he has reiterated before, but, of course, that nuance is completely lost on President Trump who is tweeting this morning that conclusively spying did occur, calling it treason, and so the president clearly latching on to these comments from Barr -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: As he does.

JARRETT: As he does.

SCIUTTO: Let's bring CNN legal analyst Shan Wu, Evan Perez into the conversation as well. And please, Laura, stay there.

But, Shan, if I could begin with you, why doesn't a message from the president's personal lawyer to a key witness in the Mueller investigation -- why does not amount to obstruction of justice?

[09:05:03] I know that the comment in that taped conversation is veiled a little bit in, well, this could be a problem for the president, and you know how important, you know, he looks at these things, but is that not clear evidence from a legal standpoint?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It seems like it is pretty clear evidence. And I find it somewhat mysterious that it wasn't followed up on. Obviously the lawyer, whoever that was making that call, would not be immune or protected from any type of charging. I've read some that Mueller's team might have been concerned about privilege issues, I don't quite follow that analysis. There was no privilege in that conversation.

And, you know, from having represented both people who are cooperating and when I represent a client, when someone else's client is cooperating, that conversation you have between the lawyers is very measured, very careful. Really if I thought another person's client was cooperating the only conversation I'm going to have is really, is your client cooperating? I'm not going to try to send some veiled message like that because it reeks of intimidation. It's really appalling that anyone would do that.

SCIUTTO: I mean, listen, connected with all the other times the president very publicly appeared to attempt to intimidate witnesses, plus the kind of private conversations we saw with James Comey, et cetera.

Evan, let me ask you a question because Barr is now saying not only that he's going to investigate the investigators but in the early stages of this, well, there are already things that have raised concerns for him. We had the FBI director testifying under oath just last week saying he's seen no evidence of spying. Explain the disconnect here.

PEREZ: You know, that's a great question because there's clearly two different ways that these two people are seeing it, both the FBI director and Christopher Wray and also the attorney general. And so here's what I think is happening, certainly the FBI director is speaking to his audience, his people who don't think that they did anything wrong. Certainly nothing has been proved that there was anything wrong in this.

Bill Barr had some skepticism before he became attorney general. The question that I think arises is there is a part of this "Wall Street Journal" interview in which Bill Barr raises the question of whether or not there could be changes in the way the FBI handles counterintelligence investigations. In other words, you know, we may raise the bar, so to speak, before we allow you to open these investigations.

That's a big deal if that ends up happening. I'm sure he's going to hear from Chris Wray that if you do that then there are things we might miss and then we'll all remember, we'll all go back to that day when Bill Barr said we have to change the standards.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Raise the bar. I'm going to let you copyright that, Evan Perez. I will always quote you if I repeat that.

Laura, let me ask you a question, though, because you have multiple investigations now of the investigators. Barr is doing his own. You already have the inspector general pursuing one as well. And I just wonder based on your reporting the danger here of possible criminal referrals, I mean, is this political or are we seeing potential evidence of legal wrongdoing here that could lead to prosecutions?

JARRETT: Well, it's interesting. The case that they have right now, they're calling it a review, they are not even calling it a full scale investigation that's being led by John Durham, a U.S. attorney, obviously somebody who has subpoena power and has grand jury power. But they are saying that this is not actually a criminal investigation. They are just saying it's a review. So clearly, you know, they want us to take it seriously obviously and this is something that's significant obviously, the FBI, the CIA, the director of National Intelligence are all looking at this.

So it's a significant moment but yet they're saying it's not criminal. So I'm not sure how those are going to jive. At the same time as you mentioned the Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking at a narrow slice of this, but he is only looking at the situation surrounding the surveillance warrants that the FBI obtained on that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page that we've heard so much about and the renewals that happened there.

SCIUTTO: Right.

JARRETT: And the IG does have -- SCIUTTO: And, Laura, just for the moment so our viewers know what's

going on on the right side of the screen. That is the president leaving Trump Tower here in New York, White House north, some have called it, on his way in his motorcade there.

But, sorry, sorry, Laura, complete your thought.

JARRETT: So the inspector general, the watchdog over here at the Justice Department, he can't bring charges himself, but what he can do is if he finds any sort of wrongdoing that rises to a criminal level, then he can refer it to a U.S. attorney for prosecution.

SCIUTTO: Right.

JARRETT: And so that's what we saw in the case of the former director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.

SCIUTTO: OK.

JARRETT: So in that case obviously he didn't bring the charges, but he can refer them out. But we haven't seen any evidence yet that that's going to happen. We just don't know yet what the inspector general has actually found.

SCIUTTO: OK.

JARRETT: There's been a lot of speculation on it but we haven't seen any evidence of that.

SCIUTTO: We know you're going to follow that closely.

Finally, before we go, Shan, I want to ask you, big picture here. I know the folks at home can, you know, get lost in the details, wonder, you know, how this all matters. It strikes me that Robert Mueller effectively decriminalized seeking and accepting foreign help in an election campaign, even from an adversary such as Russia.

[09:10:10] And now you have the attorney general possibly criminalizing elements of an investigation, a counterintelligence investigation of foreign interference in the election. What does that mean for 2020 when we know that Russia is going to attempt to interfere again? And what message does that send not only to Russia, other countries, but also to Americans involved in the campaign as to what they can get away with?

WU: It's a very troubling message. I think it's an open invitation not only to Russia but, as has been reported, other foreign powers to actively interfere, that they should be emboldened by our reaction to this. And not only that, now you have the attorney general of the United States saying basically, hey, don't worry about it because I'm questioning whether we did the right thing even looking at the meddling.

And it's just so odd and unprecedented for the attorney general to come out and justify why he's doing that. This is something you do quietly, you let the IG or someone else do their work. It's just ridiculous that he's coming out and explaining that he's concerned about the American people wanting to be informed if there is a thumb on the scales. If he's concerned about that he should be looking at himself in the mirror.

SCIUTTO: How about the Russian thumb on the scales there?

WU: Right.

SCIUTTO: This kind of stuff matters. I know it's hard to keep track of, but it matters and we have another election coming up.

Evan Perez, Laura Jarrett, Shan Wu, thanks very much.

WU: Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Today Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is expected to miss another deadline, imagine that, to turn over copies of the president's tax returns. As congressional committee, House Ways and Means, has the legal right to request. What is next in this showdown between Democrats, Congress, in fact, and the administration?

And after a week of tension building between the U.S. and Iran "The New York Times" reports the president has now told his acting Defense secretary he does not want to go to war. So what's the U.S. policy? We'll have the latest.

Plus, all fixed? Boeing says it is done updating software for its 737 MAX. Is it safe to fly? Big question.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:15:00]

SCIUTTO: All right, forgive me if your head is spinning now because this morning, it appears it is the president who is trying to ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran. According to the "New York Times", Mr. Trump informed his acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan that he does not want to go to war.

This comes as the U.S. says it has images of Iranian commercial vessels carrying missiles. CNN has not reviewed the intelligence which has led to this assessment. The government has yet to provide further evidence of that claim. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford are expected to brief all senators on Iran next Tuesday.

Have been asking for this for some time, we're finally going to get it. Joining me now to discuss Iran is the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, also the author of a great book "A World in Disarray", a fitting headline it seems. Ambassador Haass, thanks very much for taking the time this morning.

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Good morning, Jim. SCIUTTO: So first question here, the president telling his Defense

Secretary, he doesn't want to go to war with Iran, calm things down. A couple of weeks ago, the U.S. was sending another aircraft carrier group to the region, talking about this intelligence. Can you discern a clear Trump policy on Iran today?

HAASS: Well, there's not a clear Trump policy on Iran, but there is a pattern here. The president often stakes out wildly ambitious goals, denuclearization of North Korea, essentially embracing regime change in Iran, a remaking of the Chinese economy, and then he often is either stuck there or has to contemplate backing down.

He also has a real aversion to the use of military force. A big part of his campaign and presidency has been to dial down the American military presence in the Middle East, and indeed his -- I think his entire approach to foreign policy is he believes that too much foreign policy is a waste, and that instead, the United States ought to be focusing its resources at home.

So it actually to me isn't surprising. His problem, though, and you see it time and time again is he ends up with an enormous gap between his ambitious goals and his very limited willingness to do things on their behalf.

SCIUTTO: One other common thread is that in pursuit of those goals at each of the places you cite, North Korea, China and Iran, it's the same cajole, right? It's this maximum economic pressure for Iran -- rather North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, for China to fundamentally change its economic model, an unfair one, but to change it, and then for Iran to come back to the negotiating table here. It's failed in each instance, hasn't it?

HAASS: Well, you're exactly right. We're asking an awful lot of economic tools be the sanctions or tariffs, and history suggests that we're simply asking too much of them. And what you see is an unwillingness -- and I'm not criticizing this, but an unwillingness to use military tools for the most part.

But what I am critical about is an unwillingness to use diplomacy. So if it's all or nothing in the case of North Korea and denuclearization, we're going to end up with nothing. What about some type of a limited deal. Same with Iran, what about negotiating some kind of an agreement, we didn't like the old nuclear agreement, what about a new one that extends some of the limits on Iran and maybe includes missiles.

With China, we can't get them to remake their economy, but what about trying to nail down those areas of progress where we can. So that's what I don't understand, in particular is the aversion to really using diplomacy. And you know, for someone who is so known for the art of the deal, what happened to the art of compromise?

SCIUTTO: You have said that with Iran, this administration should say it's ready to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, perhaps amend it and use that kind of as a path to nuclear talks. For political reasons, it appears President Trump has no interest in doing that. I'm wondering as he backs down on a military standoff with Iran, is it correct to say that Iran has successfully played Trump, at least in this skirmish?

[09:20:00] HAASS: I'm not sure about that. Two things, one, I think the president may be open to negotiating a different deal with Iran, he said that he's willing to talk, he likes dramatic gestures, so I wouldn't rule that out at some point. Meanwhile, Iran is really hurting from the sanctions, they are paying a price there, it's not going to be enough to bring down the government, won't be enough to curb their imperial ambitions in the region or even their long-term nuclear ambitions.

But they are hurting and, again, I think that does set something up. I don't think though, either side, quite honestly, wants a war. For the United States, we've got our hands full around the world. And, Iran, Jim, as you know, has all sorts of tools. A war against Iran will not simply be fought in Iran.

Iran will not simply be on the receiving end. They could use Hezbollah to attack Israel, they could use the militias or terrorists to attack Saudi Arabia, they could use their cyber capabilities all over the world. So war against Iran is not some quick and easy enterprise.

SCIUTTO: No question. They have tentacles outside the region, even Hezbollah. Richard Haass, Ambassador Richard Haass, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

HAASS: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Will we finally see the president's tax returns? You have a right to it. It's in the law, the Treasury Secretary has until tonight to turn them over. So what will Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee do if he misses that deadline again? We're going to ask right after this.

[09:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: It is deadline day, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is expected to defy that deadline and Democrats to turn over six years of President Trump's tax returns. Joining me now to discuss that and other issues, Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee of Michigan; he's a member of the House Ways and Means Committee which by law has the right to request any American's tax return. Congressman Kildee, thanks very much for taking the time this morning.

REP. DAN KILDEE (D-MI): Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: All right, so the Treasury Secretary is going to miss another deadline today. I'm curious what your next step is because this is clearly an administration strategy here to say, no, you know, sort of damn the consequences to all these requests.

KILDEE: Well, the chairman, Chairman Neal has been consulting with house counsel and we will pursue every legal avenue available. I don't think the precise avenue has been determined, but the one thing the administration should understand, we're not walking away from this. We are going to make sure that the law is enforced.

Section 6103 of the tax code is really clear, it says that the IRS shall furnish or the Treasury Department shall furnish tax return upon the request of the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. This is not a choice for them, they don't get to choose which American laws are comfortable for them to follow.

We are a country that is governed by law, and that does not exclude the president of the United States and they seem to think that upon his election, he's exempt from the laws that make him --

SCIUTTO: Yes --

KILDEE: Uncomfortable, that's just not the case --

SCIUTTO: It seems a fairly simple statement and yet the White House is sticking with this plan. And big picture, it seems that the Trump administration is frustrating what was a Democratic plan here to pursue a whole host of investigations.

I'm just going to quote from the "New York Times" here, they had a plan, "dramatize the special counsel's damning, but dense report on national television in their committees, animating his probe with vivid testimony from witnesses", but it appears that those witnesses will not come before the committees.

And I wonder if you're concerned that the White House has gotten the better of the Democratic plan here.

KILDEE: Well, they may in the short-term because obviously, they can stall and avoid ultimately adhering to the law and answering subpoenas and having witnesses appear before Congress. But you know, there is a third branch of government that is intended to resolve disputes between the authority and the constitution of the other two branches.

So it is my belief that ultimately, many of these questions are going to go into court and the president won't be able to just tweet in court or go to a rally in court and try to apiece his base. He's going to have to persuade the judicial branch that he has superior authority over congressional authority or even over the constitution, and he is going to fail in that effort.

SCIUTTO: On another topic, just a broader Mueller probe and the effects of the Mueller probe into the president. We're now learning that Michael Flynn, of course, the former national security adviser to this president told Robert Mueller that the president's personal lawyer John Dowd delivered a message to him in effect that cooperating with Miller -- Mueller, rather, would be a problem for the president. In your view, how is that not obstruction of justice or an attempt at obstruction of justice?

KILDEE: Well, it's chilling, first of all, to see that report because it paints a picture of a presidency that does do everything it can. The law set aside to protect this president. And it does appear to be obstruction if in fact that's true. It's one of the reasons that we absolutely have to have access to the full, unredacted Mueller report. This is the Congress of the United States, it's a public document that

was paid for by the taxpayers, we have oversight responsibilities. And the fact that we have to speculate on aspects of this investigation when we have a responsibility to act upon the information provided in that investigation.

As Mr. Mueller pointed out in his transmission to us, is really frightening. You know, this presidency is closing out the American people. They do not want eyes on the business that they are conducting. And one does have to ask the question, why not? What are they trying to hide?

SCIUTTO: Fair question. Final, if I can ask you because this just broke in the last several minutes.

END