Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Denies Telling Don McGahn to Fire Robert Mueller; Trump Attempts to Clarify Comments about Accepting Foreign Dirt; U.S. Blames Iran for Oil Tanker Attacks on Gulf of Oman; Prosecutors Drop All Charges in Flint Water Scandal; Senator Warren Surges to Second Place in New Poll. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired June 14, 2019 - 09:00   ET

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


[09:00:32] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Friday morning to you, I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow in New York.

So President Trump now says that perhaps the most glaring allegation of obstruction in the special counsel report is based on lies or confusion and not just from anybody, from his own White House counsel. In this interview with ABC News the president denies instructing Don McGahn, now his former White House counsel, to have Robert Mueller fired. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was never going to fire Mueller. I never suggested firing Mueller. Do I --

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: That's not what he says.

TRUMP: Excuse -- I don't care what he says. It doesn't matter. That was to show everyone what a good counsel he was.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why would Don McGahn lie --

TRUMP: Now we had a business --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why would he lie under oath -- why would he lie under oath to Robert Mueller?

TRUMP: Because he wanted to make himself look like a good lawyer, or -- or he believed it because I would constantly tell anybody that would listen including you, including the media, that Robert Mueller was conflicted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The question is, do you believe the president not under oath or Don McGahn under oath.

HARLOW: Right.

SCIUTTO: And facing jail time for lying. That's the essential question.

In a separate interview just the last hour with the president's favorite morning show he defended his explosive remarks saying that he would accept foreign help in a U.S. election, information from a foreign government.

CNN's Joe Johns has been watching all of this from the White House.

Joe, I'm frankly confused about what the president's position is because he's taken so many positions in the last 24 hours. I mean, he said for a time he would accept the help, he would listen, then he said he didn't say what he said or that ABC edited the interview in some way, now he says he would listen only to figure out if it was bad information.

What is the president's position?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well --

(LAUGHTER)

JOHNS: : You're about right as the way you described it right there. Look, the president is doing a couple of things in this interview this morning. He's clarifying his position by zeroing in on certain of the things he said in the interview with ABC News and sort of ignoring some of the other things he said.

What he did say this morning is that he answered accurately that he said, yes, he would both listen to a foreign government if they came to him with information about an opponent in a political campaign, but that he would also talk to the FBI and alert the FBI if he thought that was appropriate.

So that's the part that he's zeroing in on, but there were a lot of other controversial things that the president said in that interview that he really didn't refer to. But first let's listen to what the president said this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think it was accurately stated and I've had a lot of support --

STEVE DOOCY, CO-HOST, "FOX AND FRIENDS": Well, then, clarify it.

TRUMP: Yes, I mean, I've had a lot of support. First of all, I don't think anybody would present me with anything bad because they know how much I love this country. Number two, if I was, and of course you have to look at it because if you don't look at it you're not going to know if it's bad. How are you going to know if it's bad? But of course you give it to the FBI or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Now where the president got into trouble in the interview with ABC News was saying things like, give me a break, on calling the FBI, saying life didn't work that way, saying the FBI director was wrong for saying you should call the FBI if you got information from a foreign power, and also suggesting essentially that everybody in politics does this and calling it opposition research.

So those are some of the things that the president did not refer to, but he's trying to just zero in there.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

JOHNS: On that little bit of information where he said, yes, I'd call the FBI and I'd also take the information. Back to you.

SCIUTTO: I mean, as you say there, he contradicted himself because yesterday he said he wouldn't call the FBI, now he says he would call the FBI. I suppose folks at home have to figure out what they believe.

Joe Johns, thanks very much.

HARLOW: Jim, it's a new day, it's a new day and a new explanation, I suppose on that.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HARLOW: Wow. All right. So joining us to discuss, former presidential adviser to four presidents, David Gergen, and former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers.

Good morning to you both.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.

HARLOW: David Gergen, you know, I don't -- the president is saying I don't care what Don McGahn said, you know, I hired him, but I don't care what he said, and, by the way, he was only saying it to make himself look good. As Jim points out, this was under oath and at risk of jail time if he lied.

[09:05:02] GERGEN: And 30 hours, 30 hours he spent with the investigators under oath.

HARLOW: Yes. Yes.

GERGEN: So once again, the president has sort of cavalierly dismissing things that are inconvenient for him, even though the weight of the evidence would point out -- or certainly come down on side of Don McGahn. Don McGahn's remembrance, and Don McGahn's remembrance of course is consistent with the kind of memories that others have had in this, going back to Comey that are inconvenient for the president, but he just sort of pushes them aside, and hopes he gets away with it and frankly he often does.

SCIUTTO: Jennifer Rodgers, the president had an opportunity to provide answers under oath to the special counsel on instances of possible obstruction of justice and he didn't answer those questions. JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

SCIUTTO: And when George Stephanopoulos pressed him on that, the president got frustrated and called him a wise guy. I mean, essentially, folks have to then choose now between Don McGahn under oath and the president's public comments having refused the opportunity to speak about this under oath, right, where there would be consequences if he were not telling the truth?

RODGERS: Well, that's right, Jim. And it really highlights what would have happened had the president sat down with Mueller and his team. I mean, if someone with knowledge of the facts actually presses him and refuses to give up, you see what happens, the president lies and then he tries to change the subject and in this particular case insulted the interviewer. So it would have been an absolute disaster for the president. He would have committed perjury or false statements had he sat down with Mueller's team and we really saw that very clearly in the Stephanopoulos interview yesterday.

HARLOW: Let's listen to this moment a little bit more, you guys. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: If you answered these questions to me now, why not answer them to Robert Mueller under oath?

TRUMP: Because they were looking to get us for lies, for slight misstatements. I looked at what happened to people and it was very unfair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: He also said, David, in the interview, you know, I'm a total straight shooter, when he was asked about, you know, if there were foreign interference, would you tell the FBI, et cetera. The thing is, he didn't talk to Mueller and that is, you know, over now in terms of, you know -- there is no question of is he going to sit with Mueller or not, the report is out, and the president's poll numbers don't move on this. So is his calculation there is no political ramification for this?

GERGEN: Well, I'm not sure ultimately there is no -- he gets -- I've said it, as I said, he gets away with it, but I think it hardens opinion on both sides. The Trump supporters, you know, rally to whatever he says and they see him as a hero, whereas other people, a lot of independents, you know, take it as you can't trust this president on anything, why should I trust him here or on Iran or anything else. And that's one of the reasons he's running 13 points behind Joe Biden at this stage of the campaign. There are an awful lot of people who are just going to reject this.

HARLOW: Yes. That's fair.

GERGEN: You know, whether -- yes, so whether his fortunes will improve or not I think depends somewhat on the economy. But I think we know -- I think it depends a lot on the economy. But I think we know now who this president is and when he lies and he lies often. And just go back to this other question about whether he would take foreign intelligence. He once again is carving out a great big loophole. He says well, if we think it's appropriate.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GERGEN: We would call the FBI. And yet we know in previous conversations he would never call the FBI. We know what his predisposition is up front and that is I wouldn't call them. He's now saying well, maybe I would call them. Well, that doesn't solve anything. It continues to be an invitation to other countries, bring us your dirt and by the way it may improve relations with our administration.

SCIUTTO: Jennifer Rodgers, the law is not unclear here on accepting foreign help in an election. And we had a rare instance where the chairwoman, the head of the Federal Election Commission had to release a statement yesterday saying the law is clear.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCIUTTO: It is illegal to accept foreign help and information is help. Is the president with his answers indicating that he's willing to break the law?

RODGERS: Well, he certainly was. I mean, the one wrinkle here is that there hasn't been a case charged criminally where the help was this kind of help, right? The statute says anything of value, but no one has been charged and sentenced criminally for the something of value being information of this type, but it is clear you can't take anything of value. So that is crystal clear. And the thing is, you know, you don't need to wait and hear what it is.

The point is the founding fathers and Congress when they passed this statute were very concerned about foreign people or foreign entities having any impact on our elections whatsoever. So the moment that someone reaches out to you, a foreign person, it could even be a Canadian, right, someone ostensibly friendly, you should not listen to what they have to say.

[09:10:09] It's not a matter of evaluating that information and deciding for yourself.

HARLOW: Right.

RODGERS: It's a matter of they're not allowed to give you anything so you just say no thanks and you contact the FBI and tell them about it.

HARLOW: And by the way, if you listen to it, as the president was saying, I'd listen and then decide if I go to the FBI, you're still getting the, quote-unquote, "benefit of it," right, and then you're just sort of after the fact saying the FBI should look into this.

Thank you both, David Gergen, Jennifer Rodgers. We appreciate it. GERGEN: OK. Thanks.

SCIUTTO: Let's speak more now about this with former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

Director, thanks very much for taking the time this morning. You were deeply involved in both chronicling, corroborating Russia's interference in the 2016 election. What should a U.S. president's answer be when offered any foreign information from a foreign actor in an election?

JAMES CLAPPER: Well, the response would be to contact the FBI. I mean, the law as we just discussed, the law is unambiguous on this point. And I think the president's first response to George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office is reflective of his instincts. And I think that was probably motivated by unwillingness to acknowledge the actions of his son making a mistake. And I think that was foremost in his mind, not what the law says.

Moreover, I don't think the president -- all due respect -- is in a position to be competent to judge the nature of -- and the origins of the information. Is it disinformation? As you chronicle in your book. And that's not a judgment that -- only the professionals should make and the FBI and the larger intelligence community.

SCIUTTO: Right.

HARLOW: Director Clapper, we heard the president in that interview with FOX also say this morning they were spying on my campaign, they are spying, they're spying. I mean, he knows the weight of that word, right? And he's purposefully using it. And then he called it, quote, "probably one of the great criminal attacks of all time."

You know what criminal attacks on our democracy actually look like. Set the record straight.

CLAPPER: Well, the -- the focus of our efforts were on what the Russians were doing and we only scratched the surface at the number of contacts apparently as reflected in the Mueller -- subsequently reflected in the Mueller report that indicated contacts, efforts by the Russians to gain access, influence with the Trump campaign.

So the predicate here that I wish people would focus on is what the Russians were trying to do and that was our focus. And the fact that, you know, they had contacts with apparently a lot and we only saw a few of them with Russians gave us cause for concern. You know, kind of the message I'm getting now two and a half years later is what we should have done was ignored what the Russians were doing.

SCIUTTO: The -- we've talked about this many times before. The information is the interference with this in the way Russia interfered in 2016 in other countries. I mean, the stolen Clinton and Podesta e- mails, information weaponized in effect. It's the interference. So if a U.S. president or a candidate for president or another politician accepts some information, listens to some information, are they aiding the foreign government's interference? CLAPPER: Well, in essence they are. And, again, as we said before,

the law is clear, it's unambiguous. If you are approached by a foreign government, particularly an adversary from our arch adversary. The first instinct should be call the FBI.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Yes.

HARLOW: Yes. Director Clapper, just finally on you, your thoughts on the fact that, you know, the chair of the FEC, we never hear from these folks, right? And most Americans are not going to know who Ellen Weintraub is, and the fact that she had to come out and say unequivocally, let me make something 100 percent clear to the American people, it's illegal for any person to solicit this stuff. How big is that?

CLAPPER: Well, it's huge. As far as I can recall unprecedented. I don't recall, you know, an official in the White House being called out for a Hatch Act violation.

HARLOW: Yes.

CLAPPER: You know, there is all kinds of unprecedented things here that are, you know, stunning, but not surprising.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And if you don't obey the laws or the practices, then those laws and practices lose their meaning. And it just seems like every day we have examples of that.

Director Clapper, thanks very much.

HARLOW: Thank you.

All right. Tension flaring. The U.S. has released video that it says shows Iran removing an unexploded mine from a damaged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman. The Secretary of State Mike Pompeo unequivocally blaming Iran for those attacks. We'll take you live inside Iran to get their reaction. And outrage in Flint, Michigan.

[09:15:00]

Nearly four years after the city declared a state of emergency over lead in the water. Prosecutors there have dropped all criminal charges, they are starting over --

JIM SCIUTTO, CO-HOST, NEWSROOM: Yes --

HARLOW: Millions of dollars and years gone to waist, why?

SCIUTTO: And imagine if you're a parent there with children affected by that. Plus --

HARLOW: Yes --

SCIUTTO: Senator Elizabeth Warren surges to second place among Democrats in a new 2020 poll. Should Bernie Sanders be worried in particular? (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: President Trump is insisting this morning that Iran was behind attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman despite Iran's public denials.

HARLOW: Yes, the president citing this video, take a look, this was released last night by U.S. Central Command. They say that it shows Iranian sailors removing an unexploded mine from the hull of one of those ships which was a Japanese chemical tanker.

[09:20:00] Let's go to the Pentagon, our Barbara Starr is there and our senior international correspondent Frederik Pleitgen is in Iran. Barbara, let me begin with you, you know, the Secretary of State is being unequivocal, saying we know that this was Iran and putting the video out there. What do the American people need to know about it?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the U.S. believes one of the reasons this Iranian small boat came alongside the tanker to take out that unexploded mine is that, that would have been something the Iranians would not have wanted the world to see.

It might have been very identifiable to the regime, and they don't want to get caught red-handed obviously. This -- all these attacks that we've been seeing, including the ones in May against four tankers further up in the Gulf, are viewed by the U.S. as an effort by their Iranian regime to show that it still has -- can exert its power even in the face of these crippling sanctions, the maximum pressure campaign the U.S. is putting on it.

But, look, there are real implications now of what Iran has done with these two tankers burning at sea, you know, crews at risk, civilian crews at risk. This had an impact on oil markets yesterday, it is likely to have an impact on cargo insurance rates.

You begin to see not just the security implications, but the obvious economic and financial implications for the tanker market, which is so vital to the world economy. Poppy, Jim?

SCIUTTO: Frederik, you're on the ground in Iran, you go there a lot. We've heard Iran's public denials, of course, of course, they would deny such an attack publicly here --

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes --

SCIUTTO: But the fact is Iran has used proxies in the past to carry out attacks, to show its influence in the region. Based on your reporting, how do you take these Iranian public denials?

PLEITGEN: Well, it's really interesting to hear because so far, Jim, the Iranians have not said anything about this new video that have come out. They haven't mentioned it anywhere, it's not been mentioned on Iranian TV or talked about very much, either.

The interesting thing that the Iranians are saying is that -- and this is in the form of a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, he's essentially saying why on earth would we do this? He said, look, as these attacks were going on, there was a meeting between the supreme leader of Iran and the Prime Minister of Japan.

And he said at that moment, why would the Iranians want to do something like that? I think the question that he asked was who would benefit from it? Now, the Iranians have been lashing out at the U.S. specifically at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for some of the things that he said yesterday when he came out and laid the finger of blame at the Iranians.

Now, it's not only Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman who came out and blasted Secretary of State, Pompeo, but also Iran's Foreign Minister as well, Javad Zarif, he's actually on a tour today, having some meetings, some of them actually with Vladimir Putin as well and the leader of China where he said -- accused the United States of economic terrorism and said the U.S. was the one that was fueling the flames in the gulf region.

But it is interesting to see that so far they haven't been talking very much about that video that we've seen and what exactly was going on there, guys.

SCIUTTO: Well, good to have you --

HARLOW: Yes --

SCIUTTO: On the ground there in Iran. Frederik, Barbara Starr, always good to have you in the Pentagon, thanks very much. President Trump continuing to speak out after his comments over foreign dirt has sparked outrage, bipartisan outrage.

This as he faces growing backlash from some senior Republicans. I will ask a Republican lawmaker where he stands on this issue coming up.

[09:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: This morning, there's growing division within the Republican Party over President Trump's willingness to accept political dirt from a foreign government in future U.S. elections. With me now is Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah, he serves on the Intelligence Committee which of course has been intimately involved in the investigation of Russian interference. Congressman, thanks very much for taking the time.

REP. CHRIS STEWART (R-UT): Hey, good morning.

SCIUTTO: The president said he will listen to information provided by foreigners, he repeated again this morning that you have to listen to know if it's bad or not. His campaign spokesperson for 2020 says the campaign will look at it on a case-by-case basis. Yes or no, should a sitting U.S. president listen to or accept information from a foreign country intended to influence an election in any way?

STEWART: Well, I just think you have to say, it depends because it truly does depend. I wish the president -- SCIUTTO: Depends on what?

STEWART: With that I made the comment -- well, it depends on who it is and the circumstances and how credible it is. I don't think --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: So what would be a different -- what would be acceptable --

STEWART: Yes --

SCIUTTO: An acceptable country to accept information intended to --

STEWART: Oh, for --

SCIUTTO: Influence a campaign?

STEWART: Well, for example, one of our close allies, the U.K., Australia --

SCIUTTO: OK --

STEWART: A number of others, and they may have information that's valuable. But look, two things, one is I wish the president would have said --would not have said it the way he did and I don't think it was helpful. For one thing, it gives his opponents an opportunity to kind of beat up on him. But there is this and you have to appreciate the irony of this, Jim --

SCIUTTO: But is that why you wish the president --

(CROSSTALK)

Would say straight up, I'm an American, the founders were concerned about foreign influence in the election going back 250 years, I will not accept it. I mean --

STEWART: Well --

SCIUTTO: Are you concerned about him getting beat up --

STEWART: Let's --

SCIUTTO: Or about the statement as an American?

STEWART: I'm concerned about both. But let's make this point, and if you'd let me finish I think --

SCIUTTO: Sure --

STEWART: This is a fair point. The president talked about doing this. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee did it. They hired a foreign agent, an agent with close ties to Russian oligarch who has close ties --

END