Return to Transcripts main page
Hala Gorani Tonight
Interview With Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif; Urgent Whistleblower Complaint Withheld From Congress By Trump Administration; Interview With Andrew MacDougall; U.S. Congress Demands Whistleblower Complaint Details; Canadian P.M. Trudeau Speaks Amid Dark Face Scandal; Trudeau "Deeply Sorry" About Racist Makeup Pictures; McCabe: Whistleblower Is Incredibly Concerning. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired September 19, 2019 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:27]
HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone. Live from CNN London, I'm Hala Gorani.
Tonight --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What will be the consequence of an American or Saudi military strike on Iran now?
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, FOREIGN MINISTER OF IRAN: An all-out war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Iran's foreign minister speaks exclusively to CNN about the Saudi oil attack, tensions with the U.S. and Donald Trump.
Then, a whistleblower in the U.S. was reportedly so worried by a promise President Trump reportedly made to a foreign leader, that he made a formal
complaint about it. But why won't the intelligence chief share any of this information with Congress? We're covering the story from all angles.
And, later, Canada's prime minister is having to explain not one, not two, but three images from his past, in which he appears in dark racist makeup.
Can Justin Trudeau survive this latest scandal?
We start with a CNN exclusive. Iran's foreign minister, sitting down with our Nick Paton Walsh in Tehran. Mohammad Javad Zarif spoke a day after the
Saudis presented evidence they say links Iran to last weekend's attack on Saudi oil facilities.
Zarif insists that Iran had nothing to do with the attack. And he gave a pointed warning to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia about what would happen if
either -- or both, for that matter -- pursue a military response. Here's part of that interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PATON WALSH: What would be the consequence of an American or Saudi military strike on Iran now?
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, FOREIGN MINISTER OF IRAN: An all-out war.
PATON WALSH: You make a very serious statement there, sir.
ZARIF: Well, I make a very serious statement about defending our country. I'm making a very serious statement, that we don't want war. We don't want
to engage in a military confrontation. We believe that a military confrontation based on deception is awful. We'll have a lot of casualties.
But we won't blink, to defend our territory.
PATON WALSH: Put yourself in Saudi Arabia's shoes. If there was an attack on Iranian sovereign territory with cruise missiles launched from Saudi
Arabia, what would Iran's response be?
ZARIF: Well, they're making that up. Why do they want to make that up, that it was from Iranian territory? The Yemenis have announced
responsibility for that, they have provided information about that, they have answered all the Saudi disinformation about the fact that they
launched this attack against Saudi Arabia in self-defense.
Now, they want to pin the blame on Iran in order to achieve something. And that is why I'm saying, this is agitation for war. Because it's based on
lies, it's based on deception. But you lie and deceive when (ph) it serves your interest. It doesn't even serve their interest.
PATON WALSH: There is a weakness, though, to Iran's denial about involvement in all this, and that is really the Houthi Yemeni rebels who
you say, and who say themselves, were behind this. This is a ragtag group of rebels who've been under siege for years. They struggle to get
medicines, they struggle to get food. That indeed is part of your case, why the war must stop.
How is the world expected to believe that they were able to magic (ph) up drones and cruise missiles of this technology, that flew across hundreds of
miles of Saudi Arabia, through tens of billions of dollars of air defenses, without any external assistance, and took out 19 targets? That's a big
ask, people to believe.
ZARIF: Well, you see, if you want to make your calculations based on this, Saudi Arabia should have been able to win this war against this group of
besieged people exactly when they thought they would, four weeks after they started the war. But it's four and a half years. They have not been able
to bring the Yemenis to their knees.
PATON WALSH: That is a different argument to resisting an invading army on the ground, is different to getting technology out of nowhere it seems, and
managing to evade state-of-the-art, tens of billions of dollars, American- assisted air defenses. That's a different argument.
ZARIF: Well, I mean, then you should go and find the problem with the state-of-the-art American air defense, not with the Houthis. I mean, you
believe that the United States is omnipotent, and the United States' military equipment are flawless, and that is why a bunch of people with no
access to anything, cannot defeat that?
[14:05:00]
Well, I can tell you, I mean, it's going to be news for you, and it's going to continue to be news for you that people can do a lot of things when they
are desperate, when they see their kids killed, when they see their kids maimed, when they see their wives bombarded, their houses, their hospitals,
their schools, destroyed. That gives you a lot of creativity, a lot of tenacity to go and search for yourself.
This is exactly how we did it. How do you think we built all of this, huh? How do you think we built the missile system that brought down a U.S.
drone?
PATON WALSH: You are very sure that the Houthis did this, but there is one major inconsistency --
ZARIF: I'm very sure that Iran didn't do it.
PATON WALSH: Understood. But you have also said, consistently, you believe the Houthis did this.
ZARIF: No, no, no. I believe the Houthis made a statement that they did it.
PATON WALSH: So you're not sure they did it?
ZARIF: I cannot have any confidence that they did it --
PATON WALSH: Right.
ZARIF: -- because we just heard their statement. I know that we didn't do it. I know that the Houthis have made a statement that they did it.
PATON WALSH: They've shown you no proof?
ZARIF: Did they -- I heard that they issued some -- released some documents last night -- which I haven't been able to examine for myself,
and I'm not an expert to examine them anyway -- to show that they were able to increase the range of the drones and the missiles by jet engines in
them. But I'm not an expert, so I cannot say.
PATON WALSH: But it puts you in a similar position to the Saudi Arabian government, to some degree, in that you're saying someone did this, based
on a hunch, and you would say the same thing about their accusations.
ZARIF: No, I'm not accusing anybody.
PATON WALSH: Yes.
ZARIF: You can have a lot of accusations flying around, based on who may benefit from this. Iran doesn't have anything to benefit from this. Iran
wants security in the region, Iran wants stability in the region, Iran does not want war. Iran wants an end to all wars.
PATON WALSH: Would you call on the Houthis to release evidence that they did do this, to clear this misunderstanding up?
ZARIF: Well, I think they did release the evidence, but it's not up to us to ask the Houthis. I think the Houthis know what they did, and they know
what they need to do. They released some evidence last night, and I think it is important for the Saudi government to understand what they're trying
to achieve.
Do they want to fight Iran until the last American soldier? Is that their aim? Because if that is the aim, they can be assured that this won't be
the case.
PATON WALSH: Why?
ZARIF: Because Iran will defend itself.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GORANI: And Nick Paton Walsh joins me now, live from Tehran. So the foreign minister there, threatening all-out war. But overall, the tone of
the interview wasn't too confrontational, I didn't find. I mean, similarly, the U.S. president is not using very bellicose rhetoric when it
comes to Iran. It really seems to me like both sides would rather just find some other way to resolve this than actual conflict at this stage.
PATON WALSH: Well, it does seem that negotiation is tricky at this point. Yes, you're right, Hala, the overall tone of the interview was that it
seemed like the minister was giving a message to Donald Trump, don't start a war because you won't like it. This won't be some limited tit-for-tat
and then we'll all go home, it will be messy.
But at the same time, during the interview, he did say that he believed Donald Trump, in fact, wasn't gun-shy, when I asked him, "Is he gun-shy?"
In fact, had been advised badly by people, that in fact he should be thinking about conflict with Iran, but had himself the more rational,
prudent instincts to not actually want to do that.
So message, I think, directed at one individual entirely. In fact, I asked Javad Zarif whether he believed Donald Trump's own assessment of himself,
whether or not he was a very stable genius. And he said he wouldn't comment on that because he hadn't actually spoken to him directly.
But that's key here, really. Because it's the nature of how these negotiations might happen at all. Now, Javad Zarif was very clear that
there will not be any negotiations (ph) at all.
In fact, we have just learned that after a few days in which it's been sort of put back and forth, whether or not he and possibly President Hassan
Rouhani would be issued visas to travel to the United Nations General Assembly in New York. We have just learned from their mission at the
United Nations in Iran, that they have been issued those visas.
And semi-official (ph) agencies here are actually quoting a foreign ministry spokesperson as saying that they will make that trip, as of early
tomorrow morning.
But during the interview, it was clear from the minister that there would be no secret sideline negotiations, that it wasn't about trying to talk to
the Americans attending that particular meeting, it was simply indulging in multilateral diplomacy.
[14:10:03]
He only said the only possible option, where negotiations might be a possibility, is if the Trump administration essentially got back into the
nuclear deal, alleviating all the sanctions they put back on Iran that were supposed to be lifted under that nuclear deal? Well, then Iran would talk
to them again.
So the avenue for discussion here, quite small. Iran would talk to its neighbors, he said, like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, they
are U.S. allies. There's a potential (ph) proxy discussion that could occur there. But a simple U.S.-Iranian discussion, off the table for now
unless, really, Trump does the unthinkable and gets back into the nuclear deal -- Hala.
GORANI: All right. Nick Paton Walsh with that exclusive interview in Tehran.
The American secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is on his way back to Washington after meeting the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.
He says there is enormous consensus in the region, that Iran was behind the attack. And we just hears, there, from Javad Zarif, that they are denying
involvement.
Pompeo also said his trip was meant to find a peaceful resolution, as he took a swipe at one of Javad Zarif's comments from that CNN interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We'd like a peaceful resolution, indeed. I think we've demonstrated that. And they've taken down American UAVs, now
conducted the largest attack on the globe's energy in an awfully long time. And we are still striving to build out a coalition.
I was here on an act of diplomacy, while the foreign minister of Iran is threatening all-out war and to fight until the last American, we are here
to build out a coalition aimed at achieving peace and a peaceful resolution to this, that's my mission set. It's what President Trump certainly wants
me to work to achieve. And I hope that the Islamic Republic of Iran sees it the same way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Of course, what Javad Zarif had said is that he was warning the U.S. and Saudi Arabia about fighting an all-out war against Iran, until the
last American. That understanding of that quote is not precisely what Javad Zarif said.
But as you can say, there, both men firmly on opposite sides of this debate, especially on who is responsible, who was responsible for that
attack on that Saudi oilfield over the weekend.
We'll have more on this story a little bit later, but I want to bring you this: mystery over a whistleblower complaint involving President Donald
Trump, that is setting off alarm bells in Washington.
We're just getting new information from three sources, that the White House and Justice Department are advising intelligence chiefs in America to keep
this complaint under wraps.
Now, here's the complaint. "The Washington Post" first reported this story. It says Mr. Trump made a promise to a foreign leader so troubling
to one intelligence official that he notified an internal watchdog. That watchdog, an inspector general who's a Trump appointee, deemed the
complaint an urgent concern, requiring notification of Congress.
But that is where things hit a roadblock. The acting director of national intelligence is refusing to hand over the complaint to Congress, and
refused to allow the inspector general to give information to the House Intelligence Committee today.
The committee head, Adam Schiff, spoke a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I don't think this is a problem of the law. I think the law is written very clearly, I think the law is just fine. The
problem lies elsewhere. And we're determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is, to make that the national security
is protected, and to make sure that this whistleblower is protected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: Donald J. Trump: ... Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader
while on such a potentially "heavily populated" call. I would only do what is right anyway, and only do good for the USA!
GORANI: So this is a whistleblower within the intelligence community who was troubled, he says, reportedly, by what he believes the president --
what he believes is a promise the president made to a foreign leader. And President Trump is calling the whole thing fake news, asking on Twitter
whether anyone is dumb enough to believe the report.
Congress is seeking more information about this whistleblower report. Congressional correspondent Sunlen Serfaty joins us life.
And for our viewers internationally, this is the type of thing, this type of complaint, that by law, the intelligence chiefs are required to share
with Congress. In this case, they're not sharing the complaint with Congress. Why not? What is their argument?
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right, Hala. And those details are so important here. The director of national
intelligence is required by law to turn over a whistleblower complaint, I believe, it's within two weeks -- oh, excuse me, within a week, to
Congress. And that has not happened yet. This incident goes back to August.
So, certainly, Congress, already very concerned about this. And now, certainly, with this new reporting, coming from "The Washington Post" that
CNN has now confirmed, that this involves a conversation between President Trump and a foreign leader and some sort of alleged promise.
TEXT: Whistleblower Timeline: Aug. 12: Whistleblower issues complaint to I.G.; Aug. 26: I.G. tells acting DNI complaint is "credible and urgent";
Friday: House Intel Committee subpoenas acting DNI for complaint; Yesterday: DNI office says it's refusing to hand over complaint; Today:
Acting DNI agrees to testify next week
(14:15:00]
SERFATY: Of course, they don't know the details of what that promise is, they don't know who the foreign leader is. But first and foremost, Capitol
Hill today is trying to get some of those answers. And the House Intelligence Committee, they met behind closed doors in a classified
setting today with the inspector general of the intelligence community.
And members leaving there, Democrats on Capitol Hill, were very frustrated. They were very unsatisfied because they came out of that meeting, said that
there was absolutely no discussion about substance, no discussion about the details, that this was all about the process. And the I.G. in that meeting
essentially said he did not have the authority to hand over the details of this whistleblower complaint because he argued -- or it was argued to him -
- that this is about jurisdiction.
The chairman of the committee, Adam Schiff, today, saying that the Department of Justice, they know, is involved. And Schiff said he didn't -
- they tried to press the I.G., if the White House was involved in making this decision to withhold the details of this complaint. He said that they
couldn't get the answer.
But we now know, based off CNN's reporting, that the White House indeed has been involved. And Schiff, calling this today, "an unprecedented departure
from the law," and says that it shows that someone is trying to, in his words, "manipulate the system to keep information about this matter away
from Congress."
And next steps of all this, Hala, is that Schiff says that they are speaking to House General Counsel, exploring potential legal avenues to
push to get this information. Of course, the acting DNI, Joseph Maguire, will be on the Hill as of now, anticipated to testify publicly next week --
Hala.
GORANI: What do we know about this complaint? What does Congress know about this complaint? Is it the case that Congress wouldn't have known
about the fact that someone within the intelligence community in America was so concerned about a promise reportedly made by the president to a
foreign leader, that he or she -- I guess we don't know who they are, it could be a woman -- complained internally.
Congress was not aware about this until this report came out in "The Washington Post"?
SERFATY: That's right. They know precious little, it seems, and that was confirmed by the chairman of the committee today. There had been this
mysterious whistleblower complaint, but it was that bombshell reporting from "The Washington Post," again, that CNN has confirmed, that this
complaint has something to do with a conversation between President Trump and a foreign leader. Again, an alleged promise made.
So that elevates this even more. You know, there of course could be something there, there could not be something there. But until they get
the answers, they just don't know. And Adam Schiff, today, even acknowledging that were it not for the reporting coming from news outlets
here in the U.S., that they would not know the details of what actually they're talking about.
But they are, many members, very frustrated. They are operating, at this point, with very little information, very clear that they are going to push
very hard to try to get it.
GORANI: Right. And I think a lot of people are very curious as well. What was the complaint, and more detail, certainly. Sunlen Serfaty, thanks
very much, on Capitol Hill.
Coming up, live pictures here for you. We're expecting to hear from the Canadian prime minister, any moment -- the microphone is ready for him --
as more shocking images surface, showing him in racist makeup. Will Justin Trudeau address the controversy? I think it's a safe bet that he will.
The other question is, can his political career survive it? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:20:38]
GORANI: We are following this stunning political controversy surrounding the prime minister of Canada. Justin Trudeau, who's championed himself as
a protector of diversity, is dealing with the fallout after not one, not two, but at least three images of him wearing darkface makeup have
surfaced.
We have just gotten in, this video obtained by "Global News." The source who shot the video told the reporter that it was filmed in the early '90s.
The person declined to comment, but didn't deny that the video shows Trudeau.
We're also seeing this new image today, obtained by CNN partner "CTV News." It's one we believe the prime minister alluded to when he said he put on
makeup for a high school talent show. And there, you see it on your screen under that caption, "La fumee du Gala."
We're seeing Mr. Trudeau on the defensive, just about a month before Canada's federal election. It's a stunning position to be in for a prime
minister who was once Canada's golden boy. And, by the way, just a quick programming note for you. We are expecting the prime minister, Trudeau, to
make an appearance in Winnipeg. There's a microphone, set up there for him. When he addresses reporters, we'll bring that to you.
But in the meantime, Paula Newton reports that all of this started with Mr. Trudeau apologizing for that -- for one of the photographs, which is nearly
20 years old.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, asking for forgiveness.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: Pissed off at myself, obviously. I'm disappointed in myself. And I'm apologizing to Canadians.
NEWTON (voice-over): After "Time" magazine tweeted this photo, showing him wearing brownface to an Arabian Nights-themed party at a private school
where he taught in 2001.
TRUDEAU: I dressed up in Aladdin costume and put makeup on. I shouldn't have done that. I should have known better, but I didn't, and I'm really
sorry.
NEWTON (voice-over): The image, surfacing just one week after Trudeau launched his bid for re-election.
TRUDEAU: I stand here, before Canadians, as I will throughout this campaign, and talk about the work we have to do to make a better country
together, and I'm going to continue to stay focused on that, and continue to work to fight intolerance and discrimination.
NEWTON (voice-over): Some other Canadian lawmakers immediately slamming the prime minister --
ANDREW SCHEER, CANADIAN ELECTION OPPONENT: Wearing brownface is an act of open mockery and racism. It was just as racist in 2001 as it is in 2019.
JAGMEET SINGH, CANADIAN OPPOSITION LEADER: Seeing this image is going to be hard for a lot of people. It's going to bring up a lot of pain, it's
going to bring up a lot of hurt.
NEWTON (voice-over): In the past, Trudeau's been accused of cultural appropriation. During a visit to India last year, the prime minister and
his family dressed in traditional clothing, a move criticized and even mocked by many Canadians.
TRUDEAU: Whether I'm wearing a traditional clothing or a suit and tie has been extremely encouraging in the Indo-Canadian friendship.
NEWTON (voice-over): Trudeau's now being compared to two U.S. politicians who had similar issues surface earlier this year. Last month, Alabama
Governor Kay Ivey expressed, quote, "genuine remorse" for wearing blackface in a skit while she was a college student in the 1960s.
GOV. KAY IVEY (R), ALABAMA: I offer my heartfelt apologies for my participation in something from 52 years ago, that I find deeply
regrettable.
NEWTON (voice-over): And in February, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam apologized, admitted and then denied being in this photo from his 1984
medical school yearbook, showing a person in blackface and another in a Ku Klux Klan robe.
GOV. RALPH NORTHAM (D), VIRGINIA: It is definitely not me. I can tell by looking at it.
NEWTON (voice-over): Northam refused to step down, despite public pressure. Trudeau is also facing those calls. But when pressed on whether
that could happen, the prime minister, offering yet another apology.
TRUDEAU: I didn't think it was racist at the time, but now I recognize it was something racist to do. And I am deeply sorry.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GORANI: Andrew MacDougall joins me. He's the former director of communications for former prime minister, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper. Three instances of blackface. This is not -- this is not good.
ANDREW MACDOUGALL, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR FORMER PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER: Yes. Over a period of time, it looks like, from
when he was a high school student all the way through to when he was a high school teacher at 29 years old.
So I don't think his explanation, that it was 20 years ago, washes (ph). I think we knew in 2001 that you didn't black up your face or brown up your
face at a party. I think everybody knew that.
[14:25:08]
GORANI: And what did you make of his apology?
MACDOUGALL: Well, I think it -- you know, what else do you do when you get your hand stuck in the minstrel jar, right? You apologize. And he
apologized, to his credit. He said it was wrong to do, although he did put a few weasel words in there. But what else is he going to do? He has to
apologize.
But by not being complete in his apology and mentioning the other instances, that he clearly knew about, does --
GORANI: Did he clearly know? Sometimes you forget things.
MACDOUGALL: Well, he was given -- another news organization had the third tape about a week ago --
GORANI: Yes, yes.
MACDOUGALL: -- so I don't know if it washes. One of those things, you probably rack your brain, trying to figure out all the times you did it.
And this either says he did it a lot -- because if it was only once or twice, you'd think you'd remember.
GORANI: Do you think that this will harm him politically?
MACDOUGALL: Well, I think so. Because the conservative line on Justin Trudeau is that he's not as advertised, and this plays perfectly into that.
He speaks one way in public. And then when he acts in private, he does it quite differently.
And you could apply that, now, across a couple of issues. He had the SNC- Lavalin scandal, where he was caught out. He was an ultra-feminist, and he's treated women in his past, from about the same time period, in an
inappropriate way and dismissed that allegation.
So I think this is starting to cut through with Canadian voters. They can see that Justin Trudeau is in fact not as advertised.
GORANI: Why is this coming out now? I mean, you'd think someone in politics for as long as he's been in politics, would have had these
pictures emerge, you'd have, you know, rivals dig up this type of stuff. It was in -- one of the images was in a yearbook, it's not like it was deep
in some secret dark website, you know, somewhere.
MACDOUGALL: No. When you do your opposition research --
GORANI: Yes, yes.
MACDOUGALL: -- as it's called, you look through the obvious things. Where has he worked, where did he go to school, and did he do anything silly
there.
But when he's teaching at a school, you don't necessarily think of going through the yearbooks and saying, "Well, did the teacher do something dumb
in a photo?" Because what teacher would do something dumb in a photo. But turns out, some teacher did a dumb thing.
GORANI: So lots of people do dumb things, and they are forgiven for doing dumb things if their apology is considered genuine. Could this be the case
for Trudeau, do you think?
MACDOUGALL: Well, ordinarily. But the liberals have spent the first week of the campaign, Hala, digging up old Facebook posts of conservative
candidates, and asking them to resign for things that are far less severe than what Mr. Trudeau has clearly done here, which he acknowledges himself,
is racist. So I think he's hoisted on his own petard. And he's going to have to deal with that consequence.
GORANI: If you were director of communications for Prime Minister Trudeau and you'd arranged for him to come to the microphone, what does he need to
say? What does he need to tell the Canadian people?
MACDOUGALL: Well, I think what he forgot to do yesterday, was explain -- which is what Jagmeet Singh, one of the opposition leaders did, is explain
why this still hurts to Canadians today, from those ethnic backgrounds, who are aspiring to be prime minister, in Jagmeet Singh's case, or to public
life.
And say, "I know the hurt that this caused you. It's just not about me and my stupidity, it's about how that made you feel," in Canada in 2019, when
we're supposed to be a nation where anyone can be anything.
GORANI: Right. Well, he's a good -- he gives a good speech. And he communicates in a way that appeals to lots of people -- our side of Canada
as well, he's quite the liberal darling because they compare Trudeau to leaders like, you know, I don't know, Donald Trump and other populist-type
leaders, and they see him as the liberal savior on the world stage. I wonder how, abroad, this will be interpreted.
MACDOUGALL: Well, I mean, it's been everywhere. I've had -- my phone's been ringing off the (ph) -- today, certainly.
GORANI: Yes.
MACDOUGALL: And I think this is one of those things that -- everybody gets hypocrisy. I think this is one of those issues that you don't have to
follow the politics of a country too closely, to know when somebody has done something that's hypocritical.
And people know, in our ordinary lives, we don't get given that slack when we do something hypocritical, so a leader like Justin Trudeau, who walks
and talks a very big game, and talks the talk, isn't walking the walk. And they see that.
GORANI: All right. Andrew MacDougall, thanks so much. Former director of communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, former prime minister of
Canada. Thanks so much for joining us.
We'll get to that. We'll bring you the newsworthy bits, I should say, of the address by the prime minister of Canada, when he walks up to the
microphone. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes there, about what he need to say and how he needs to deliver
that.
[14:29:06]
Still to come tonight, we will have more on the whistleblower scandal that has gripped Washington. We'll break it down with two of our top analysts,
after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:30:36]
GORANI: We're following the fire storm developing over a whistleblower complaint involving the U.S. President, Donald Trump.
"The Washington Post" says a U.S. intelligence official was alarmed by a promise that Mr. Trump allegedly made to an unnamed foreign leader. Mr.
Trump calls the report fake news, but congressional Democrats are demanding more information.
The former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, a frequent Trump critic, says the complaint is in his words, incredibly concerning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: This president has a history of treating classified information and sensitive information questionably at
best. But that's also something well-known within the community.
And the fact that the president has the discretion to essentially declassify anything he wants is something that's well-known by folks in the
intelligence community. So from the beginning, this looked like it was probably a complaint that involved something other than the handling of
classified information.
Now, as a result of "The Washington Post" reporting, we understand that it concerns some sort of a promise. I think it's also helpful to think about
that in the context of the letter that the DNI's council provided to Congress, basically justifying the DNI's decision not to report the -- not
to forward the whistleblower report on to Congress.
In that letter, the council said that it involved a matter that could be privileged so that it certainly draws a spotlight on the president's
involvement, but he also said it was about something essentially that was not within the authority or the jurisdiction if you will, of the DNI.
So now, think about that promise. If and this is hypothetical, but if the whistleblower overheard a promise that could have constituted, say, a crime
or a criminal matter, that would technically not be an intelligence issue under the jurisdiction or under the authority of the DNI.
So it's unfortunate that we're left to, kind of, piece together, you know - - try to piece the puzzle together here with what little information we have.
But the fact that we know it was the president and we know it involved some sort of a promise to world leader is deeply concerning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: The whistleblower controversy raises serious legal and security questions.
CNN Intelligence and Security Analyst, Bob Baer joins me via Skype from Colorado. CNN Legal Analyst, Ellie Honig, is in New York.
Bob, the law requires that the Director of National Intelligence pass on a complaint if it's deemed urgent. This didn't happen in this case. What's
your reaction to it not happening?
ROBERT BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST (via Skype): Well, my reaction is, first of all, this sort of complaint is usually criminally
connected. Whistleblowers don't get to complain about policy. That's the purview of the president.
So clearly, what he heard on the phone, if in fact it was the phone, there was a crime or a crime proposed. He went to the inspector general, the
intelligence community which should be passed on the Justice Department for investigation and should have been passed to Congress.
I have never seen this before. I've been a whistleblower. That's why I resigned from the CIA. I went right to Congress. It was all taken care
of. So this is, again, breaking the system. The fact that Trump won't release this to Congress. You're essentially removing congressional
oversight.
[14:35:15]
GORANI: Yes. But can you make, Elie Honig, a legal case for not releasing this complaint to Congress, if the law requires you to do so?
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There's a legal --
GORANI: What's the legal argument here? Yes.
HONIG: Yes, there is a legal case to be made, Hala. So on its face, the law is, as Mr. Baer said, pretty straightforward. It says if the inspector
general deems a complaint to be urgent and credible, that it shall be provided to Congress. Shall be does not allow any wiggle room or
discretion. Shall means shall. It means you must.
Now, what DNI is saying, apparently after consulting with the Department of Justice is, yes, but the president is a little bit different, and there are
areas of our law where the president is somewhat above the law.
And what I think the argument that they've made already is the president is not subject to this. The president has very broad discretion over national
security, over what's classified and what's not, and Congress can't pass a law that overrides that.
And so, essentially, this is yet another indication of special treatment or privilege for the president. And ultimately, I think this will need to
come down to the courts to break --
GORANI: But what if the whistleblower -- what if the whistleblower overheard or was privy to a conversation where it is the belief of that
whistleblower that the president of the United States has made a promise to a foreign leader that was ethically wrong, Elie?
I mean at that point, how can the president override that? Because it's not the intelligence community's job to protect the president. Nor is it
the Justice Department's job to protect the president.
Shouldn't this, at some point, be analyzed then considered by outside parties, outside of the executive?
HONIG: Yes, I think that's exactly the argument that Adam Schiff -- Representative Adam Schiff is making. And that if he goes into court, he
will make to the courts. Because look, this statue is in place for a reason. It's in place to report and potentially to let Congress address
any issue of wrongdoing.
It might be criminal as Mr. Baer said. I'm not sure that it's necessarily criminal. There's other possibility you pointed one out. It could be an
ethical breach. It could be an act of disloyalty that's not necessarily criminal. But that is the reason for the statute.
And again, I think the response is, well, there are areas where the president does stand on separate legal standing in the criminal context
than an ordinary citizen. We don't know, for sure, but the Department of Justice believes you cannot indict a sitting president. There's certainly
a dispute about whether a sitting president can be subpoenaed in a criminal matter.
So there are other areas in law -- we like to say nobody's above the law. But matter of fact, in some areas, the president sometimes is. Now, I
think this administration has gone to the extreme in arguing that exception. But ultimately, this is a tough call.
GORANI: And Bob Baer, the complaint was reportedly filed August 12th. So if you look at the weeks preceding the complaint, five or so weeks, the
U.S. president spoke to five foreign leaders. Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin, the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, Imran Khan of Pakistan,
and the Emir of Qatar.
What does that tell you when you -- when you see that list of leaders?
BAER: Well, I mean, first of all, we don't know that those are the people we know he talked to. But we don't know who's -- he's on the phone with
somebody else. He's on a private phone all the time making side deals. We just simply don't know at this point.
I'd be very surprised that we have Vladimir Putin's phone tap. We certainly don't have the president's phone tapped. So whoever he was
calling, we still don't know at this point.
I mean, look, to bring this matter to the public like this, to the House Intelligence Committee, into the IG, and Department of Justice, it's got to
be something serious. I mean, I always suspect the worst and I suspect it's criminal because if we're merely ethical, I'm just ethical violations
every day, but it had to be something very serious for the IG to pass this on and to say it was urgent.
GORANI: Yes. And, Bob, you say you were a whistleblower yourself. Why wouldn't this whistleblower go straight to Congress?
BAER: Well, what they do is they can get you on a felony for mishandling classified information. If you take it out of a departmental area. It's
gotten a lot tighter and there's a long history of retaliation against whistleblowers.
So what they do now is they go to the IG first. Write up a crimes report which is sent on to the Department of Justice. And apparently, this hasn't
happened. Whoever this whistleblower is, he did it all right, but I guarantee you, Hala, he's going to pay a price for it.
[14:40:02]
GORANI: And I want to ask you that a little bit later about what price you believe this whistleblower, he or she. We don't know. It might be a
woman.
The acting director of National Intelligence, Joe Maguire, will be testifying on Capitol Hill.
Elie Honig, can the DNI be compelled to share details of the complaint?
HONIG: Yes. Ultimately, this is yet another showdown between the branches. Clearly, he's not going to get in front of the public and in
front of the Congress and disclose it. He's already made clear that the Executive Branch's position is, we will not and do not need to disclose
this.
And so we're in this, sort of, stare down. This showdown between Congress that says we get it under the law. The law is clear, we're entitled to it.
And now the executive branch, backed by the Department of Justice which I fear has become a bit of rubber stamp under Attorney General Bill Barr's
tenure is saying, no, we don't have to provide -- and providing justification. I don't know how well it holds up as to why not.
And so when you get in that kind of situation, the only real way to revolve it is to end up in front of the courts. So this could take quite a while
to resolve, but I do think it's likely that the details come out somehow or other. There's already enough out there that it's being reported in some
detail.
So we don't know the specifics right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if we found them out one way or another through journalism and reporting sometime
soon.
GORANI: Well, what's outstanding, Bob, is that Congress wasn't aware of this complaint until like all of us, they read the Washington Post
reporting on it, which is -- which is really incredible. But whoever shared this information with the journalists likely has more information
within the intelligence community about the nature of the complaint. Is that your belief, Bob?
BAER: Well, it's just a former intelligence specialist. It's somebody, clearly, I would imagine, in the White House that's quite disturbed by this
and has gone public. I mean the fact that --
GORANI: Because who has -- I'm sorry to jump in. Who has that kind of information in the intelligence community? Conversations that the
president has with foreign leaders? I mean, who would even have access to that?
BAER: National Security Agency usually, sometimes the CIA. They'd listen into foreign leader's phones. They've got the cell phone number and all of
a sudden, who pops up, the president of the United States. If in fact it was Trump.
And then they're obligated at that point to inform the IG, legal counsel, whatever agency they're in. This information is not disseminated. And if
it worked, just say U.S. person on the intelligence support, but normally it's not.
So it's the individual against the system, hoping that he can get through the Department of Justice. But we know the Department of Justice, Elie
said is rubber stamp this stuff, saying, no, it's not a crime. You know, more to come on this, but it sounds serious to me.
GORANI: And if the name of the whistleblower somehow leaked, Elie, can that whistleblower be subpoenaed?
HONIG: Sure. I mean, there are certain protections in place for a whistleblower. Typically, the law will protect a whistleblower against
retaliation by the agency, termination or other adverse action like that.
But I think technically, yes, someone could subpoena that whistleblower. Maybe the whistleblower is willing to come forward voluntarily without a
subpoena. And I think, as a prosecutor or a member of Congress, you'd want to be cognizant of that. I mean, the whole purpose of a whistleblower
statute is to protect the person's identity and security.
So I think what I would do if I was in, say, Adam Schiff's position, is let's talk to the whistleblower first. See if he or she is comfortable
coming forward and take it from there. But ultimately, push comes to shove, I don't see any legal prohibition on subpoenaing a whistleblower.
GORANI: And lastly, Bob, what happens to a whistleblower once he or she comes forward with a complaint internally to their career?
BAER: I can tell you because it happened to me. You're calling around looking for jobs. No one says a word. Saying, well, you know, you're not
really fit for that job and you find yourself on the margins in a job, dead end. There's nothing explicit. There's no complaints you can make.
You're still employed, but you, effectively, your career is destroyed.
GORANI: Bob Baer and Elie Honig, thanks so much to both of you. Really appreciate your time this evening.
HONIG: Thanks, Hala.
GORANI: Still to come, did the British prime minister lie to the queen? The U.K. Supreme Court is deliberating a decision that could define Brexit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:10]
GORANI: Let's go live to Winnipeg where the prime minister of Canada is addressing the blackface controversy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA: I deeply, deeply regret, darkening regardless of the context of the circumstances, is always
unacceptable because the racist history of blackface. I should have understood that then, and I never should have done it.
GORANI: All right. Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada there apologizing deeply, he says, for these images that have surfaced some years
later of him in dark face and racist makeup, especially he says considering the hurtful history of blackface. He called it. For people of color and
minorities. He switched to French there, so between French and English, obviously.
And now he's answering questions. Let's see if it's in English.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- ask you if the picture that emerged in the Time report was the only time you had done this. You left us with the
impression there was only one other incident. And since then, global news has released a video. We've seen, for sure, that there's at least a third
incident.
So exactly, how many times have you darkened your skin with makeup in an act that you have yourself described as racist?
TRUDEAU: I shared the moments that I recollected, but I recognize that it is something absolutely unacceptable to do. And I appreciate calling it
makeup, but it was blackface. And that is just not right. It is something that people who live with the kind of discrimination that far too many
people do because of the color of their skin or their history, or their origins, or their language, or their religion face on a regular basis.
And I didn't see that from the layers of privilege that I have. And for that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize.
GORANI: Justin Trudeau there switching to French. He answered the question posted to him by a reporter. How many times did you darken your
face? He responded that it was unacceptable, that he called it blackface. He said it wasn't right and hurtful to people who live with discrimination
every day because of the color of their skin or because of their religion or their minority status. And this is really a prime minister in damage
control mode. Yesterday on a plane, he was asked how many times he'd done it. He wasn't entirely clear about the answer.
Let's listen to the next question in English.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you allow them to run for the liberals in this election?
TRUDEAU: That's a question that we would look at every step of the way. I think examining the case by case situation, examining the actions that
someone has taken. I am certainly conscious in my political career as leader, and indeed as prime minister.
We've taken many concrete actions to fight against racism, to fight against intolerance, to fight against anti-black racism, specifically, to recognize
unconscious bias and systemic discrimination that exists in Canada and elsewhere. To work, to overcome, and recognize intersectionalities that
people live with in a way that so many of us simply cannot understand or appreciate the micro aggressions and the challenges being faced.
So even though we've moved forward in significant ways, as a government, what I did, the choices I made, hurt people -- hurt people who thought I
was an ally. I am an ally, but this is something that, obviously, I deeply regret and I never should have done.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: More than three times? Yes or no, sir? More than three times, yes or no?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Next question. Next question.
LARRY KUSCH, LEGISLATURE REPORTER, WINNIPEG FREE PRESS: Larry Kusch, Winnipeg Free Press. Mr. Trudeau, yesterday, you said that you didn't
realize in 2001 that it was wrong, brown face. But now you do realize it is wrong. And I'm wondering when it dawned on you that it is wrong?
[14:50:01]
TRUDEAU: I think it's difficult to become a politician where you spend as much time as do working hard to represent people. Working hard to get them
to know a community like the community I have the honor of representing, Papineau, where there is extraordinary diversity, extraordinary challenges,
and yes, extraordinary intolerance.
Even in a city like Montreal and a country like Canada, that people live with every day, and as I've learned to not just represent people, but to
fight for them. And to try and build a better community and a better society. I've learned every day that it is unacceptable to engage in this
sort of behavior.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ran in Papineau in 2008. And later when you ran for the leadership in 2015, presumably, there was a vetting process. I'm
wondering if you thought enough about this issue that you volunteered that to in the vetting process or did you ever declare that this had happened?
TRUDEAU: I never talked about this. Quite frankly, I was embarrassed. It was not something that represents the person I've become, the leader I try
to be, and it was really embarrassing.
TERESA WRIGHT, JOURNALIST, THE CANADIAN PRESS: Good afternoon, Mr. Trudeau, Teresa Wright from the Canadian Press. You said just a few
minutes ago that you told us last night on the plane that you were -- that of all of the different instances that you recalled, have you since been
made aware or remembered of other instances? And if so, how many?
TRUDEAU: I think it is obvious that this is something that was deeply regrettable. I am weary of being definitive about this because the recent
pictures that came out, I have not remembered. And I think the question is, how can you not remember that?
Fact is, I didn't understand how hurtful this is to people who live with discrimination every single day. I have always acknowledged that I come
from a place of privilege, but I now need to acknowledge that that comes with a massive blind spot.
I have dedicated my leadership and my service to Canada to try and counter intolerance and racism everywhere I can. But this has been a, personally,
a moment where I've had to reflect on the fact that wanting to do good, wanting to do better simply isn't enough, and you need to take
responsibility for mistakes that hurt people who thought I was an ally, who hopefully many of them still consider me an ally, even though this was a
terrible mistake.
[14:55:54]
GORANI: All right. Justin Trudeau is answering each question both in English and in French. This is interesting because he was asked three
times if he could remember any other pictures of him in blackface and he said, he hadn't remembered all of them because he says he comes from a
place of privilege and he needs to acknowledge that he also has a massive blind spot when it comes to how hurtful images like this are to people of
color and minorities.
So he really is engaging in a public, an embarrassing mea culpa here, especially having to explain why when he was asked pretty clearly yesterday
on a plane, are there other instances of images of you with dark face makeup? He didn't really come clean. Saying that today, he hadn't
remembered all of the instances.
He said he acknowledged several times that he had hurt people, that this is something that he deeply regrets, and that it is unacceptable, and that he
is going to have to work on this blind spot that he has, especially because, as he repeated several times, it is an honor to represent a
diverse country like Canada.
So there you have it. Justin Trudeau there apologizing to the nation and frankly to the world for these images that have surfaced of him wearing
dark face makeup.
Thanks for watching tonight. I'm Hala Gorani. Stay with CNN. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
