Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Interview with Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA); Interview with John Ghazvinian of University of PA.; Interview with State Sen. Marlon Kimpson (D-SC). Aired 10:30-11a ET
Aired January 06, 2020 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:30:12]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Congress, returning to Washington from the holiday recess, facing two crises, one abroad, one at home.
The first, impeachment: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham says that he will push to change impeachment rules so the Senate can hold a trial without the articles of impeachment that Nancy Pelosi has not yet transmitted.
And a major foreign policy matter, growing fears over the escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Growing threats, as well.
With me now, Republican Congressman Mike Johnson of Louisiana. Congressman, thanks for taking the time this morning.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Hey, Jim. Great -- thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: First, on impeachment -- because of course you've been mentioned as possibly part of the team for the president in a Senate trial -- you told me last month that on the question of the president's involvement in holding military assistance from Ukraine, in your words, that was their conjecture and speculation that his advisors -- who testified under oath to this -- and there's only one direct witness, and that's Sondland, to Trump's involvement.
Now we have, since then, e-mails, unredacted documents coming out -- I'll just quote from one -- "clear direction from the president, POTUS to continue to hold." That from an OMB official to a DOD official. I just wonder now, will you grant that the president was involved in this?
JOHNSON: Well, I think the president made pretty clear what his intentions were, and we talked about it in the detail over the last several weeks. And it was covered in detail in our 14-hour House Judiciary Committee meeting and everywhere else.
The president was concerned about corruption overseas, he was concerned about Ukraine -- that was listed as the top three most corrupt nation in the world -- and --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JOHNSON: -- he wanted to make sure that American assets, taxpayer dollars are spent wisely overseas.
SCIUTTO: Right.
JOHNSON: So --
SCIUTTO: But he did it. You'll grant, now, that the president was involved in this, that it was not just conjecture and speculation on the part of senior officials in the State Department and Defense Department?
JOHNSON: Well, no. What we're talking about in the conjecture and speculation is the motivation behind it. And what it was -- what the purpose was. The president's been very clear from the very beginning about this, that he wanted to make sure that those dollars weren't squandered overseas.
And in his mind, the mens rea -- as we say in the law -- the intent behind the supposed offender (ph) was not criminal or -- had no ulterior motive whatsoever, he was doing exactly what he said on the campaign trail and what he's said consistently for years, that he's concerned about the use of our money overseas. And he wanted to be a good steward of that, he wanted to make sure --
SCIUTTO: Even --
JOHNSON: -- that Zelensky --
SCIUTTO: Even though the -- just as a practical matter, for folks at home who've heard a lot about this -- before we go on to Iran -- even as the concern about Ukraine corruption only started once Joe Biden was running for president, because he was president for a good two and a half years. And, by the way, the Defense Department certified that aid and the Ukraine as fighting corruption in May of last year. So the -- so the sudden interest in corruption in Ukraine, based on what?
JOHNSON: Well, Zelensky ran as a reformer. He ran on a Trump-like platform, he was going to drain the swamp, so to speak, in Ukraine. And it needed draining. The president was very dialed in, keyed in, focused on that and he wanted to make sure Zelensky was legitimate when he was --
(CROSSTALK)
SCIUTTO: OK. Well, he didn't. As you know, he didn't bring that up in his first call with Zelensky even though the White House said that he did.
But let's move on to Iran. The president says he may discuss releasing the Iran intelligence that led to the killing of Soleimani. He has not done that yet. As you know, the president has repeatedly dismissed U.S. intel agencies and U.S. intelligence, not just on Russian interference int he 2016 election, but regarding Iran, intel agencies repeatedly assessed that Iran had been complying with the nuclear deal, something that the president dismissed in the past.
I just wonder, why should Americans who are listening at home accept, today, intelligence from the same intelligence agencies that the president has disparaged in the past? Why should they believe this intelligence -- I'm just asking -- given that the president has so frequently dismissed and disparaged intelligence?
JOHNSON: I think you can have confidence in our intelligence community and their assessment of the situation on the ground. As a member of Congress, we get briefings periodically from the Pentagon, top military officials about the situation and the threat assessment around the world. They always and consistently -- since I've been in Congress -- have listed Iran in the top two or three threats.
SCIUTTO: Right.
JOHNSON: They have been effectively aggressors against the U.S. and our allies openly for 40 --
SCIUTTO: I know that.
JOHNSON: -- years.
(CROSSTALK)
SCIUTTO: I'm just asking, I mean, you bought the intelligence, but the president hasn't. I'm just asking why he's buying this intelligence and why should Americans buy it, in effect, without question, given that the president has repeatedly said you can't trust the intelligence or the intelligence agencies. Poses a problem, does it not?
JOHNSON: Well, this is something that, you know, actions speak for themselves. Everyone can see with their own eyes what's happened here. Of course, at the top levels, the classified levels of information, there's deeper insight, obviously. The secretary of state's relied upon that, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have presented all this information, and I think all of us can see it.
[10:35:12]
Look, if you -- if you look at what Soleimani has been involved in, I mean, he was effectively the ringleader of the -- the --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
JOHNSON: -- exportation of terrorism around that region and around the world. And he openly said, in the last couple of weeks, that he wanted to attack the U.S. and its allies. I mean, this guy was at the center of all of that --
SCIUTTO: I get it.
JOHNSON: -- responsible for the murder of thousands of people and hundreds of Americans.
And remember that they attacked the U.S. embassy, they took over the --
SCIUTTO: I'm aware. I'm not -- trust me, I'm not defending the guy, I'm just talking about the consequences --
JOHNSON: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- of the president, repeatingly attacking the intelligence agencies.
I do want to ask you about the president's repeated threat now to attack cultural sites in Iran. He tweeted it, and then last night, as he returned, he again said we should be able to do this. This is -- it's a war crime, it's certainly against the laws of war and I've spoken to people inside the Pentagon today who say it's against the laws of war.
Do you condemn the president's threat to attack cultural sites and in effect flout international law on this?
JOHNSON: I agree with what Secretary of State Pompeo said clearly on multiple programs yesterday, that we are going to to follow international law, we always have and we always will. That was his quote. We believe in that.
I do support the president talking tough and acting tough. And, look, Iran, these are not rational people. This is an evil regime. They have -- they have avowed to attack the U.S. and its allies. And a strong America is good for the whole world. I believe in the doctrine of maintaining peace through our strength. And if you show weakness, it invites aggression.
I think the president understands that doctrine very clearly, and he is -- he is talking tough because these times call for that. And I don't think we should be second-guessing and undermining our own president.
As far as Congress is concerned, Jim, I think we need to be more united than ever because we're facing a serious aggressor over there and we have to stand together.
SCIUTTO: We'll see the consequences of it in the coming weeks and months. Congressman Mike Johnson, thanks very much.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Jim.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Ahead for us, Customs and Border Protection denying reports of Iranian-Americans being detained and refused entry into the United States.
This as one Iranian-American says he was subjected to additional questioning when he arrived back in the United States. We'll talk to him about that. And also he happens to be a historian on Iran, we'll talk to him about the president's threat to attack those cultural sites, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [10:42:02]
SCIUTTO: Customs and Border Protection is denying reports that Iranian-Americans are being detained and even refused entry into this country. The denial comes after several social media posts this weekend claimed that people were being held, in particular at the Canadian border.
HARLOW: Historian John Ghazvinian says he was pulled aside for additional questioning yesterday when he flew back to New York.
TEXT: John Ghazvinian: Well, just landed at JFK and -- no surprise -- got taken to the special side room and got asked (among other things) how I feel about the situation with Iran. I wanted to be like: My book comes out in September, preorder now on amazon
HARLOW: He tweeted, quote, "Well, just landed at JFK and -- no surprise -- got taken to the special side room and got asked (among other things) how I feel about the situation with Iran."
SCIUTTO: We're joined now by John Ghazvinian, interim director of the Middle East Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Thanks so much for taking the time this morning. Just tell us simply, what happened and, in your experience coming in and out of the country, has something like this ever happened before?
JOHN GHAZVINIAN, INTERIM DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST CENTER AT UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Good morning. Yes, no, this was the first time I've been asked to go into secondary questioning. Really wasn't a big deal, and I sort of want to emphasize that. I would have to say I was very surprised by how much attention my tweet got. I had intended it as a relatively lighthearted tweet.
The questioning was very courteous, very polite, very friendly. It only took a few minutes. You know, I'm a U.S. citizen, I never felt threatened or aggressed against in any particular way. It was just a little bit surprising to be asked my opinion about the situation in Iran. That seemed like a slightly unusual question, so I sent a sort of lighthearted tweet about it afterwards. I hadn't expected it to get anything like the kind of attention it's received.
SCIUTTO: That --
(CROSSTALK)
HARLOW: Given the fact that --
SCIUTTO: Yes, that is -- for a Customs agent to ask you your opinion about a political situation is something, though, it's not --
HARLOW: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- it's not nothing.
HARLOW: Yes, no. It's notable. And given your expertise as a historian of U.S.-Iranian relations, it -- help the American people understand the significance of the president not only threatening to strike Iranian cultural sites, in defiance of the U.N. resolution that the U.S. is a signatory to, but doubling down on it and essentially saying they can kill our people and we can't attack their cultural sites? You know, he doesn't buy that. What would that be equivalent to Iran targeting in the United States?
GHAZVINIAN: It's a very difficult exact comparison to make because, of course, American history and Iranian history --
HARLOW: Exactly.
GHAZVINIAN: -- are very different, and cultural sites mean very different things in different contexts. Many of your viewers will be familiar with the international organization UNESCO, which lists thousands of world heritage sites all around the world. There are many of them in the United States, places like, you know, the Grand Canyon or the -- you know, just sort of sites of both historical and natural significance in the U.S. Iran has many, many of these as well.
It's a very unusual threat to be making. it's definitely unprecedented. It's extremely disturbing. I think this is not a -- this is one of these moments where I think we have to step back from some of the heated partisan discussions that we tend to have about these things. This isn't about whether you're for Trump or against Trump.
[10:45:01]
This is about an American president threatening to deliberately target sites of international significance. This is not just about targeting Iran. Anyone who's ever been to Iran or looked at pictures of some of these places online will appreciate --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
GHAZVINIAN: -- I mean, Iran has one of the world's richest and oldest civilizations. The Persian Empire was the first -- the world's first really great massive empire. I mean, it, at one point, ruled over half the world's population. And there are some extraordinary historical sites in beautiful places.
Our president's very fond of using the world "beautiful," and that's a word that really applies to a lot of these historical sites in Iran. These sites don't belong to Iran, they belong to the world. That's what you're threatening. And it's an unusual -- it's a very unusual thing to say.
I mean, look, let's be honest, it's not -- it's not an excessive comparison to make, but we have to remember, when we think of deliberate targeting of cultural and historical monuments, we think of ISIS, we think --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
GHAZVINIAN: -- of Palmyra in Syria, we think of the Taliban and the Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. We don't think of an American president. It seems well beneath the dignity of the United States.
SCIUTTO: I remember, I mean, those ancient sites, blown up by ISIS in Syria --
HARLOW: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- you mentioned Palmyra. I mean, these were -- these were moments, a loss of history. And I've been to Persepolis in Iran. I mean, it's like visiting the Acropolis. It's incredible.
GHAZVINIAN: It's a beautiful place.
HARLOW: John Ghazvinian, thank you very, very much for being here. We appreciate it.
GHAZVINIAN: Of course. My pleasure (ph).
HARLOW: Straight ahead, two new endorsements in the 2020 Democratic race for the White House. How could it shake up the field? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:51:05]
HARLOW: All right, welcome back. We're one way -- one week away, I should say, from the last presidential debate -- Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses. Elizabeth Warren this morning, picking up a major endorsement.
Days after he dropped out of the race, former 2020 hopeful Julian Castro announced he is backing the Massachusetts senator.
In the meantime, Joe Biden has secured a key endorsement in South Carolina today. State Senator Marlon Kimpson became the 15th Democratic state lawmaker, the 11th member of the legislative Black Caucus to endorse the former vice president, and he joins me now.
Good morning. Thanks for being with us.
STATE SEN. MARLON KIMPSON (D-SC): Good morning, Poppy.
HARLOW: It has been coveted by many to have your endorsement, the vice president now has it. But you hosted events, you've spent a lot of time, sir, with Cory Booker, with Joe Biden, with Elizabeth Warren, with Pete Buttigieg. Can you tell me what it was that sort of tipped the scale for you in favor of Biden?
KIMPSON: Joe Biden appeals to the broadest base of my constituency. I represent a Senate district that is predominantly African-American. But in this town hall meeting -- and I've hosted several, as you correctly noted --
HARLOW: Yes.
KIMPSON: -- we had a broad base and coalition of members from all cross-sections of the community. I think his experience is one of the main reasons why people feel very comfortable with the vice president, particularly in times like these.
And so I applaud all of the candidates, any of which I could support. But at the end of the day, this is an election about winning. And I think Joe --
HARLOW: You know --
KIMPSON: -- Biden is best positioned to do that.
HARLOW: -- you said, in late November -- let me quote -- "The question is, can he stay on track and not make any huge mistakes?" What do you think, sir, is Joe Biden's Achilles' heel? Meaning what is his greatest weakness?
KIMPSON: Well, obviously, with 24-7 news cycle, particularly social media, we make a lot of simple misspeak of a gaffe. But, quite frankly, we are in dangerous times. And if you look at the man throughout his career, he has been consistent, he's been steady and I think that's what we need in a leader --
HARLOW: He --
KIMPSON: -- and so -- so, yes, yes, he may be prone to making a misstatement, but I don't think a few misstatements ruin the trajectory or the level of experience and record you've experienced.
We've got a hymn that we sing in church, "May the Work I've Done Speak for Me." Joe Biden's work has spoken volumes, and I think the people understand that.
HARLOW: You mentioned consistency. There is one area where he has not been consistent. He changed his opinion, obviously after voting in favor to authorize war in Iraq.
Fellow Democratic presidential nominee Pete Buttigieg criticized Biden's support for the Iraq War, again just a few days ago, saying that Biden had, quote, "supported the worst foreign policy decision made by the United States in my lifetime."
And I am interested, sir, in what you would say to voters in your state right now who have concerns, given the international crisis the U.S. now faces with Iran, the potential for war. Should they be concerned that Joe Biden did vote to authorize military force in the war in Iraq? And it wasn't until 2005 when he said it was a mistake.
KIMPSON: Well, the question is how he came about making that decision. Currently, we have a president who decides based on emotion and his responses when he wakes up in the morning, and lets the world know by Twitter.
[10:55:12]
Joe Biden, who was a respected member of the Armed Services Committee, has a track record. He can explain how he voted in favor of that war, but he's big enough to admit, in hindsight, it was a bad decision. And I think that is an essential characteristic. Won't be the first
mistake that any president makes, but the essential characteristic is someone who can be honest with the American people. We always, as an elected official or members of the legislature, have new information. And so we look at the process, the strategy, the level of comfort with -- based on the intelligence when we're dealing with issues that materialize in our country every day. So it doesn't really concern me.
Having said that, I do respect the members of the armed services. In fact, Vice President Biden had several endorse him over the weekend. And it is significant that members who have served are now beginning to support --
HARLOW: Yes.
KIMPSON: -- Vice President Biden.
(CROSSTALK)
KIMPSON: In times like -- in times like these we need a trusted, confident leader.
HARLOW: State Senator of South Carolina Marlon Kimpson, it's nice to have you on this morning. Thanks for joining us.
SCIUTTO: We're following headlines here at home, impeachment coming, crisis abroad. Stay with us, we'll have more right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
