Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Source Says, Trump Irate At Outgoing Intel Chief After Lawmakers Briefed Russia Prefers Trump Be Re-Elected; Democratic Candidates Make Final Pitch Ahead Of Nevada Caucuses. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired February 21, 2020 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: After the briefing, the backlash. Top intel officials warn lawmakers that Russia is at it again trying to interfere in the 2020 election in an effort to help the president get re-elected. And we're learning the president was irate with his acting spy chief for that briefing that he later replaced him with a loyalist, as we know, a loyalist with no intel experience.

We're also learning that the president was upset that he had to learn about this after the fact from his ally, Devin Nunes, on the Intel Committee.

Our Dana Bash is here and has extensive new reporting on all of this this morning.

So, good morning.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

HARLOW: For our viewers just tuning in and learning about this, they know that the intel chief is on the way out. Now, they know the president is very upset that the relevant committee was even briefed on any of this.

BASH: Right. And what we're talking about is a meeting which we already knew from reporting last night, very explosive. Last week, where the person responsible for election security in the Intelligence Community went to the relevant committee, House Intelligence Committee, to give an update on what's going on with interference in the 2020 election as we speak, real-time. And I'm told by a source familiar with the meeting that it was very comprehensive but that the briefer twice said that their observation is that Russia had a preference for Donald Trump.

Now, I'm told that the briefer was not ambiguous about that, that the Kremlin had a preference for the president, but this person who understands the complexities and the kind of how intelligence is presented made clear that this is an assessment, and it is always an assessment, it is never clear cut. It's based on the intelligence and the data that they have gathered. On that note, I'm told that Republicans were shell-shocked, very upset to here that being delivered as bluntly as it apparently was. Will Hurd, who, in a previous life, was an intelligence officer himself, started to ask questions like can you tell us what reports gave you the information that led you to the assessment, and the answer was that they did not have the underlying data with them, they just had the assessment.

HARLOW: So that will spark questions for I think everyone at home, how can you make an assessment without the underlying data that exists, the briefer didn't have access to it.

BASH: Right. It's just that she didn't bring it with her there.

HARLOW: Sure. But I'm assuming Democrats and Republicans are going to want to see that they can of that now in a classified setting.

BASH: Yes, exactly. So I'm told that that discussion happened real- time during the meeting last week, that Republicans, as they said, were upset, Democrats said, okay, well, this is obviously incredibly controversial and very sensitive, so we need to see the underlying data, not just the assessment that you're presenting to us today.

HARLOW: Will they?

BASH: We'll see. I mean, you know, they certainly hope to get it, you know. Part of what's going on here is that there is also very, very, very real -- there's a lot of tension, I think that's an understatement, between the Intelligence Community and this key committee.

But, frankly, if the people who have seen some of the raw data, Jake Tapper is talking to sources familiar with it, believe that it is not as clear cut as perhaps it was presented to people on the Hill, it would be in the interest of the administration to give that information.

HARLOW: It would. The story line here, the arc is remarkable, just the timeline, the meeting happens last week, and this committee is informed before the president is informed. But they're the relevant committee. By law they have to be informed of this stuff.

Devin Nunes, the president's staunch ally, Republican on this committee, then takes it to the president, who is then upset with Maguire. Maguire is out as acting DNI. His term is coming up. And Grenell, a loyalist, is in, I mean, just weaving that all together.

BASH: Right. And the fact is that this is all -- when you're talking about the DNI, the director of National Intelligence, this is all on a temporary basis. We're not even talking about somebody who is Senate- confirmed, which is the way the process is supposed to work.

The president -- he didn't get rid of anybody, but it's especially easy when it's somebody who is acting and he's just going to bring somebody else acting in. One other thing I wanted to add to what happened in this briefing, I'm told, is that some of the president's staunchest allies in the House were incredulous. And they said, well, wait a second, you know, what we see is the president standing up to Russia and being as hard on Russia as any president before, to which Democrats said, okay, you know, now we're delving into the partisan here.

That's not what we should be doing right here, right now, which is why we need to take a breath, get the information, get the underlying assessment. But it just goes to show how, in the words of the source I talked to, how hot, heated this was.

HARLOW: And how Russia reads all of that, including the president's response and all this infighting on the committee about something that is so based in fact and important to the security of our next election.

[10:05:03]

Dana, thank you, great reporting, I appreciate it.

Let's talk about this with someone who is in the room, Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. Of course, he sits on the Intelligence Committee.

So, look, I mean, this is a classified briefing. I get that. I also know our reporting, The Washington Post's reporting, The New York Times' reporting on this. So what can you share with me about how you saw that meeting go down?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): I can't comment on the specifics of the briefing, but what I can say is that, unfortunately, I think folks on the other side still have not internalized some of the conclusions from 2016, namely that the Russians interfered in that election on the president's behalf, and ever since then members of the Intelligence Community have uniformly said that the Russians are planning to interfere in our 2020 elections.

And I think that they're under a lot of pressure from their president to somehow change the narrative about 2016 and also to say that the Russians may not be interfering in the current elections. And that's a big problem because we have to prevent them from doing so.

HARLOW: Okay. I understand you can't share any of the classified information with us. But you can shed light on the response from your colleagues. Who got upset in that briefing and why?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Again, I can't get into the specifics of what they said or their responses. But, again, what I can say is that, you know, after this briefing, it appears, based on reports, that the president is trying to interfere in the Intelligence Community's assessment of what's going on with regard to the Russian threat. And that's precisely what we have to guard against. We can't have the president or anyone interfering in their assessment because it cannot be a political process. They have to be truth tellers in this.

HARLOW: Well, I mean, that's quite an allegation. So what are you going to do about it?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think, obviously, there is going to be further discussions going forward. I think that, you know, I don't want to get ahead of Chairman Schiff, but he definitely is this type of person that will follow up to try to make sure that we protect the integrity of our elections.

Again, it's not about whether the Russians are going to help one side or the other, it's that they're going to interfere, not only the Russians, but potentially other adversaries. And so we have to do everything we can on both sides to unify against them.

HARLOW: Let me get your take on some reporting that is different from what The Times and The Washington Post put out there that Jake Tapper got. And that is from a security official within the administration who says that Shelby Pierson, who's the person who came in and briefed you guys, may have mischaracterized the intelligence that Russia had developed a preference for the president a little bit.

Let me quote from that. Quote, a more reasonable in interpretation, this official says, of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the president is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker, but not that they prefer him over Senator Sanders or Mayor Buttigieg or anyone else. Was that your read?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Again, I can't comment on the specifics of what she said on those topics. However, what we do know is that the reason why the Russians interfered in 2016 to try to get Trump elected as president is because they viewed him as a dealmaker, someone that they could do business with.

And as you can see from the Helsinki Summit, he's also somebody that they view that's favorable to them because he would rather credit Vladimir Putin's information over the Intelligence Community's information about the Russians. And so that is in part why they wanted to help him in 2016. We just have to make sure at this point that they just don't get involved.

Here in Illinois, by the way, Poppy, we were on the frontlines of the Russian attack on the 2016 elections because they actually viewed tens of thousands of Illinois voter records, they fished for it and they got it. And so we're especially sensitive about this topic, and I hear about this at town hall meetings all the time.

HARLOW: Well, look, there are things that have been put forward that could help at least those who support it, they could help against this, like the Shield Act, for example.

Let me get your read on The New York Times reporting. Part of what struck me at the end of the report last night was that they said that, and I quote here, since the impeachment inquiry, tensions have risen between the ODNI and the committee as officials navigate the disputes, the intelligence agencies have slowed the amount of material they provide the House. Is that true? [10:10:00]

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I know that during the impeachment inquiry and then subsequently there was a concern about this, and this goes again to that question that is arising a lot of people's minds which is, is the Intelligence Community being affected by the pressure that President Trump is putting on the entire administration to almost whitewash Russian involvement, not only in 2016, but potentially 2020.

And you hear from my colleagues on the other side, these displays of support for the president's theories about how maybe the Ukrainians interfered in 2016, not the Russians. And why would the Russians want to interfere at all? And those types of displays of support for the president's theories are not only unhelpful but they hurt our ability to prevent the Russians from interfering again.

HARLOW: I will says, there are some Republican members of Congress who called the president on that and said that's just not true, Mr. President, which is important to have facts there.

Congressman Krishnamoorthi, thanks for joining me this morning.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much. Thank you.

HARLOW: Okay, so what would Russian election meddling in 2020 in the election, what would it look like? Okay. We know it's happening. We're going to take a closer look this hour at the Kremlin's playbook.

Also, candidates making that last minute pitch before the Nevada caucuses tomorrow, this as we learn some of the Democratic candidates strapped for cash.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

HARLOW: 2020 Democratic candidates are making one last push ahead of the Nevada caucuses tomorrow. The epicenter of those final pitches is Las Vegas, where five Democrats and the president will hold events throughout the day.

We've got our pair of our correspondents here, Arlette Saenz and Kyung Lah. Good morning, ladies.

Arlette, let me begin with you. What's the final push here? What's the final message? I know Warren is feeling good after the debate. She's got a lot more money now. What is she saying? What are the others saying?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, most of the Democratic contenders have been on the ground here in Nevada for the past week, making their final pitch to voters. And Bernie Sanders still remains the frontrunner nationally and he is hoping for a strong finish here. You'll remember back in 2016, he did quite well winning the majority of Latino Democratic caucus-goers in the state. And he is hoping for a repeat of that to help power his support here in the state tomorrow.

Now, Elizabeth Warren has also been campaigning hard here in Nevada. And she has taken aim at Michael Bloomberg with forceful criticism of the former New York City mayor, who isn't even competing here in the State of Nevada. That is a long-term strategy looking ahead beyond Nevada and into those Super Tuesday contests.

And take a listen to one of her critiques that came at the CNN town hall last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I used to teach contract law and I thought I would make this easy.

I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it, I'll text it, sign it, and then the women or men will be free to speak and tell their own stories.

If he's not willing to remove those gags and let those women and maybe those men talk, then he is disqualified from being president of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: Now, another candidate hoping for a strong finish here is Joe Biden. After that pair of disappointing losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, he is really stressing his support from a diverse group of voters. He's been focusing a lot this week on courting the African- American vote, and yesterday, he picked up a key endorsement from a Hispanic Political group called the Latino Victory Fund.

He is hoping that he can -- that a win -- that a strong finish here could propel him into states like South Carolina and Super Tuesday. And don't forget, nearly 75,000 Nevadans have already cast their early ballots, so we'll see how that shakes out tomorrow.

HARLOW: And the Biden team feels good about how they think they're doing with the early votes. We'll see how it does shake out.

Kyung, I'm fascinated by the voices you've been hearing from, the union workers, right, and union leadership, because the Nevada Culinary Union, all powerful, it helped Obama so much win the state in 2008, did not endorse -- Biden didn't get it, no one got it this year.

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, no one got it. And so that's a little confusing for these members on exactly which way they should go, but one thing that is clear and was put out on a score card is the union does not support Bernie Sanders and his Medicare-for-all plan. On the line, where it says Bernie Sanders, they say, a vote for Bernie

Sanders would, quote, end culinary healthcare.

Now, what does that mean to those 60,000 union members if you include their families, 135,000, 140,000 people here, potential voters in the state of Nevada, what it means is that they would lose their healthcare, healthcare that they fought for, says the union. They fought these casino workers, casino owners, over many, many years, over many contracts, it is healthcare that is considered Cadillac Care in this state, a lot of these union workers love it.

And so as we spent time with these union workers and we asked them, where do you stand, what do you think about the candidates, we heard suspicion from them, especially the older union workers when it came to Bernie Sanders.

[10:20:01]

Listen to what a few of them told us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUZANNE POQUIZ, UNION MEMBER: I'm scared because if he ends that, where are we going to go?

GWYN BROTHERNS, UNION MEMBER: I'm not sure about the Medicare-for- all, if that's a good idea or not. It sounds good. It always sounds good, but I'm not sure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAH: So that suspicion could truly affect the turnout for any potential support for Bernie Sanders.

One thing we should add, Poppy, is that the union though is not monolithic, and we did speak to younger workers who say they'd still consider Bernie Sanders despite this. Poppy?

HARLOW: That's a very good point. And he's banking on that young vote. Thank you, ladies, both, very, very much, Kyung, Arlette. A big day tomorrow, we'll see how it goes. Our special coverage of the Nevada caucuses starts tomorrow afternoon 2:00 Eastern only right here on CNN.

Ahead, nine months before voters hit the polls, obviously, outside of the primary, but in the general election, and that leaves Russia nine months to influence it. How are they doing it? We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

HARLOW: Welcome back.

This morning, we are learning that an Intelligence Community briefer told lawmakers, this is Dana Bash's reporting, told lawmakers in that House briefing last week, twice, that not only is Russia interfering in the 2020 election, but doing so with a preference for Donald Trump's re-election. But some of the president's Republican allies and Congress rejecting that notion and parroting the president's talking point that no other president has been tougher on Russia. Joining me now to talk about the big picture, what this all means, CNN National Security Analyst Shawn Turner, he's a former Director of Communications for U.S. National Intelligence.

Shawn, very good to have you. Help us understand what it means that the president was so upset that Shelby Pierson briefed the House Intelligence Community and sent this message to them, based on their underlying intelligence, how he reacted versus how other presidents have reacted in the past when they had to get intelligence reports.

SHAWN TURNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. Well, Poppy, you know, it's important for people to understand that every intelligence leader, including the former directors of National Intelligence understand that it is their responsibility to be relentless in gathering and providing the president with the intelligence that he needs to protect his country. You know, and in this case, we have a situation wherein you have intelligence briefers who went in to gift president the facts.

And I'll tell you what should never be the case in that scenario, is it should never be the case that those intelligence briefers have to stop and consider whether or not the intelligence information that they're providing is somehow going to offend or be taken personal by the president.

I spent more than 25 years in government working under both Republican and Democrat presidents and I can tell you that every single one of those presidents said to the Intelligence Community, give me the facts, give them to me straight so that I can do my job.

Our current president is basically saying to the Intelligence Community, don't give me any facts that hurt my feelings. And that is -- that puts all of us at risk because we need the president to take this information in and to act on it so that we can protect our election process.

HARLOW: So Joseph Maguire, who, you know, has been acting DNI, will now be out, and we know that the president that this meeting even happened, that Congress was briefed before he was briefed on this. And in his place is a staunch supporter of the president with no intelligence experience, the current ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell. Talk about what you think is not getting covered enough in terms of what he will oversee in this role.

TURNER: Yes. Well, I think anytime the president appoints a leader of a government agency, what we know about that individual tells us a lot about what the president's priorities are and what his expectations are of that agency.

So we look at Gr. Grenell. And what do we know about Mr. Grenell? Well, we know that, as you pointed out, he has little to no intelligence experience, he has never led a major organization, a large organization or a major bureaucracy. And we know he was one of the president's accolades, he's a fierce supporter.

So what that tells me is that the president is not interested in appointing a strong intelligence leader to make sure that he's getting the best possible intelligence. It tells me he's looking for someone to kind of provide some oversight of the agency as it relates to him and his administration and his re-election.

Look, this is -- the intelligence professionals are going to continue to do their job and do their job to the best of their ability. However, when you have people like Mr. Grenell and others who are going in who are not interested and making sure that the president has the best intelligence that he can possibly have, that puts the Intelligence Community in a very difficult position, puts all of us at risk. And I think it's something that members of Congress are going to have to watch very closely.

And I would just add, Poppy, that with regard to members of Congress, it is really startling to hear that members of Congress were getting upset over this briefing and getting this intelligence.

There is a reason that there are no press briefing rooms in any intelligence agency in the country, and that's because it's the Intelligence Community's responsibility to get the intelligence to lawmakers and to the president and for them to keep us informed, keep the public informed. But if they're not open to getting that information, then we are all going to be in the dark in terms of the threats we face.

[10:30:05]