Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Midnight Deadline for DHS Shutdown; Attorney General Speaks Out on Terror; Interview with Rep. Steve King; ISIS Thugs Destroy Ancient Art; What's Next for Strained U.S.-Israel Relations?

Aired February 27, 2015 - 07:00   ET

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

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And, of course, there's some serious implications in all of this. TSA, border security, the Secret Service, thousands of employees could go without pay for weeks depending on how long this lasts. But the, the thinking is up on Capitol Hill, guys, that this will get done and Ivan mentioned to House Speaker Boehner that Chris Cuomo had his own questions on all of this.

This was the response that he gave to us on that. Just want to put it out there.

Are we going to play that? No sound byte. Well, it was -- that was the kissing, I was going to put it up there for you, Chris, but we decided not to do it, so there you go. And we'll see what happens what happens later. There it is, there it is. That was for Chris Cuomo right there.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much. I like my metaphors so much, I'll repeat it, Jim.

ACOSTA: There you go.

CUOMO: A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh, and the next phrase in the song and the title from Louis Armstrong "As Time Goes By." The metaphor.

ACOSTA: I'm turning the cheek on this one, I think.

CUOMO: That's very good, too.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Wow.

CUOMO: All right, Jim. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: You guys done yet?

CUOMO: Alisyn, get me out of this.

CAMEROTA: You're really running with that one. Thanks so much, guys.

Well, as he prepares to leave office, Attorney General Eric Holder weighing in on the fight against terrorism. CNN's Pamela Brown spoke with Holder. She joins us now. Pamela, what did he say? PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Alisyn.

We sat down with Eric Holder just before he leaves his post as attorney general. It was a ten-minute interview. And we covered a range of topics, and it was really interesting hearing his perspective on terrorism, counterterrorism efforts. And also, how the U.S. government should bring Jihadi John, one of America's most wanted terrorists, to justice. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ERIC HOLDER, OUTGOING ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have shown that it doesn't matter how long it takes. It doesn't matter where you are. We'll find you, we'll hunt you down, and we will hold you accountable.

BROWN: But in a war zone like Syria, can you really do that?

HOLDER: Whether it's through the use of our military, through the use of our law enforcement capacity, if you harm Americans, it is the sworn duty of every person in the executive branch to find you and hold you accountable.

BROWN: Do you think that we would go as far as sending in our U.S. troops to find him and hunt him down?

HOLDER: I wouldn't put anything off the table. You know, we will do whatever we have to do to hold people accountable and to protect our fellow citizens.

BROWN: Do you think it's inevitable that we're going to see an ISIS- related attack on U.S. soil?

HOLDER: I don't think there's anything inevitable about it, but I certainly think it is certainly something we need to be concerned about.

BROWN: So you feel like we're capable, we have the tools that we need to combat the problem?

HOLDER: We have been through hard times. There may be incidents that we'll have to deal with in the future. We'll do the best we can to prevent them. But should something happen, we should, you know, put them in the appropriate context.

BROWN: When you say incidents in the future, you mean other terrorist attacks like what we saw in Boston?

HOLDER: It is the thing that keeps me up at night. Worrying about those lone wolves, those one or two people who for whatever reason decide to do something like we saw in Boston. Other threats that we have, that we have prevented. It's something that gives me -- gives me great concern.

BROWN: People going through airports, you go through body scanners. A lot of security, you don't have the same kind of security at malls. As the nation's top law enforcement official, would you recommend more security at easy targets like malls? HOLDER: I think it would be the responsible thing for the operators

of these malls to increase their capabilities when it comes to keeping people safe, who are going just about their normal everyday lives.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: So there we heard Eric Holder saying that there should be increased security at malls in the wake of the al-Shabaab video, the terrorist group based in Somalia, asking for followers to launch attacks at U.S.-based malls.

But as we heard there, Holder stopped short of saying that malls should employ body scanners like those used at airports. He said there are a variety of ways you can increase security, such as increasing the presence of security guards at places like malls.

Back to you.

CUOMO: Pamela, good interview. The threat all too obvious.

Let's bring in Congressman Steve King, Republican from Iowa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Congressman, thank you for joining us. Am I right in assuming that you are here today to apologize for connecting our national security to a political fight with Barack Obama?

REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: No. That wouldn't be correct, Chris. I'm here to talk to you about the strategy that's been going on here as the president has violated the Constitution, conducted himself in a lawless fashion, decided he would eliminate laws that were written by Congress and signed by a previous president; make up his own laws; go to Chicago and give a speech and say, "I changed the law."

Our Founding Fathers expected and, in fact, I believe history commands us do keep our oath to support and defend the Constitution, especially when the president violates his, Chris.

CUOMO: Congressman, even if you are 100 percent right about all of those points, why tie stopping those orders to potentially the most vital agency that we have, especially now, when you have James Comey, the FBI director, saying he's got active cases in all 50 states? Why mess with the national security?

KING: Well, I wanted to use the entire omnibus bill as leverage and bring this whole thing together and have it finish back December 11. That was -- that was my strategy. I didn't get my strategy, so I supported the leadership's strategy.

But when you look at the Department of Homeland Security, at least 85 percent of it are essential services, which means whether or not the funding runs out, you know, essential services will continue. Border Patrol, custom border protection, ICE among them.

And so, if you remember, there was a real government shutdown a year and a half ago for 17 days in October of 2013. I don't remember that ever being an issue back then. So if it didn't make a blip on the radar then...

CUOMO: It was an issue.

KING: ... I don't think it does now.

CUOMO: But Congressman, it was an issue. That's why your party got beaten up about that shutdown back then, because it was seen as hurting the people for a failure for political compromise on your part. It seems like that's going to happen again. Members of your own party seem to recognize it. Let's play the bite from Congressman Peter King. He's on your team.

It's a full screen. "We have an effective counter narrative here, but the sheer volume we're losing" -- this isn't what I wanted. We wanted Peter King. King says you cannot mess with national security. It's a mistake; it's irresponsible. Do you agree with that?

KING: Well, we're not messing with national security. But first of all, I was happy to welcome 15 new Republicans into the House of Representatives after that -- after that event that seemed to hurt us so badly and nine new Republican senators over there on the other side.

CUOMO: Do you think because of it...

KING: So I don't think it was a political consequence.

CUOMO: Because of it or despite it? Do you think it was because you shut the government down? Because you know, you know what Mitch McConnell thinks. He said on his watch, no more shutdowns and you know the polls, what they say, if we can put up the poll. You know who they say will be blamed if there's another kind of shutdown of that magnitude. They say Republicans will be blamed. Big numbers.

KING: Chris, Republicans -- however you want to talk about blame, Republicans didn't shut the government down. I voted time after time to fund all of the legitimate functions of government except Obamacare. That's our constitutional duty to do that. We take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And it doesn't say, unless you're afraid you'll be blamed or unless you think there's a political consequence. We have to do our duty.

This is a constitutional crisis. The president of the United States has reached into the Constitution, taken it out and ripped out the Article I of the Constitution, folded it in half, put it in his pocket and said, "I own this, too." Congress can only ratify, if you choose, the things that he says ought to happen. He is acting like an emperor. This republic will look back on these days, if we don't hold our ground, and see the time that our republic was lost.

CUOMO: This is the point, though, Congressman, I am not debating or even pushing back on the immigration argument you're making and the executive orders, because it has nothing to do with funding DHS.

You have your legal battle going. Had you a good result with a judge. There are legitimate arguments to be made there. No question that there's a debate to be had.

However, why tie it to having a 115 percent effort by DHS to deal with the 50 -- the all 50 states involving cases with ISIS radicalization? The arrest we just had in Brooklyn. You need all men and women hands on deck, 24/7. Why play with that for the furtherance of this other political battle?

KING: Why is the president playing with this?

CUOMO: No, you did this. You did this with the DHS bill, not the president.

KING: Why are the Democrats in the Senate holding this up? It's the president that's throwing a political tantrum, demanding that he have -- he have the funding to violate the Constitution of the United States.

And a lot of the press and Democrats and some Republicans are trying to turn it back the other way. Because somehow they're afraid they will get blamed. I think stand on principle. If you're right on principle, maybe you get blamed now, but history will vindicate you over time.

CUOMO: Right. But this isn't just about money and time and furlough and people getting paid again. It's -- again, it's about the agency. I think you have to understand that DHS isn't just another agency, especially right now. I mean, literally, you guys are debating further statutory approval of war efforts against the people who you're now saying, "Well, we're OK. We can not be at full strength to defend ourselves against it." Does that make sense?

KING: Well, Chris, the president has ordered many of the people that you're talking about to be the welcome mat for illegal aliens. And I'll tell you, it wouldn't trouble me a lot if they would stop meeting people at the border and escorting them up to the station, giving them traveling papers and giving them transportation to fly, drive or transport them to all of the 50 states. They are completing the crime by the lawlessness of the president that orders them to violate the law and complete the crime of illegal transport of people, illegal people into the United States.

So I would tell you, there's a part of this we could get along without, the law-breaking part that's ordered on our noble people that protect our borders.

This is appalling. Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves to see that this is happening to the rule of law.

And by the way, a lot of the people that came here illegally came here to leave a lawless nation, and they're seeing the lawlessness manifest itself now.

CUOMO: Representative...

KING: I would add that there are two lawsuits out there now. One of them is Crane vs. Napolitano. I helped start that lawsuit back in 2011. And the other one, of course, is Texas vs. U.S. that we're talking about more here today.

CUOMO: Right.

KING: Both of those lawsuits are being undermined by a Congress, if Congress funds the illegal acts that we're litigating on, then the court is going to look at that and conclude, like they did under Obamacare, "We don't want to resolve a disagreement between the legislative and the executive branch of government." John Roberts threw Obamacare back into our lap, I think, partly for that reason, and it undermines our cases if we don't stand on principle and refuse to fund this lawlessness.

CUOMO: I get the debate. But again, it seems that they're separate issues, and you don't want to compromise national security to win that other battle. At least I don't think you should want that.

But thank you very much, Representative Steve King. Always good to have you on the show to lay out your side -- Alisyn.

KING: Thanks.

CAMEROTA: OK, Chris. Now to some new sickening video posted by ISIS. The terrorists destroying ancient statues and other priceless artifacts at a museum in Iraq, some dating back 700 years B.C.

CNN's senior international correspondent, Ben Wedeman, is live in Erbil, Iraq, with more. What do we know, Ben?

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Alisyn. This is a video that was posted yesterday on the Internet, five minutes long. What you see is a group of men inside the Mosul museum, toppling over one statue after another. These are statues that date back in this particular instance, to about 200 or 300 B.C.

Then you see other men with sledgehammers just whacking and breaking into pieces, more of these statues. Others throwing them from the wall onto the floor where they shatter.

Then you see a man with a drill defacing the iconic, the famous winged bulls of Nineveh. And, of course, those date back to about 700 B.C.

In this video there's also a man who explains why they're doing it. He tells them, "Muslims, these are statues that were made by people who worshipped idols and therefore, we must destroy them, no matter how old they are" -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: They hate the present; they hate the future; they hate the past. It's just sickening to watch all of this. Ben Wedeman, thank you for that report.

CUOMO: All right. So an IRS watchdog says there is potential criminal activity involved in the agency's email scandal. The taxing agency is accused of unfairly withholding tax-exempt status from the Tea Party and other conservative groups. The big issue is these IRS lost emails regarding the issue and that they are not recoverable. But the treasury inspector general is not buying it. CAMEROTA: Round two of talks today between the U.S. and Cuba.

Officials from both countries meeting in Washington to discuss restoring diplomatic relations. The Cubans not happy about being on America's list of state sponsors of terrorism. U.S. officials now reviewing that designation. The two sides also discussing opening embassies in each country and exchanging prisoners.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN ANCHOR: A rollover crash captured by a truck's dash cam video on a highway in Kentucky. An SUV goes off the road, rolls over five times, sending pieces of the vehicle flying, ejecting three people. Police say they weren't wearing seatbelts. It's amazing any of them survived. A 5-year-old boy was the most seriously injuring -- injured. It's really hard to watch that. He had two broken legs.

CAMEROTA: My gosh.

ROMANS: Buckle up, folks, buckle up.

CAMEROTA: Yes. Good reminder.

OK, thanks, Christine.

Well, President Obama and dozens of fellow Democrats do not like it. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to Washington for a speech to Congress next week. How will this affect U.S./Israeli relations? We'll have a debate on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There has now been injected a degree of partisanship. Which is not only unfortunate. I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Well, that was national security adviser Susan Rice earlier this week, calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming speech before Congress, quote, "destructive." Now the White House plans to send Rice and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power to a pro- Israel lobbies conference this weekend. Will that ease the tensions?

Let's debate this. Let's bring in Hilary Mann Leverette. She's a former National Security Council official under presidents Clinton and Bush. She's also the co-author of "Going to Tehran." And Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School and the author of "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas." Great to see both of you this morning.

Hilary, let me start with you. Do you agree with Susan Rice's assessment that Benjamin Netanyahu's visit will be destructive to the relationship between U.S. and Israel?

HILARY MANN LEVERETTE, AUTHOR, "GOING TO TEHRAN": Well, I think the U.S.-Israel relations are certainly at an historic low point. But in fact, I would -- I would say it's going to be a clarifying moment, a very important moment. It may not be quite as destructive as the rhetoric out there pretends it to be.

I think it will be important to clarify that Prime Minister Netanyahu has a position that is essentially fact-free. What U.S. officials have said on background to the "Washington Post" is that it's fictional. He's living in fantasyland.

CAMEROTA: Meaning that you don't believe that Iran is as close to getting nuclear weapons as he will say they are.

MANN LEVERETTE: Well, it's not me. You have the -- almost the entire Israeli national security establishment, 200 Israeli generals came out this week to say that Netanyahu's claims are not accurate.

You have the White House spokesman saying his claims are not accurate. The entire U.S. national security establishment, 16 of our -- all 16 of our intelligence agencies...

CAMEROTA: Right.

MANN LEVERETTE: ... say that Netanyahu is not accurate. And what I think is critically important here is that the administration is saying that the Israelis and Netanyahu, in particular -- and Kerry said this to Congress -- cannot come here yet again, as Netanyahu did in 2002 on the eve of the Iraq war, to give us a false story that will help lead us into war. They're saying we're not going to do that again.

CAMEROTA: OK. Alan, do you agree with that assessment?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, AUTHOR, "TERROR TUNNELS": Absolutely not. This is, at bottom, not about the Israeli-American relation. It's a great constitutional and foreign policy debate about whether we trust Iran, whether we are prepared to allow them to become a nuclear weapon power. This is the most extensive exporter of terrorism in the world today.

And it's not between Israel and the United States. It's between the Obama administration and Congress, Senator Menendez and other leading Democrats. The "Washington Post" editorialized against this deal. Today David Brooks has a brilliant article in the "New York Times" calling it a bad deal, saying it's a bad bet, because it accepts my distinguished opponent's view that Iran is not really trying to develop nuclear weapons, that it can be brought into the fold of the western world. It's a very bad bet.

It's the bet that Chamberlain made in 1938 when he said that he could deal with Hitler. All Hitler wanted was Sudetenland and if we give them that, there will be piece in our time.

CAMEROTA: But Alan, do you...

DERSHOWITZ: This is a great debate that shouldn't be reduced to a personality dispute between Netanyahu and Obama. CAMEROTA: Sure. But do you agree that, if possible, that Prime

Minister Netanyahu has overhyped some of the -- his claims about what Iran is capable of?

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely not. Iran is capable of and wants to develop nuclear weapons. Everybody knows that. There is a dispute among intelligence communities. All intelligence communities have disputes about how close they are.

If you're Israel, and you've been told that Iran's goal is to destroy the nation state of the Jewish people, you want to always err on the side of caution. And the worst you can say about the Israeli government is that it is erring on the side of caution. It cannot take a risk to its own survival. A risk that the United States seems to be prepared to take.

It's a bad deal, particularly the sunset provision, which allows Iran to become a nuclear weapon power within ten years, which really means six years, which means the end of nuclear proliferation. Saudis will try to get nuclear weapons. This is bad deal. And...

CAMEROTA: OK. Hold on, Alan.

DERSHOWITZ: Everybody should be listening to Prime Minister Netanyahu and not walking out on his speech. That's a terrible mistake.

CAMEROTA: OK, Hilary, Professor Dershowitz has just laid out the case for, you know, they want nuclear weapons at some point. So why not fight against that?

MANN LEVERETTE: Well, it's a completely fact-free case. The entire U.S. intelligence community, the entire Israeli intelligence community, there is no dispute among the intelligence communities. All of them say, all of them hold that the Iranians have not taken a decision to pursue nuclear weapons.

Now the problem with Professor Dershowitz' case, which is critical...

DERSHOWITZ: That's nonsense. That's just false.

MANN LEVERETTE: The problem with his case that is absolutely critical, is that he wants us to take his word for it. He wants us to take Prime Minister Netanyahu's word for it, rather than have inspectors on the ground.

This is the perilous course that they helped put us on with the invasion of Iraq. Instead of taking inspectors and monitors information credible information...

DERSHOWITZ: Israel was against -- Israel was against the invasion of Iraq.

MANN LEVERETTE: ... we're supposed to take their word over the facts of our intelligence agencies.

CAMEROTA: OK, so... MANN LEVERETTE: What that means is that instead of having objective information that we can all evaluate, we have to take the word of one Israeli prime minister, over the facts and case of his own intelligence community. This is very dangerous, and that's why the Obama administration...

DERSHOWITZ: That's just not true.

MANN LEVERETTE: ... is rifting such a rift with Israel, with its life-long ally. That's why they're taking (ph ) this risk.

CAMEROTA: OK, hold on, Hilary.

DERSHOWITZ: That's just not true.

CAMEROTA: Alan, is there a rift between prime minister Netanyahu and his intelligence community?

DERSHOWITZ: No. One of the people running against him who is campaigning against him is the former head of the Mossad, who has always been at odds with him. But everybody in the Israeli establishment, particularly those in the know, believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And that they will get nuclear weapons under this deal.

Don't try to pose this as the Israeli intelligence against Netanyahu. The vast majority of Israeli intelligence is against this deal. They're against Iran developing nuclear weapons. Almost everybody except my distinguished opponent here believes that Iran has already decided to develop nuclear weapons.

And here's my offer to you out there. If you believe her and believe that Iran has peaceful intentions and wants to develop nuclear energy for energy and medical purposes, then accept the deal. But if you believe as I do and almost everybody in the intelligence community that Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons, then reject this deal...

CAMEROTA: OK.

DERSHOWITZ: ... which has a sunset provision and will allow the greatest exporter of terrorism to become a nuclear weapon exporter of terrorism...

CAMEROTA: Alan...

DERSHOWITZ: ... with ICBMs that can reach the shores of the United States.

CAMEROTA: Alan, Hilary, thank you for the debate. Obviously, we will be watching what happens in Congress with Benjamin Netanyahu next week. Thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

Let's go back to Chris.

CUOMO: All right. Strong points there. Alisyn, thank you very much. How about this headline: 300 Christians, maybe more, held hostage by ISIS. Is the terror group stepping up genocide? Or is this truly a holy war?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)