Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Attorney Apologizes For Rape Remark; Trump's Ex-Wife Defends Him; Selling The Iran Nuclear Deal To Congress; Huckabee Refuses To Back Down From Controversy; Showdown on the Hill: Congress Reviews Iran Deal. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 28, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in London, 7:00 p.m. in Brussels, 9:30 p.m. in Tehran. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We begin with a comment about rape and it's making headlines here in the United States causing headaches for Donald Trump's presidential campaign. He's the Republican presidential front-runner right now. This time, the comment is from a lawyer and top advisor to Donald Trump. Michael Cohen under fire for saying that under law, quote, "You cannot rape your spouse." Cohen made the comment in an interview with "The Daily Beast." He was defending Trump from an accusation from decades ago.

Our Correspondent Athena Jones is here with me in our studio watching what's going on. So, give us the context of what happened, the details, because this is causing quite a political stir.

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is, of course, because Trump is the run-runner so anything he says and anything that -- someone who works for him says is going to get a lot of attention. This comment first appeared in an article posted last night to "The Daily Beast" Web site. And it all came about because the reporter who was inspired by Donald Trump's own remarks at his campaign launch back in June where he called some Mexican immigrants rapists.

This reporter said, hey, let's look into Trump's past, find out if anything has been said about him on this topic. That, during the reporting, that led the reporter to Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, leading Cohen to make that erroneous statement about rape. Cohen also threatened to sue "The Daily Beast," threatened to sue the reporter and ruin his life. So, that's where it brought us to today.

BLITZER: And Cohen has since issued a lengthy statement.

JONES: He has and I'm going to read the whole thing for you. I believe we have it and we can put it on the screen. Cohen says, "I want to clarify a statement I made to "The Daily Beast." As an attorney, husband, and father, there are many injustices that offend me, but nothing more than charges of rape or racism. They hit me at my core. Rarely am I surprised by the press, but the gall of this particular reporter to make such a reprehensible and false allegation against Mr. Trump truly stunned me. In my moment of shock and anger, I made an inarticulate comment which I do not believe and which I apologize for entirely."

So, Cohen apologizing for that erroneous remark about rape but not apologizing for threatening and cursing the reporter.

BLITZER: And his first wife Ivana Trump just issued a statement as a result of this story in "The Daily Beast." She says, I'll quote it, "I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit.

Donald and I are the best of friends and have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.

So, she's basically coming to his defense right now.

JONES: Right, she's disavowing her earlier statements and -- but that has not stopped the Democrats from pouncing. They're really piling on. The head of the Democratic National Committee is trying to link these comments to other comments that Republican candidates have made about rape in the past, controversial comments. And she's calling on all Republicans to stand up and to denounce this, call it despicable. Trump's campaign is distancing itself. We'll see if this latest controversy has any impact on him.

BLITZER: All right, Athena, thanks very much.

Let's get some more on the political implications of what going on. Sally Kohn is a CNN Political Commentator. She, herself, is a columnist for "The Daily Beast." Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and contributing editor for "American Spectator." S.E. Cupp is a CNN Political Commentator. She is a columnist as well.

Guys, thanks very much. Sally, you tweeted, someone needs to teach Trump's lawyer how to apologize better. Wat did you mean by that?

SALLY KOHN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, come on, look, in this day and age, politicians are going to make a lot of wrong statements. Learning to apologize thoroughly and well should be like lesson number one for anyone running for office. And what that apology did -- Cohen, in that apology, first of all, he continued to blame and bait and attack the reporter who is just doing what reporters do. I don't care what the outlet.

And second, note some of the subtleties. He said, the greatest injustice -- the greatest injustice is not rape but the charges of rape. No, no, excuse me, sir, the greatest injustice is rape and the fact that anyone could have said out of their mouth the things he said not just about rape, lies, false information, but continue to attack reporters for just doing their job. It really shows what kind of operation Trump would run. It makes Chris Christie look like, you know, the neighborhood nice guy. It's ridiculous.

BLITZER: Well, Jeffrey -- let me get Jeffrey into this. So, you're a Trump supporter. The Trump campaign says Michael Cohen not necessarily a surrogate, that Donald Trump speaks for himself on these kinds of issues. What's the fallout from this? How hard will it be for the Trump campaign to distance itself? I assume they want to distance themselves from what Michael Cohen said.

[13:05:08] JEFFREY LORD, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR FOR "AMERICAN SPECTATOR": Look, I don't think there's a person in New Hampshire or Iowa who knows who Michael Cohen is. I mean, I know him. I think he's a perfectly nice guy. The point here is the issue is not Michael Cohen. The issue is this article was false from the very beginning to the very end. The very beginning, that article, says, and I'll read it, he introduced his presidential campaign to the world with a slur against Mexican immigrants. Donald Trump was talking quite plainly about illegal immigrants, not Mexican immigrants, illegal immigrants. And it ends with the -- with the story from Ivana Trump, it says that the story is totally without merit. So, from beginning to end, the whole thing is a lie. And nobody in the -- outside of folks like us is going to care about what Michael Cohen says. They're going to care about the issues, illegal immigration, --

BLITZER: All right.

LORD: -- jobs, what have you.

BLITZER: Let me ask S.E. Do you agree? What do you think, S.E.?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, anyone that's run into Trump has run into Michael Cohen and I have as well. I would not agree that he's a nice guy. I think he's a goon. And, frankly, if he were sophisticated and savvy, as a political strategist and communication strategist, and he's not, he would have recognized that this "Daily Beast" story was a gift for all of the reasons that Jeffrey was outlining. It's not true. It's reheated from a 1993 book that came out. It's already public knowledge.

And Ivana, herself, has said it's not true. So, there wasn't really anything there. But Michael Cohen, the goon he is, didn't recognize this was going to be a gift. And, instead, threatened and intimidated a reporter, said something that was patently false. As an attorney, he should have known better. And, as Sally says, issued an apology that clears nothing up.

So, if Donald Trump is serious, and I know he's very loyal to his inner circle, but if he's serious about becoming president, he's got to get rid of the goons. Michael Cohen does him absolutely no favors.

BLITZER: Sally, hold on for a moment. I want to bring you in but let's let -- let's let Jeffrey respond to that. Go ahead, Jeffrey.

LORD: Well, you know, I just -- the entire issue here, and I -- and I was interested in the comments there that Democrats are pouncing on this. You know, there's somebody who has not retracted her rape story and that's Juanita Broaddrick. And if this campaign is going to be run with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, we have somebody out there in the person of Juanita Broaddrick who has not at all retracted a very detailed allegation of rape against Bill Clinton. Are we going to go back to all of this all over again? Is this what we're -- is this what we're about? As you recall, at the time, this was dismissed as it was only about sex back in the 1990s.

So, I just think this is a huge mistake on the part of Democrats to reopen this kind of thing on the -- on the ideas trying to get Donald Trump --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow.

BLITZER: Go ahead, Sally.

KOHN: I'm going to send you a bigger shovel, sir, you're going to need it. That you -- the first thing you said was that Michael Cohen, who is the attorney for Mr. Trump, should not be treated as a surrogate and no one should be taking seriously what he's saying.

And then, you come back and try and say, but what we all should be taking seriously is allegations -- old allegations against someone who isn't even running for president, let alone an official surrogate. You just keep digging your hole there, sir. This is news and this is sad. He needs to distance himself from it.

LORD: Well, with all due respect, Michael Cohen isn't on the ballet.

KOHN: Well, then, where are Mr. Trump's statements on this?

LORD: Nor is it a staff person nor is it for any candidate. The candidate is on the ballot.

BLITZER: Well, Jeffrey, what do you think that --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Hold on a second. Jeffrey, what do you think Donald Trump needs to say and do today to deal with this? Because, obviously, it's caused a big uproar.

LORD: I think just stay focused on this. This story, which is where all of this comes from, is false from beginning to end. Just stay focused on that. I mean, honestly, this is very much like the Trump- McCain situation where everybody said, oh, he was just done for because of this. And his poll numbers go up. I mean, I wonder sometimes whether "The Daily Beast" is not on Donald Trump's payroll.

CUPP: Well, Wolf, the problem is that when you -- when you -- when you add this story of Michael Cohen intimidating a journalist using disgusting language, add that to the Trump story of barring the "Des Moines Register" from a press event, threatening a Telemundo reporter saying, you're finished. I mean, you add all of that and it would make you, I think naturally, ask questions about what a Trump administration would look like, in terms of dealing with the press. Is he going to unleash his goons every time a reporter wants to write something critical? Is he going to sue news organizations who write something unflattering?

LORD: Hillary Clinton doesn't get -- CUPP: I'm uncomfortable if we keep referring --

BLITZER: Hold on. Hold on. One at a -- one at a time. Let Jeffrey go ahead and then Sally.

LORD: Oh, just the other week, Hillary Clinton kept a "Daily Mail" reporter out of her event because she didn't like his criticism. And he was the pool reporter.

CUPP: Yes, and we are outraged by that. We are outraged by that.

(CROSSTALK)

[13:10:01] LORD: What? I'm sorry.

CUPP: And we are outraged by that. As conservatives, we have to be outraged when any candidate behaves that way with the press. We are -- we talk about Hillary's bad relationship with the press all the time. You can't excuse Michael Cohen and then talk about Hillary or Obama's bad relations with the press.

LORD: It's not -- it's not for me to -- it's not for me to excuse or not excuse Michael Cohen. I'm simply saying to you, from a political standpoint, no one who's out there in the voting public cares about what Michael Cohen says or doesn't say.

BLITZER: All right.

LORD: They care, in this case, about Donald Trump. That's it.

BLITZER: Very quickly, Sally, go ahead.

KOHN: Well, I'm uncomfortable that, in all this, we seem to be letting slide the suggestion that the -- that the entire story wasn't true. And, look, it's based on credible reporting. It's based on facts that were known, at the time, in court documents. It's well sourced. It was backed up, at the time, by Ivana Trump. So, let's not suggest that just because the story is changed, retracted, different lights are put on it now that there wasn't some kernel of fact to it. No one seems to be suggesting -- no one has actually retracted the fact of what happened. They're just changing the characterization of it. Let's be clear about that.

BLITZER: Well, Ivana Trump's statement today, Sally, is pretty firm, right?

CUPP: Yes.

KOHN: Right, but she previously made a statement saying that it was rape but she didn't mean in the criminal sense. She just meant in the emotional sense. And before that, in her own court statement, she had said it was rape rape. I mean, on no other variations on the theme there, right? So, I do think, again, it's, like, -- it's reporting. It's credible reporting. It's important reporting. It's well- documented reporting. And just because the campaign, including, by the way, Ivana Trump who is under court order. She can't speak without Trump's permission on this. The fact that she's now said something -- again, I think we should all be looking at it with a skeptical eye.

BLITZER: All Right. We're going to stay on top of this story. Sally Kohn, thanks very much for joining us. Jeffrey Lord, S.E. Cupp, we'll --

LORD: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: -- have all of you back, obviously.

Can the White House win over skeptical lawmakers up on Capitol Hill right now involving the Iran nuclear deal? Obama administration officials, the highest ones, they're taking their campaign to Capitol Hill. We're going to ask two U.S. Congressmen where they stand after today's hearing.

And there's no question how Mike Huckabee feels about that nuclear deal with Iran. The GOP presidential candidate had a chance to walk back some very controversial comments. Instead, he doubled down.

[13:12:22]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:16:25] BLITZER: NATO is holding a rare meeting today to discuss Turkish fears about a security crisis on its border with Iraq and Syria. Turkey wanted to consult with NATO allies about the crisis fueled by ISIS in Syria's civil war, but it didn't ask for any military deployment from the alliance. Afterwards, NATO's secretary general also made it clear the alliance won't join efforts to create a so-called safe area for refugees fleeing war in Iraq and Syria. Last week, Turkey began launching air strikes against both ISIS targets in Syria, as well as Kurdish rebel camps.

Meanwhile, the showdown between the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress over the Iran nuclear deal is heating up dramatically on Capitol Hill. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is holding its first hearing on the deal today. The secretary of state, John Kerry, and the secretary of energy, Ernest Moniz, they're both testifying. House Republicans, some Democrats also, are seriously questioning whether the deal gave too many concessions to Iran, didn't get enough assurances in return. Secretary Kerry warned his critics of the consequences of walking away from the deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: But if this deal is rejected, we immediately go back to the reality I just described, without any viable alternative, except that the unified diplomatic support that produced this agreement will disappear overnight. Let me underscore the alternative to the deal that we have reached is not some kind of unicorn fantasy that contemplates Iran's complete capitulation. I've heard people talk about dismantling their program. That didn't happen under President Bush when they had a policy of no enrichment. All right, let's talk more about what's going on. Joining us now is

Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas. He's a Republican. He's chairman of the Arms Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for joining us.

I know you were in some closed-door briefings with Secretary Kerry and others yesterday. Today we once again are hearing a strong defense of this nuclear agreement with Iran. What's your alternative, assuming you're going to reject, as almost all Republicans will, reject this deal?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY (R), TEXAS: Well, I think there are three baskets of concern. One is, will this deal be enforceable and verifiable? Another basket of concerns is, even if it's enforced perfectly, is it a good deal or not? And then the third area is all of Iran's other activities.

I think the Obama administration has really hurt their credibility when they try to say it's a choice between this agreement or war. And that's basically the approach that they have put out there. I think a lot of folks think you can have a better agreement. There are some who believe that even no agreement would be better than this, which essentially ratifies Iran as a nuclear threshold state.

We're going to have a hearing in the Arms Services Committee tomorrow morning to hear a panel of outside experts. But I think the more you dig into it, the skepticism on various aspects of this agreement is really growing on both sides of the aisle.

BLITZER: The secretary says if there's no agreement, if Congress rejects it and overrides the president's expected veto, the international coalition, which imposed tough sanctions on Iran, will crumble. There will be nothing stopping Iran from going ahead, developing a nuclear bomb, to which you say?

[13:19:58] THORNBERRY: Well, I know the secretary is proud of his work and he wants to convince us all that this is absolutely the best deal that anyone could get. I think, though, it's a pretty far leap to say, if you don't agree with the deal I negotiated, then Iran is off on its own, building a nuclear weapon and all of the consequences that go from theat. I don't think those with two things necessarily follow from one another.

But I also think there are increasing questions about verification and so, for example, just last week a major expose on how the inspectors in Syria, who were supposed to be looking for chemical weapons, were thwarted. And remember the close relationship between Iran and Syria. So the question that I think a lot of us are asking is, what's going to be different in Iran to make sure they comply versus what has happened in Syria where it turns out they did not give up all their chemical weapons after all.

BLITZER: The rhetoric has really heated up, as you know, Mr. Chairman. Republican Senator Ted Cruz made a reference to this deal being what he called a jihadist stimulus deal. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, he's compared John Kerry to Pontius Pilot. And, of course, we heard former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's comments about this deal taking Israel, in his words, to the door of the oven, a reference to the Holocaust. How comfortable are you with this kind of rhetoric?

THORNBERRY: Oh, I'm uncomfortable with it all. I'm uncomfortable with what Senator Kerry's been saying, that it's this or war. I'm uncomfortable with all the comments that you just made. This is really serious business. I think one point on which opponents and supporters all agree is that this potential deal has far reaching consequences. There will be a lot of implications in the Middle East and around the world that come from whatever happens with this agreement, where it's enforced or not, whether it's ratified or not. And so that's the spirit that we ought to look at it. And I think most Republicans and most Democrats on The Hill are treating it in that serious way in spite of the rhetoric that we hear from a few.

BLITZER: Let me get your quick thoughts on what's going on with Turkey right now, a key U.S. ally. It's getting more involved in this fight against ISIS launching air strikes now for the first time against ISIS targets in Syria, allowing the U.S., other NATO allies, to use Incirlik NATO air bases in Turkey to launch strikes. But in addition to going after ISIS, the Turks are also launching air strikes against Kurdish positions. As you know, the Kurds have been very forceful in fighting ISIS. How comfortable are you with what Turkey is up to right now?

THORNBERRY: Well, I'm not happy at all with Turkey bombing Kurdish positions. Look, we all want Turkey to play a greater role in pushing back against ISIS. And I think there are a number of details about that role still to be worked out despite some of the press reports. But it is causing enormous problems to have Turkey using this opportunity to attack the Kurds when the Kurds have been some of the most effective fighting force against ISIS. So that shows dissention in the ranks, it causes a number of problems that the Obama administration and all of us have to deal with.

BLITZER: Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Chairman, thanks, as usual, for joining us.

THORNBERRY: Thanks for having me.

BLITZER: Up next, we'll speak with a leading Democrat on the - in the House of Representatives about why he's still undecided about this deal with Iran.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:27:52] BLITZER: Let's get back to our conversation now on the Iran nuclear deal, very controversial here in Washington. Today, up on Capitol Hill, the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, testifying about the agreement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, telling the committee that the deal is better than the status quo, which could put potentially see Iran getting a nuclear weapon in very short order. That's his assessment.

Let's bring in Democratic Congressman Eliot Engel. He's the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Thanks so much, congressman, for joining us.

I take it you're still very much on the fence. You haven't decided whether to support the president and the secretary of state or to vote against the deal, is that right?

REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Yes, that's correct. We do have 60 days. I guess it's 50 some odd days. And I'm going to use at least the next few weeks to continue to read and re-read the bill and have discussions. There's a lot to take in.

BLITZER: I read your statement, your opening statement today, just before the testimony began, and you outlined several deep concerns that you had. It sounds to me, based on all of those concerns, that you're leaning against this deal, but you tell me if that's right or wrong.

ENGEL: Well, I wouldn't say I'm leaning against it or for it. I'm saying that I think that when I look at the deal and I - and I fully understand and appreciate the hard work that went into getting this deal, but there are certain things that give me pause for concern. This deal purports to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. But yet the way I read it, at the end of 15 years, Iran is basically legitimized as a nuclear threshold state. They could produce highly enriched weapons grade uranium with impunity and that's troubling because that means that Iran is not prevented from having a bomb, it only postpones Iran having a bomb. And that's my major concern. I have to try to work around that, but that's a very major concern for me.

[13:29:55] BLITZER: Well, you outlined at least four or five concerns in your statement about access to various sensitive sites in Iran, whether military sites, suspected nuclear sites. You talk about the billions - the tens of billions of dollars that would be freed up for Iran to use, not necessarily to have infrastructure development or housing or education.