Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Slams "Sneaky" Feinstein for Releasing Transcript; Trump Administration Reverses Oil Drilling Plan for One State; Deadly Mudslides in Southern California; White House Transcript Omits Key Trump Line on Clean DACA Bill; Sen. Rand Paul Talks DACA, His Health. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 10, 2018 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00] GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: So there was an external source, as well that the FBI was aware of.

DAVID GREGORY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I'm a little bit more skeptical about this than Gloria. I think this is a bit messy. I just don't totally take on face value they went to the FBI and said, look, we could have a candidate who could be blackmailed. That could be true or part of the issue. We also remember that in the course of the campaign, people were looking for information to get Donald Trump because they thought there was a lot of "there" there.

All of a sudden, you have these kinds of accusations that are quite explosive. That if they're turned over to law enforcement, all of a sudden, elevates it. Anybody who is investigated by the FBI becomes a bigger deal. Now, what I think mitigates all of that is you do have the FBI's own investigation that confirms some of this, an internal source has been reported on. You put all of that into the mix, and what Trump is doing is creating the crisis of the idea that this is all a hoax. It's just not the case. There's information here that I think Feinstein wants out, to say this is all fodder for an investigation. Some of which can be verified, some can't.

BORGER: I don't understand why a lot of these interviews aren't public, by the way. I mean, the American people -- you have the Bob Mueller investigation, which is going on in a black box. Then you have a public's right to know about what Congress knows about the hacking of the election or what was going on in the campaign. I mean, I take you back to Iran-Contra where the people testified, publicly, about this. Oliver North testified publicly about what he knew and what he didn't know, and what Reagan knew and what he didn't know. I think there is -- these investigations have very different roles. And so far, by and large, we have seen this testimony go on in private and we've seen transcripts released.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: The problem is it's fundamentally a political process.

BORGER: Yes, it is.

(CROSSTALK) WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Let me play for you Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was not notified by Dianne Feinstein about her unilateral decision to release these 300- plus pages. He's upset they've been released. He spoke with our Manu Raju. Here's his explanation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY, (R-IA), CHAIRMAN, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: These transcripts would have been released eventually anyway. But I think it does create some problems. For instance, when you're getting people to voluntarily come to you, it may make a lot of people a little more reserved about whether or not they want to cooperate. And I think particularly in regard to Jared Kushner that it could maybe affect our moving forward with that. Very high-profile person, as an example. But it will continue -- we'll continue to move forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: I just think that's so silly. This is just an institutional complaint by Senator Grassley who knows better. Congress leaks all the time. And they leak selectively. If you're in that position as the witness, if I were in that position, I would rather have my entire transcript released with all of its context rather than people on the Hill, right or left, leaking the stuff out to make a point.

BORGER: Remember in Iran-Contra, people were offered immunity. And turned out to be a problem. That was a problem for the prosecution, right? So there are -- there are issues here. But you know, I do believe that the American public has a right to see these transcripts and has a right to even watch these people testify if they're willing to do so. I remember Don Jr at one point was willing to testify in public.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Different matter that's not come up. The other day, the administration announced they would allow offshore drilling along the Atlantic coast. It upset a lot of governors, especially the governor of Florida, Rick Scott. All of a sudden, they've just announced, guess what, there won't be any offshore drilling off the coast of Florida, but there will be offshore drilling off other coasts.

GREGORY: You know, apparently, if you make enough noise, you can get a decision reversed quickly, which means the policy isn't being thought out well enough initially, which we've seen evidence of.

BORGER: It's politics, right? You have somebody running for governor who wants to get re-elected. And you had this decision that was made, and then it was reversed. So some people are saying this is about Mar-a-Lago. The decision was made originally. And I think this is -- I know you'll be shocked, but I think this is about politics.

GREGORY: All politics is local.

(CROSSTALK) GREGORY: So is all presidential politics looking at battleground states.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

[13:34:45] BLITZER: Won't be any offshore drilling off the coast of Florida. But a bunch of other states, unless they can convince the president to change his mind, there will be. It's causing a lot of controversy.

Guys, thanks very much.

There's much more news coming up. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: In southern California, hundreds of people are stranded in their neighborhoods waiting to be rescued. Heavy rains caused rivers of mud and debris to run down the hillsides in Santa Barbara County. At least 15 people have died, dozens more are missing and injured.

Our correspondent, Paul Vercammen, is joining us from Montecito, not far from Santa Barbara, right now.

How are the rescue efforts, first of all, Paul, going?

[13:39:44] PAUL VERCAMMEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're seeing them in action right now. First, we'll look at this telephone pole right here and give you a sense of the enormity of this tragedy. It's dangling between two trees. Then you look just beyond that. That was a house there. That's the foundation. The floodwaters ripped it completely off. That search-and-rescue team just went through here. You see the house in the distance with the paint on it? They marked that car to show that it was clear, that there was no one in there. Then the house beyond. Then you look in the foreground all in front of us where this bulldozer is and that's an area they're trying to clear right now. As we come 360 -- go ahead, Chris, and pan this way. We'll see what the search-and-rescue crews are up to. They had searched this area. And there's another house just right over here, Wolf, that was completely ripped off its foundation. So the debris field is surreal at times. It includes parts of houses and power poles. Then you have telephone poles mixed in there along with all of these trees.

One thing that's unique about this mudslide is, in this part of California, it goes from about 3,000 feet to sea level in a very, very small amount of distance, just several miles. We're probably about a mile and a quarter from the ocean. And so they're going to have to go through, with these people missing, all of these debris fields, and see if there's any survivors still in there.

Then you articulated that another scenario that's called Romero Canyon where there are residents they told to shelter in place because there were so many boulders, such a big debris field that they couldn't even get in there, and they may have to bring them out by helicopter. They were successful in making a lot of helicopter rescues yesterday.

So that's the scene here in Montecito. This is one of those places where they absolutely got blasted by this massive slide after the Thomas Fire, the biggest fire in California history.

Back to you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, first fires, now mudslides and flooding. Awful situation in that area.

Paul Vercammen, thanks very much for that report.

Up next, the White House is slamming a federal judge's decision to block the Trump administration's plan to end DACA calling it outrageous. Republican Senator Rand Paul is standing by live. We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:46:32] BLITZER: The White House is now correcting the official transcript of that meeting that the president had yesterday with Democratic and Republican lawmakers dealing with the so-called DREAMers, the DACA legislation. But they say a line, a critically important line that was omitted in the official transcript was not, according to White House officials, they insist, an attempt to scrub what the president actually said.

First, let's listen to the exchange, a very sensitive moment during that 55-minute conversation at the White House. Listen to what Dianne Feinstein, the Senator from California, what she said about the DREAMers and legislation and the president's response. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, (D), CALIFORNIA: What about a clean DACA bill now with a commitment that we go in to a comprehensive immigration reform procedure, like we did back on -- remember when Kennedy was here. It was really a major, major effort, and it was great disappointment that it went nowhere.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have no problem. I think that's basically what Dick is saying. We're going to come out with DACA and do DACA and then we can start immediately on phase two, which would be comprehensive.

(CROSSTALK)

FEINSTEIN: Would you be agreeable on that?

TRUMP: Yes, I would like -- I would like that.

Go ahead.

I think a lot of people would like to see that. But I think we have to do DACA first.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That was the actual video. We saw it exactly here 24 hours ago. It was live. It was on tape. We saw the whole 55-minute exchange.

The initial transcript released by White House omitted that critically important line from the president when he was asked by Senator Feinstein, would you be agreeable to that, meaning a clean DACA bill. The president said, yes, I would like -- I would like to do that. That was omitted. That line, "Yes, I would like to do that," omitted from the official transcript. It was later corrected. They put that line in. But there's a lot of suspicion as to why that most sensitive line during that 55-minute conversation in the official White House transcript was initially deleted.

David Gregory is still with us right now.

David, you've covered the White House. I've covered the White House. Those White House officials who transcribe these kinds of meetings, they're very, very specific. And when, all of a sudden, that most sensitive line was deleted when the president said, "Yes, I would like -- I would like to do that," meaning a clean DACA bill. By the way, that was followed by Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, who said, Mr. President, you need to be clear though, I think that Senator Feinstein is asking here, what Senator Feinstein is asking, what we're talking about, DACA, then he says, you've got to include security.

GREGORY: I remember listening to that. He was so unusually broadcasted with the cameras in there. He kind of bellows from across the room, hey, wait a minute, Mr. President, before you do that. Yes, that seems fishy to me, as I'm sure it does you. We know the transcribers who work in the White House who are terrific. This is something the president wouldn't want out there to be consumed and to be scrutinized. And maybe they felt like, well, he didn't really mean that. They corrected it. You shouldn't be messing around with the transcripts.

The point is that the president seemed committed to do something until, you know, Republican leaders said, no, no, you're not thinking this through all the way, which, again, suggests some level of lack of preparation.

[13:50:01] BLITZER: These are official transcripts. Historians study them. When Feinstein said, would you be agreeable to that, meaning a clean DACA bill, and the presidents said, "Yes, I would like - I would like to do that." That was deleted. But they fixed it and corrected it.

GREGORY: Right. The other question is, they talk about doing this in phases, and that first phase is take care of the DREAMers and then get to -- how do you get to this other stuff, including the wall that the president wants?

BLITZER: All right. Thanks very much, David, for that. Republican Senator Rand Paul is standing by. He will join us. We'll

discuss this and a whole lot more right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: President Trump today taking aim at the U.S. court system, saying in a tweet, that it is, quote, "broken and unfair," after a federal judge put a hold on the administration's efforts to wind down the DACA program. That's the program for the children brought into the United States illegally as kids, as minors by their parents.

Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a Republican member of both the Homeland Security and Foreign Relations Committees.

Senator, thanks for joining us.

[13:55:12] SEN. RAND PAUL, (R), KENTUCKY: Good to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: So you have a good relationship with the president. Have you spoken to him personally what he wants in this initial immigration reform bill, possibly making DACA permanent?

PAUL: You know, I haven't spoken to him recently about this issue or in the particulars. I've spoken with him in general about it. And I think he is open to a compromise, so am I, and I think many Republicans are. And I think that's the real question on the immigration. Will the Democrats compromise with us to find a solution? They wanted to fix the DACA problem. Conservative Republicans haven't been as excited but are willing to come halfway. But they want to make sure we fix the border at the same time. I think there is room for compromise on this.

BLITZER: Even though some of your conservative colleagues call it amnesty, you are still in favor of a compromise?

PAUL: What I've always said is, about a million people come to this country every year, and if there is a million DACA children, as long as they take the spot of somebody already coming, why don't we internally immigrant them. In other words, they would count towards the normal immigration totals we have, and it wouldn't be that hard to figure that out. I think that's a solution that could occur even with others within this group, is as long as they couldn't towards the totals, as long as they'll work. And we do need to fix some of the things the president has talked about. I think the diversity lottery, we should be replacing with a merit-based system where -- there's 700 million people who want to come to America if they could tomorrow. Let's pick the brightest and best of them, the ones that we need, what categories of workers, and I think we could have a much better immigration system than we have.

BLITZER: Are you in favor, Senator, of spending $18 billion, in the proposed budget, on a border wall along the U.S./Mexico border? And whatever happened to President Trump's promise that Mexico would pay for it? PAUL: I remain a fiscal conservative even on the wall, so I'm not

excited about spending $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion on the wall. I'm still a believer that we don't have money to spend. We are $700 billion in the hole. I heard from somebody the other day that said we built 2,700 miles of concrete barriers on inter states, all those noise control barriers, we've done that for $2 billion. So I think the price tag should be debated and I think we can have barriers and we will have barriers in certain places. I think we should also use technology, which is less expensive. But the barriers, I think we need to look at the cost of them. The people advocating for it are forgetting that they are fiscally conservative and giving enormous numbers. So, yes, I would look at the number very carefully. And while I'll vote for money for barriers, I'm not voting for $40 billion for barriers.

BLITZER: You're not voting for all that. And you are not under the assumption that Mexico eventually will pay for it, are you?

PAUL: I think the only way you could understand that to be true would be indirectly somehow that you could say that we spend a lot of money on illegal immigration in our country, and I think that's the only way you could sort of imagine that Mexico would pay for the wall, is by eliminating some of the costs that we spend on people illegally coming into the country.

BLITZER: You have tied your budget vote to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, as it's called, more specifically Section 702 of the act. Quote, "It authorizes the intelligence community to target the communications of non-U.S. persons located outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes."

How far, Senator, are you willing to go to block this?

PAUL: Well, this program lets us spy on foreigners in foreign lands without any constitutional protections. I agree with that. If you are a foreigner in a foreign land targeting the United States, you don't get the protection of the Constitution.

My worry is they also collect information on millions of Americans. And I don't want database to be searched without a warrant. And also if you search that database that is supposed to be about foreigners, it should not be used for people accused of domestic crime. So we have to have the Constitution, we have to obey it for Americans. As long as we have those protections in place, the program can continue, and I'll vote to allow it to continue. But right now, the reform proposal that the House committee has put forward makes it worse. It actually says that you can use that information to convict people of domestic crime, Americans. So this would be Americans being convicted and violating their Fourth Amendment rights. I can't be for that. And I'll filibuster or do whatever it is to stop that.

But there is a chance the House, my amendment with Senator Wyden, is going to be voted. Justin Amash and Zoe Lofgren and others, their amendment over in the House. And there's a decent chance we win this battle. It's going to be very, very close.

BLITZER: I know it's a subject very important to you and a lot of your colleagues as well.

Before I let you go - and I know you have to run, Senator -- first of all, how are you feeling? We all were shocked by all of the reports that we read when a neighbor of yours punched you and beat you. Tell us what happened. How are you doing right now?

PAUL: It actually wasn't an alteration I was attacked from behind unaware. I never saw my assailant, so I wouldn't really call it an altercation or a punching or something like that.

I was attacked from behind with hearing protection on, never saw it coming. I was severely injured. I had six broken ribs, fluid around my lungs, pneumonia twice, pain excruciating pain for several weeks. Really for more than a month, I'm doing better now and appreciate you asking.

BLITZER: Well you sound good, and fortunately you sound a lot better but I didn't realize as significant as bad as it was. Do you know the motive of why this guy attacked you like that?

RAND: you know, I think no one can ever know someone's motives. I don't know whether it was political or personal and I guess to my mind there's been a little too much emphasis in the media and too much concern over motive and lack over concern of me to tell you the truth.

BLITZER: No, we're concerned about -- senator trust me we're very concerned

RAND: Well I know I know but that's my point is. If someone is raped, pillaged, mugged it should be about punishment and the person who did this needs to be punished. And whether or not they thought they were justified in their mind there is no justification for attacking someone from behind breaking their ribs and really causing me life threatening injuries.

BLITZER: But right now you're OK? Is that-- have you completely recovered or you still have to go through more treatment?

RAND: I still have pain everyday all day but I don't have-- I had the pain of 1,000 knives for about 6 weeks I could barely move, I could barely breathe, I couldn't sleep. And so I am better than I was but I won't say I'm back to normal yet but I am getting better.

BLITZER: Well we hope that you make a complete complete recovery. Awful, awful situation. Senator Paul thanks so much for joining us.

RAND: Thank you.

BLITZER: That's it for me I'll be back 5PM eastern in the Situation Room, in the meantime the news continues right now.