Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Political Earthquake: Tea Party Beats Cantor; Hagel Faces Grilling On Bergdahl Swap

Aired June 11, 2014 - 10:00   ET

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

COSTELLO: Good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me. This hour on Capitol Hill, Congress holds its first public hearing on that prisoner swap that freed U.S. Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl. Lawmakers in both parties are upset with the deal that freed five Taliban detainees in exchange for Bergdahl's freedom. Critics say that cost was too high and done without their input.

So just minutes from now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will try to defend the deal to the House Armed Services Committee. This is a live picture from the committee room that you're looking at. Hagel faces a grilling from a hostile panel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He looks forward to explaining why the President's decision to secure the release of Sergeant Bergdahl was the right one and why the process we undertook in doing so was in keeping with our national interest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Quote, "The President's decision" marks a subtle but significant shift in wording. First President Obama celebrated the release with Bergdahl's parents and then when the deal turned unpopular, the White House said it was Hagel who made the decision. That ignited charges that Hagel was being made a scapegoat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPRESENTATIVE BUCK MCKEON (R), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: It was the president of the United States that came out with the Bergdahls and took all of the credit and now that there's been a little pushback, he's moving away from it. I don't think so. I think this is the president's decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: The president's decision or not, it will be Hagel who has to defend one of the most controversial prisoner swaps in U.S. history. We'll talk you live to Capitol Hill as soon as the defense secretary begins testifying.

Now to the other big story we're following this morning, a political earthquake sending shockwaves from Virginia to Washington and beyond. Tea Party challenger, Dave Brat, toppling House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Cantor losing by double digits despite seven terms in Congress and greatly outspending his opponent.

So who exactly is Dave Brat? Here's more about the unknown economics professor vaulted into the national political spotlight and shocked everyone in the process.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): The second highest ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives and a man many saw as a potential speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has lost his seat in Congress.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CANTOR (R), HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Obviously we came up short.

COSTELLO: It was a race many pundits thought Cantor could not lose but he did. In a low turnout Republican primary, Tea Party favorite, Dave Brat beat Cantor by more than ten points.

DAVE BRAT: This is a miracle from God that just happened.

COSTELLO: Brat won the Republican nomination despite being outspent nearly 10 to 1.

BRAT: There's just one reason and that's because dollars do not vote. You do.

COSTELLO: Brat says Cantor's campaign ads actually helped raise his name recognition. Brat argued Cantor had lost touch with his constituents focusing more on GOP donors in New York and California. Executive political editor, Mark Preston, says that Brat is now the shoe-in for the congressional seat.

MARK PRESTON, CNN EXECUTIVE EDITOR, POLITICS: He'll win in November. Democrats were hoping that Eric Cantor would run as a write-in candidate and split the vote and potentially pick up the seat. That's not going to happen. This is a very Republican seat.

COSTELLO: In an interesting turn, Brat's nomination pits him against a colleague, fellow Randolph-Macon college professor, Jack Trammell, who accepted the Democratic nomination earlier this year.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: For his part, Eric Cantor is vowing to continue his fight for conservative principles even if not from an office in Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CANTOR: It's disappointing, sure. I believe in this country. I believe there's opportunity around the next corner for all of us.

Joining me now, chief congressional correspondent, Dana Bash on Capitol Hill. Joe Johns, we're hoping he'll join us from Richmond in just a bit. Dana, describe just how earth shattering this upset is.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's hard to describe. We're in the words business and I have lost track of how many times I've used some kind of natural disaster metaphor because it really is. A sense of the color here on Capitol Hill as people were coming in particularly the Cantor staff, he's got large staff. He's in leadership. A lot of hugging and consoling of each other. Nobody thought this would happen.

On a human level people are trying to get bearings on their emotions and absorb what this means. Beyond the human level, the question is the political level and that too is something that Cantor aides who I have spoken with this morning are trying to wrap their minds around and data around if they can find it to really drill down on what exactly happened besides the obvious, which is that Cantor simply didn't get voters out there.

It just does seem on its face that Cantor didn't do enough to go home to do the things you need to do, politics 101, and be in touch with your constituents. Yesterday was primary day. He wasn't in his district. He was here. He was in his role as majority leader doing votes on the floor and having meetings with his caucus and even doing fund-raisers for other members of his rank and file.

COSTELLO: I'm just going to pause for a moment and take you back into the hearing room. This congressional hearing room where this hearing is about to get under way for the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap. There's Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. He's probably reading over his prepared statement, which he'll make minutes from now. Of course he'll make that statement after statements from the chairman and other members on this congressional committee.

OK, let's head to Richmond right now and check in with Joe Johns and talk more about Eric Cantor's stunning defeat. You heard what Dana Bash said. Eric Cantor didn't pay enough attention to his constituents and that's why he lost. Is that what you're hearing?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: I think that is very much part of the narrative here right now, Carol. Look, Eric Cantor is well liked in Washington, D.C. Certainly well known there, known by colleagues on Capitol Hill. Out here in the district though -- that's not discounting the power and influence of the Tea Party. So many people have said the Tea Party was having real problems in this midterm election and this infuses new energy.

That said, Eric Cantor clearly did not know what was going on here in his district. As you heard from Dana, he was on Capitol Hill yesterday on Election Day, not here in the district until very late. As recently as two weeks ago on the second Saturday before this primary election, I ran into Eric Cantor at a social event in Bethesda, Maryland, on Saturday night.

Again, not in the district, not paying attention, not knowing what was going on here. This is a real wake-up call for him and for a lot of other politicians because again and again and again and again in national politics when it comes to senators and members of Congress, they get in trouble in the primaries when they get in trouble in the general election, it's because of inattention to what is going on at home. So that's a big problem for him.

I'm right now outside of Dave Brat's office here in Virginia waiting to see him. It's been a real wake-up call for him and his staff of course. We were in there just a few minutes ago running around the phones constantly ringing. I think this is a huge surprise for them as well.

A lot of people here and in Washington expected this to be a much closer race than anybody anticipated that Eric Cantor might get 50 percent, 55 percent, don't think a lot of people were expecting Eric Cantor to lose here in Virginia -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right, Joe Johns, Dana Bash, many thanks to both of you. A busy morning here at CNN. I'm Carol Costello. I want to take you to Washington now and Wolf Blitzer as I've been telling people, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is about to testify on that prisoner swap that freed U.S. Army soldier, Bowe Bergdahl and this hearing will -- I expect it to be quite interesting.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": I think there will be fireworks, Carol. There is deep, deep anger not just Republicans but a bunch of Democrats as well on Capitol Hill right now. Under severe pressure, the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is about to testify before the House Armed Services Committee. He's going to face very, very grueling questions and a huge challenge for the Obama administration, tamping down bipartisan anger over the Bowe Bergdahl deal.

Was it too costly? Did the White House insult lawmakers by not seeking input beforehand? Serious questions that are going to be asked. We'll see what serious questions are going to be discussed during the course of this hearing. We're covering all of the angles. Our correspondents and analysts will break it all down.

Very important moment right now in this administration's relationship with the United States Congress and its credibility on a key foreign policy issue. Let's begin our coverage with our chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto. A huge challenge for the defense secretary right now. He's going to be asked, Jim, some very tough questions.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: No question. This is going to be a tough morning for him. He's got a tough case to make here and he's going to be challenged by members of Congress, members of the Hill, on both sides of the aisle. You have criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. I think you're going to hear a few things from Secretary Hagel.

One, that this was a fleeting opportunity to rescue Bowe Bergdahl. The time was short. His health was deteriorating. They had limited options especially with U.S. troops withdrawing. This was the time to strike. He'll make that case.

I think he's also going to make the case that the administration handled this legally and five Taliban being released didn't have a case to prosecute them and that they followed agreements with Congress and national defense authorization bill. I think you'll hear him make a case this was legal.

I think finally as well, he's going to make a case they did their best to mitigate the risks from releasing these five Taliban in terms of this agreement that they have. The trouble is that we're already hearing criticism even from supporters of this prisoner exchange.

I spoke to Adam Schiff, a Democratic congressman, member of the House Intelligence Committee. He's seen and read this classified memorandum of understanding with the Qataris and he says that even during that year when they were under the Qataris control, there's no guarantee they'll stay in Qatar. There's a real concern going forward.

Also, you heard from administration officials, for instance John Kerry saying if they do return to the fight, listen, we'll get them. I spoke to a number of U.S. officials to say is there anything special in here beyond drone strikes, et cetera, that the U.S. has used in the past to get Taliban commanders? No.

When you hear that from U.S. officials, they express confidence in their ability to get bad guys in Afghanistan. Nothing special in this deal that gives them the ability to do that. It's going to be a tough case for him to make on the legal front and also on mitigating those risks going forward.

BLITZER: Jim Sciutto will stay with us throughout our coverage of this important hearing this morning. The secretary of defense getting ready with an opening statement that will answer questions from members of the House Armed Services Committee.

Let's bring in our senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. Do they acknowledge privately behind the scenes, Jim, officials at the White House, that they made a mistake in not briefing members of Congress in the days or hours before this exchange occurred?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No, Wolf. They don't privately acknowledge that. They feel at this point and you know I talked to Susan Rice, the national security adviser to the president, about this last week. They don't have any misgivings about this prisoner exchange. They don't really have misgivings about the notification to Congress and we'll hear Chuck Hagel lay that out during his testimony as to why there was such a short timetable in terms of executing this deal.

And there wasn't enough time to inform lawmakers. That's the administration's viewpoint. We've heard from lawmakers over the last couple of days who said, wait a minute. 80 to 90 members of the administration knew about this in advance. We heard incoming White House press secretary say yesterday, no, no, it wasn't 80 to 90 lawmakers. That was total number that knew about the Qataris and the Taliban.

The actual number who knew about this inside the administration is much lower although he would not specify what that number is. Perhaps Chuck Hagel will be asked about that. Something else very interesting we may hear from the defense secretary and we hear from the White House, I talked to a National Security Council spokeswoman earlier this morning who said this administration, this president, is still determined to close the facility at Guantanamo.

And she said while there are no imminent transfers of detainees currently being prepared for an announcement, she pointed out that they are working this issue and they are making progress on a number of promising opportunities. So this sounds like a White House that is very determined to start transferring war detainees out of Guantanamo despite uproar on Capitol Hill right now.

BLITZER: Jim Acosta will stay with us as well. I want to bring in our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr. Barbara, what are you hearing at the Pentagon about any potential division differences of opinion among senior military brass and the White House over the wisdom of this exchange?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, they have been saying since the beginning, Wolf, that Secretary Hagel and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff supported everything that was done here. Trading Bowe Bergdahl, getting him out of the hands of the Taliban and trading those five Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay. They are absolutely rock solid publicly at least that they are in agreement that the risk to national security is mitigated.

Make no mistake. This may be today the most pivotal hearing to date for Chuck Hagel as defense secretary. Far more significant about his relations with Congress. Trust has been shaken. Candor has been shaken. Whether he says it or not, he knows he has to restore trust with Congress. Republicans and Democrats who feel that they were given short trip on being notified on this.

It is a sense of anxiousness up and down the Pentagon hallways from very senior aides. They need to see Hagel pull this off. He's got to be clear, crisp, stick to the facts. He has his top lawyer sitting right next to him. Steve Preston, the general counsel of the department who helped sign that MOU.

They'll try to make a clear, crisp legal case for what they have done. Hagel will have to pull that out. Democrats and Republicans will try to pin him to the wall about all of this. He doesn't always come forth publicly and answer questions as many hope he can do. This will be closely watched today. Can he make his case?

BLITZER: A lot of us remember it and I'm sure you do better than most, his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he didn't exactly get great grades although of course he was confirmed to be the secretary of defense by the armed services committee and later by the United States Senate. He's got a tough challenge ahead of him. He's getting ready with his opening statement.

I want to quickly bring in our intelligence and security analyst, Bob Baer, who is watching. A lot of this is going to depend on how good the government of Qatar is in maintaining security over the five Taliban detainees over the course of the next year and what happens afterwards. Here's the question, bob. Do you have confidence that Qataris will do what the U.S. hopes they'll do?

ROBERT BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE SECURITY ANALYST: I don't know, Wolf. It's an opaque government. They don't tend to share things with the United States. They have political motivations for letting these guys go back to Afghanistan. On the other hand, their credibility is at stake. My guess would be that they will try to keep them under wraps for at least a year. Letting them go back to Afghanistan would be a huge step back for Qatar and its international credibility.

BLITZER: All right, standby for a moment as we await the start of his testimony, I want to bring in a friend of the Bergdahl family, Matthew Hoh, a former State Department official, U.S. Marine captain, former captain. I guess one of the key questions a lot of these members will ask the defense secretary is did he desert? Did Bowe Bergdahl on his own for whatever reason decide to crawl away under some barbed wire and leave that base for whatever reason. What do you think the defense secretary will say?

MATTHEW HOH, FRIEND OF THE BERGDAHL FAMILY: Good morning, Wolf. Thank you for having me on. I'm really happy you're asking that. I hope Secretary Hagel does get asked that question. There's been a rush to condemnation Bowe Bergdahl and by extension his mom and dad. With the reality that everything we have seen, those that read the army investigation, what people have come out and said and from Afghan witnesses on the ground, it appears that the evidence is not that Bowe was deserting and previously left the base.

Because he was crazy, reckless or dumb or going out to fix relations on his own or inspired by the philosophy and wanted to conduct his own missions, we don't know. He left the brace previously and had gone out. He didn't go out with equipment that would make you think he was trying to desert. He didn't take extra food, extra clothing. He didn't take his weapons.

When he was abducted, it was a forceful abduction. He put up a violent fight. He was prisoner of war for five years. When I went through our camp, we had all kinds of guys give up and make propaganda videos in training because it was so difficult. Bowe on his own never made a propaganda video for the Taliban. From what I see, there's no renunciation of the United States or renunciation of the U.S. military and clearly no demonstration of a intent of him to desert.

BLITZER: All right, Matthew, I want you to stand by because the opening statements have wrapped up and now we'll hear from the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. He has an opening statement. That will be followed by questions. Republicans and Democrats will have a chance to ask the defense secretary questions. Here's Hagel.

(CHUCK HAGEL SPEECH)

CHUCK HAGEL, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Ranking Member Smith, thank you.

And to the members of this committee, I appreciate an opportunity to discuss the recovery of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and the transfer of five detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Qatar.

And I appreciate having the Department of Defense's General Counsel Steve Preston here with me this morning. Mr. Preston was one of our negotiators throughout this process in Qatar and signed on behalf of the United States the memorandum of understanding between the governments of Qatar and the United States.

Also here representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sitting behind me, is Brigadier General Pat White, who is the director of the joint staff's Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell. General White helped coordinate the Bergdahl recovery on behalf of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey. The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Winnefeld, as the chairman has noted, will join us later this morning in the classified closed portion of the hearing.

And as you know, General Dempsey and Admiral Winnefeld played critical roles in the meetings at the National Security Council leading up to Sergeant Bergdahl's release and supported the decision to move forward with this prisoner exchange.

HAGEL: In my statement today, I will address the issues of Chairman McKeon and Mr. Smith, issues they raised when the chairman asked me to testify, and explain why it was so urgent to pursue Sergeant Bergdahl's release; why we decided to move forward with the detainee transfer; and why it was fully consistent with U.S. law, our nation's interests and our military's core values.

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, I want to make one fundamental point. I would never sign any document or make any agreement, agree to any decision, that I did not feel was in the best interest of this country. Nor would the president of the United States, who made the final decision with the full support of his national security team.

I recognize that the speed with which we moved in this case has caused great frustration, legitimate questions and concern. We could have done a better job -- could have done a better job of keeping you informed. But I urge you to remember two things. This was an extraordinary

situation. First, we weren't certain that we would transfer those detainees out of Guantanamo until we had Sergeant Bergdahl in hand. And, second, we had Sergeant Bergdahl in hand only a few hours after making the final arrangements.

There are legitimate questions about this prisoner exchange, and Congress obviously has an important constitutional role and right and responsibility to play in all of our military and intelligence matters.

As a former member, Mr. Chairman, of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Council on Foreign Relations I appreciate the vital role Congress plays in our national security. And I will present to this committee within the limits of an open, unclassified hearing, and in more detail in the classified hearing, everything I can to answer your questions and assure you, this committee, the American people, that this prisoner exchange was done legally, it was substantial mitigation of risk to our country, and in the national interests of this country.

Let's start with Sergeant Bergdahl's status as a member of the United States Army. He was held captive by the Taliban in the Haqqani Network for almost five years. He was officially listed as missing/captured. No charges were ever brought against Sergeant Bergdahl, and there are no charges pending now. Our entire national security apparatus, the military, the

intelligence community and the State Department pursued every avenue to recover Sergeant Bergdahl, just as the American people and this Congress and the Congresses before you expected us to do.

In fact, this committee, this committee knows there were a number of congressional resolutions introduced and referred to this committee directing the president of the United States to do everything he could to get Sergeant Bergdahl released from captivity. We never stopped trying to get him back, as the Congress knows that, because he is a soldier in the United States Army.

Questions about Sergeant Bergdahl's capture are, as Mr. Smith noted and you, Mr. Chairman, are separate from our effort to recover him. because we do whatever it takes to recover any and every U.S. service member held in captivity. This pledge is woven into the fabric of our nation and our military.

As former Central Commander Marine General Jim Mattis recently put it. bottom line. quote, "The bottom line is we don't leave people behind. That is the beginning and that is the end of what we stand for. We keep faith with the guys who sign on, and that is all there is to it," end of quote.

As for the circumstances surrounding his captivity, as Secretary of the Army McHugh and Army Chief of Staff Odierno will review later, and they've said clearly, last week, that the Army will review, they will review this exchange, circumstance, captivity of Sergeant Bergdahl in a comprehensive, coordinated effort that will include speaking with Sergeant Bergdahl.

And I think I need not remind anyone on this committee, like any American, Sergeant Bergdahl has rights. And his conduct will be judged on the facts, not politically hearsay, posturing, charges, or innuendo. We do owe that to any American, and especially those who are members of our military wand their families.

Like most Americans I've been offended and disappointed in how the Bergdahl Army's been treated by some in this country. No family deserves this. I hope there will be some sober reflection on people's conduct regarding this issue and how it relates to the Bergdahl Army.

In 2011, the Obama administration conducted talks with the Taliban on a detainee exchange involving the same five Taliban detainees that were ultimately transferred after the release of Sergeant Bergdahl -- 2011.

These talks, which Congress was briefed on -- some of you in this room were in those briefings, I understand -- which Congress was briefed on in November of 2011, and in January of 2012, were broken off by the Taliban in March of 2012. We have not had direct talks with the Taliban since this time.

In September of 2013, the government of Qatar offered to serve as an intermediary. And in November of last year, we requested that the Taliban provide a new proof of life video of Sergeant Bergdahl. In January of this year, we received that video, and it was disturbing. Some of you may have seen the video. It showed a deterioration in his physical appearance and mental state compared to previous videos.

Our entire intelligence community carefully analyzed every part of it and concluded that Sergeant Bergdahl's health was poor and possibly declining. This gave us growing urgency to act.

In April of this year, after briefly suspending engagement with us, the Taliban again signaled interest in indirect talks on an exchange. At that point we intensified our discussions with the Qatar government about security assistances and assurances, particularly security assurances.

On May 12th, we signed a memoranda of understanding with Qatar detailing the specific security measures that would be undertaken and enforced -- and enforced by them if any Taliban detainees were transferred to their custody -- Steve Preston, who, as I noted earlier, signed that memoranda of understanding on behalf of the United States government and was included in those negotiations.

Included in this MOU were specific risk mitigation measures and commitments from the government of Qatar, like travel restrictions, monitoring, information sharing and limitations on activities, as well as other significant measures, which we will detail in the closed portion of this hearing. They were described, as you know, Mr. Chairman, in the classified documentation and notification letter I sent to this committee last week.

That memoranda of understanding has been sent to the Congress, to the leadership, to the committees, and every member of Congress has an opportunity to review that memoranda of understanding in a closed setting.

U.S. officials received a warning -- we received a warning from the Qatari intermediaries that as we proceeded, time was not on our side. And we'll go into more detail in a classified hearing on those warnings. This indicated that the risks to the Sergeant Bergdahl's safety were growing.

We moved forward with indirect negotiations on how to carry out that exchange, that exchange of five detainees and agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of May 27th, following three days of intensive talks.

That same day President Obama received a personal commitment and a personal telephone call from the emir of Qatar to uphold and enforce the security arrangements. And the final decision was made to move forward with that exchange on that day.

As the opportunity to obtain Sergeant Bergdahl's release became clearer, we grew increasingly concerned that any delay or any leaks could derail the deal and further endanger Sergeant Bergdahl. We were told by the Qataris that a leak, any kind of leak, would end the negotiation for Bergdahl's release.

We also knew that he would be extremely vulnerable during any movement, and our military personnel conducting the hand-off would be exposed to the possible ambush or other deadly scenarios in very dangerous territory that we did not control. And we've been given no information on where the hand-off would occur.

For all these reasons and more, the exchange needed to take place quickly, efficiently, and quietly.