Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview With California Congressman Brad Sherman; Interview With Kentucky Congressman John Yarmuth; Netanyahu Addresses Congress

Aired March 03, 2015 - 15:00   ET

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

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: She has disclosed this information. And she has complied, and like other secretaries of state.

(CROSSTALK)

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: I think the question, Donna, is...

(CROSSTALK)

ANA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, she hadn't, Donna. That's why it's such a big story yesterday.

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: She -- it's a big story because, you know what, we love big stories when it comes to Hillary Clinton, because she's the only thing that keeps Republicans united, because they're divided about everything else.

CABRERA: Let me bring Brianna back in here to try to set the record straight.

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: I don't know, Donna. Let me tell you something.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: One at a time. One at a time. One at a time.

Brianna, who decides what gets archived? Is it Clinton's team who has to turn everything over?

(CROSSTALK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Who decides what gets archived?

Well, in this issue, because it's a personal e-mail that you would presume Hillary Clinton and maybe some of her close aides have access to, they have that first discretion on what would be turned over.

Now, at the same time, what they will say, Ana, is if she's e-mailing people who are in the State Department, then that's going to be on the State Department's server. But think of it like this. If you're looking for e-mails that come out from Hillary Clinton to somebody and we're talking about something years ago, then you would have to go to a large swathe of people at the State Department, take their e-mails out of archives.

And you're kind of working backwards, getting the e-mails from them. So, instead of really starting with the needle, you're now looking for the needle in the haystack. And that's why when -- and I have talked to cyber-security experts. We have talked to some of them today. And that's why they say it's like putting together a puzzle with millions and millions of pieces without having a picture of what you're looking for.

And that's the issue with this in terms of transparency.

CABRERA: And I know -- Donna and Ana, I know you have more to say. We will continue the conversation as we roll into the 3:00 hour here.

But, for now, thank you, all three of you, for joining me.

And it is the top of the hour. Thanks again for joining us at home. I'm Ana Cabrera.

And in a hall ripe with political conflicts, this was one even Congress perhaps hadn't seen before, the leader of a key foreign ally addressing U.S. lawmakers and panning their own president's policy. President Obama just responded to the speech from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he delivered today to a joint meeting of Congress, in which he rallied and really railed against Iran.

He laid out why the U.S. should not back a deal to restrain Iran's nuclear program. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for awhile. But it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Now here's the president's response just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Prime Minister Netanyahu has not offered any kind of viable alternative that would achieve the same verifiable mechanism to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Global affairs correspondent Elise Labott is joining me now from Washington. Elise, how did the prime minister do among the members of Congress?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was a very receptive audience.

He's really knocking on an open door, right, Ana? Most of these lawmakers, even those that said they didn't want to go, went to show their respect for the prime minister. There were a series of standing ovations. There were a few icy glares. But I think the president -- prime minister laid out a fairly compelling case about the dangers of this nuclear deal with Iran, painting a picture of this maniacal, tyrannical, militant Islamic regime and how dangerous it would be for them to have nuclear weapons in their hands.

He laid out specifics about where he felt there were too many concessions made to Iran that could leave Iran open to go for a nuclear bomb down the line if it violated that agreement, or if the agreement expired.

And he also talked about when President Obama says that there -- he didn't provide an alternative, he said there is an alternative to war, and it's a tougher deal. So he's looking for a tougher deal that keeps sanctions in place, that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear power, nuclear capabilities in place, until Iran changes its behavior in the region, stops threatening Israel, stops launching terrorist attacks.

The problem is, Ana, that deal does not exist. The U.S. is sitting down with very tough Iranian negotiators who are not willing to compromise on what they feel is their right to have a certain level of a nuclear program.

CABRERA: Right. Elise, I know you have been traveling with Netanyahu. You spent some time there in Israel. I'm wondering how his speech went over with Israelis, given that we know there's an election just a couple of weeks from now.

LABOTT: Well, you know, it's very -- Israelis are very divided. Those who love Prime Minister Netanyahu are going to think he has what they call chutzpah, that he went and he defended Israel, and he went to protect Israel against Iran.

President Obama's Iran policy is not very popular in Israel. Three out of four Israelis do not trust the prime minister -- president on Iran. So those people that support Prime Minister Netanyahu will support him. Those that don't think he's really poking an eye in the United States, which is Israel's closest ally.

So I'm not sure it really moves the needle very far in terms of the electorate. But certainly the images of this reception, of Prime Minister Netanyahu, a reception that's really reserved for U.S. presidents and the friendly reception that he got there can only help him, I think. It does help him in the election to keep that Iran issue alive. Security is his strongest card. It's really his only card.

And so it deflects from some of those areas where he's not very strong

CABRERA: All right. Elise Labott, thank you so much.

And for all of your questions on Netanyahu and the U.S., Israel and Iran, be sure to visit Elise's online chat, starting just moments from now on Facebook.com/CNN.

Now we're going to speak to two members of Congress, both Jewish Democrats, one who supported the prime minister's speech, and one who did not.

First, let's go to the congressman who chose to give up one of the hottest tickets on Capitol Hill that they have had in some time, according to John Boehner. This is representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky joining me now.

Thank you so much, Representative. Congressman, you are one of more than 50 Democrats we now know, including these members of Congress, who boycotted Benjamin Netanyahu's speech today. Was that the right decision in retrospect?

REP. JOHN YARMUTH (D), KENTUCKY: Well, you know, I was opposed to the speech being done. I think it comes at exactly the wrong time, both for the negotiations that we have and, of course, it comes at the right time for Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection attempt.

But it doesn't really matter whether I was in the chamber or not. I actually watched the speech in my office with a group of AIPAC representatives from my district. And the speech went exactly as I thought it would be. Netanyahu pulled out the Dick Cheney playbook, which is nothing but fear-mongering, talking about things that he has no way of knowing what happens, saying that war is inevitable if this deal were to pass, saying we're paving the way for a bomb.

All of that stuff is just designed to, first of all, bolster his political chances back home, but also to try and put pressure on the United States, on the president to back down from his negotiation and, as the president said, offering no alternative that makes any sense or that is realistic.

So, yes, I think I made the right decision. And I'm very happy to speak out now because the speech turned out exactly as I thought, political theater, but not moving, doing anything constructive for the situation.

CABRERA: You have said it is important to understand the Israeli perspective, but that instead Americans were only going to see Netanyahu's perspective. What do you believe is the difference?

YARMUTH: Well, I think that, first of all, one of the things that bothered me about the speech was, it was pretty condescending when he talked -- basically, he implied that neither members of Congress nor the administration nor Americans understand the gravity of the situation there and the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.

We all understand that. We all understand how Iran has abetted terrorism in the region. We now how dangerous they can be. But, again, this was something that the prime minister offered no alternative for. He wants a perfect deal from his perspective. Clearly, we understand that Israel is most directly threatened by a nuclear Iran.

But we have actually made them more secure over the last few months with a joint plan of action because we have degraded Iran's nuclear program, and we have frozen it in place. They're much safer now and so is the region because of what's happened already. Let's let the deal be pursued. We only have a few weeks to see if it's possible. If it doesn't work, if there isn't a good deal, then we can talk about the next step.

CABRERA: Finally, Congressman, before I let you go, do you feel like Congress was being used as sort of a political pawn in Netanyahu's reelection campaign?

YARMUTH: I don't think there's any question about it. Again, he didn't say anything today that he's not said many times over. He could have said the same thing at AIPAC yesterday, which he largely did.

In 2011, when he appeared before Congress, he used footage from that event in his 2013 campaign spots. We know exactly what he's doing. And that's one of the reasons that Speaker Boehner invited him. So it was great political theater, very compelling political theater, but it was just that, political theater.

CABRERA: All right. Congressman John Yarmuth, thank you so much.

And now I'm going to bring in another Democrat, one who chose to keep his seat to Benjamin Netanyahu's speech in Congress today. In fact, Representative Brad Sherman helped escort the Israeli leader today.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

Did Netanyahu tell you something you didn't already know or hadn't heard before?

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I have been working on these issues since 1997. I have chaired the Nonproliferation Subcommittee, and so I don't think he should have tailored the speech to me personally.

Every speech includes an awful lot of stuff that members of the audience already know, and then you build from that. Look at any State of the Union address, and you will see an awful lot of things you already knew, and then that's the foundation for whatever proposals or additional information the speaker wants to provide.

I think that Netanyahu did a very good job of reminding us and giving us additional reasons why we cannot accept a nuclear Iran. There was not a lot in the speech about how to put more pressure on Iran, so that Iran agrees to a reasonable deal. And that is the program we're still trying to discover.

CABRERA: Do you think his speech will prove effective in terms of the endgame, in terms of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

SHERMAN: Oh, it's one of 1,000 different things.

If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon, it will be because we went to sleep from 1999 until basically 2012. We are now trying to pull out a game in the last few minutes with a Hail Mary pass or a trick play because we, under the George W. Bush administration, we not only didn't pass any sanction statutes, but he refused to enforce the sanctions that we had then.

So we're in a tough position. None of the options available look all that inviting. There are ways to put more pressure on Iran. We ought to be doing that. And, at the same time, I will be interested in looking at the deal that comes out of the Swiss negotiations. I'm hoping that we see intrusive inspections, because I'm just as concerned about sneak-out as I am breakout of this agreement.

CABRERA: Congressman, I want to get your reaction to Nancy Pelosi's reaction to the speech. She says Netanyahu essentially insulted the intelligence of Americans. What do you think?

SHERMAN: I don't think there were many people on the floor who thought that. You saw the reaction there. If the speech was condescending, it was condescending to everybody in the room. And yet the vast majority of the people in the room didn't find it condescending.

That doesn't mean that it didn't repeat a lot of things that a lot of us knew. But that's not condescension. That's oratory. Every speech, pick at random any State of the Union speech for the last 10 years, and look at how many sentences in that speech remind you of what you already know, tell you things that everybody agrees with, remind you of how dedicated we are to our veterans, for example.

You have got to have a lot of stuff in a speech that everybody already knows and agrees with before you present your additional ideas and your additional insights.

CABRERA: All right. Congressman Brad Sherman, we will leave it there. Thanks so much for spending some time with us.

SHERMAN: Thank you.

CABRERA: Up next, we are following breaking news involving several different stories, including Ferguson, where the U.S. Department of Justice has found systemic, systematic discrimination against African- Americans, including racist e-mails. We will discuss about that.

Also, voting under way right now, as we speak, in the House of Representatives on a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We will have live special coverage of that result.

And did Hillary Clinton violate federal rules by using her personal e- mail to conduct business as secretary of state? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

CABRERA: Breaking news right now on Capitol Hill. And after a huge fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security, we now know a clean bill has passed in the House of Representatives.

I want to get right to our CNN chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash. Also joining us, chief political analyst Gloria Borger.

Dana, break it down for us. Is this really a done deal?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's really a done deal. The gavel has come down. The vote is over and it has passed, that Congress now will send to the president a bill that will fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year.

And for the first time in several years, it is a new piece of legislation, which means that that department is going to get new programs, new priorities that the secretary, Jeh Johnson, has been saying for weeks and weeks they need desperately to address the new threats that face this country.

So that is happening now. The obvious question is why and how did it happen now, when it didn't happen a few days ago, when there was a revolt among conservatives?

CABRERA: Right.

BASH: The short answer is because the leadership was able to convince them that the fight had run its course, that there was really no alternative other than funding the department in this way now.

Now, those conservatives for the most part voted no, but they didn't have the ability to actually procedurally stop this from -- stop the train from leaving the station, so to speak. So it is done. And now there's going to be not one, not two, not three, but many, many more fights within the Republican Party about how to approach the president and his policies, because it is not over. The House speaker is OK for now.

Clearly, there was no formal threat to him, as we thought might have been at the end of last week. But, you know, we will see what happens in the next couple of months, Ana.

CABRERA: Gloria, I would like you to comment on that. Is this a win or a defeat for John Boehner?

(LAUGHTER)

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's probably both in many ways.

Look, he's always going to have the right flank complaining about him. I think what the caucus understands is that this is also an issue, immigration, that's going to play out in the courts, that they have won the first round in the courts with the federal judge in Texas. And so it's going to play out over there.

But what occurred this time was that Democrats voted for the measure. And that's what's really changed the whole dynamic here, because last time the Democrats were saying, we're not going to bail you out on this. If you want to do this, you're going to have to do is with your own votes. And so this time the Democrats decided they were going to go for this. They felt that they had a deal, although the speaker denies it, for a clean bill.

And so the House Republicans who disagree with this will live to fight another day with John Boehner on this and a lot of other issues, Ana.

CABRERA: All right. Dana Bash, Gloria Borger, thanks for that update.

Again, the Department of Homeland Security will be funded through the end of the fiscal year following that vote in the House of Representatives on a clean bill.

Up next, more breaking news, several other stories we're following, Ferguson, where the U.S. Justice Department has found systemic discrimination against African-Americans, including racist e-mails. We will have more on that.

Also ahead, former CIA Director David Petraeus apparently has agreed to a plea deal with the feds. We're learning more about what he's admitting he did with his mistress.

Plus, did Hillary Clinton violate federal rules by using her personal e-mail account to conduct business as secretary of state? Much more to come as we discuss all these breaking news stories.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: In that spirit, I want to yield to ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Bennie Thompson.

CABRERA: OK, we were just listening to Nancy Pelosi, of course, the Democratic leader, commenting on the speech today by Benjamin Netanyahu.

And we do know in an earlier statement she released, she called his comments condescending to the American people. So she's standing by Democrats and the president in basically condemning his visit to the U.S. and his speech before Congress.

The other big story that's making headlines today in the world of politics is Hillary Clinton facing questions today over something you and I use every day, e-mail. Now, when she was secretary of state, we have learned, Clinton did not use a government e-mail account. She basically just used a personal e-mail account, even for her communications with State Department officials and even other world leaders. And that seems to break government rules that require personal e-mail

accounts only be used in emergencies, so that all e-mails, of course, are preserved on government servers for record-keeping.

Now, a spokesman for Clinton says she followed the letter oft spirit of the rules and did exactly what previous secretaries of state have done. Last hour at the White House briefing, that issue was definitely a popular one. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We encourage people to use their official government e-mail account when they're conducting official government business.

However, when a personal e-mail account is involved, the law suggests or the law mandates, in fact, that that record be properly preserved. And that can be done by forwarding it to an official government e- mail, where it can be preserved on the system. Again, that's what Secretary Clinton's team did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: The State Department says John Kerry, in fact, is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on his government e-mail account.

But critics are still pouncing on Clinton, including a key presidential 2016 rival.

Let's discuss with CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp and Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis.

Chris, let's start with you. Why would Clinton use only a personal e- mail?

CHRIS KOFINIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: My instinct tells me that it's -- if you have had other secretaries of state doing this, it's probably just been kind of the custom and habit of them in terms of how they have dealt with communications.

I just don't find this -- I know S.E. is going to disagree. Republicans are going to find anything and everything to try to attack Secretary Clinton, but when you forward 55,000 e-mails over, when you basically are following the protocol that's been done in the past, I'm not sure that this is being -- I'm not sure this is a big deal. I know that S.E. is going to disagree. I just don't buy it.

CABRERA: Well, S.E., are people reading into this a little too much, do you think?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think so. I think it's very nice of Josh Earnest and the White House to try to cover for Hillary Clinton and spin this, but there's no good explanation for refusing to use the government e-mail as is dictated by the Records Act. It's just not even smart for a future presidential hopeful to have any appearance of duplicity here. So the idea that no one around her, either at the State Department or

at the White House or in her inner circle, said, Madam Secretary, you might want to consider following protocol on this one, I think, just speaks to how big a figure Hillary Clinton has become.

In many ways, I say she's become too big to fail. No one feels as if they can tell her when she's wrong or what she should be doing, or they do and she ignores them. Either scenario is a problem for a public servant. She might have outgrown her ability to be an effective public servant because she is such a big, iconic, huge figure now.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Chris, I will let you respond.

KOFINIS: Well, it just kind of makes me laugh.

I mean, to be honest, Republicans would -- you know, if Hillary Clinton crossed the street, Republicans would find a way of attacking her for jaywalking. I mean, at the end of the day, they're always going to find something to attack her on.