Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Leans Toward Exxon CEO; Trump on Russian Hacking; Trump Slams Fighter Jet Costs; Trump Slams Intelligence Community; the FBI And CIA Disagree on Hack Motive; Tillerson's Ties to Russia. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired December 12, 2016 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:21] BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Hi there and welcome to CNN NEWSROOM. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Brianna Keilar.

And we are just 39 days before Donald Trump is sworn in as president and he appears on the verge of choosing America's next top diplomat, while using some incredibly undiplomatic language towards America's own intelligence experts, and, for that matter, China. Having written off a CIA report that Russian hackers not only sought to meddle in the U.S. election, but to help Trump win, the president-elect was up and tweeting early. Quote, "unless you catch hackers in the act," Trump said, "it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before the election?" Well, it was brought up before the election and they were caught in the act.

So we have lots to unpack in those two sentences and we'll be doing that throughout this hour.

I also, though, want to let you know that Donald Trump officially announced his pick for homeland security secretary. As CNN and others reported last week, he's got retired Marine General John Kelly, former head of the U.S. Southern Command, former aide to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and a gold star father having lost a son in Afghanistan, for that pick.

For secretary of state, Trump is now said to favor the CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson. If he is indeed chosen, expect to hear a lot about his ties to Vladimir Putin. And with that, I'll stop and bring in CNN's Ryan Nobles at Trump Tower.

So, when do you think we might hear a secretary of state announcement? And if it's Tillerson, they must be prepared for some backlash here, Ryan?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brianna, if they're not preparing for backlash, they probably should be. And on a transition conference call this morning, several transition officials said that we could hear this announcement sometime in the next couple of days. And all signs point towards it being the Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson. And there are already some prominent Republicans senators voicing real

concerns about those ties to Russia that you talked about. Among them, John McCain. I talked to him on Saturday. He said he's very concerned about the ties to Vladimir Putin, a man that he calls a thug and a murderer. And then there's Marco Rubio, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Rubio tweeted just in the last 24 hours that any friend of Vladimir Putin is not someone that he wants to see as a secretary of state. And Rubio, of course, in a very powerful position on foreign relations because he could stop that confirmation before it even gets started.

So the fact that Trump is getting pushback from some of these prominent Republicans shows us that this could be a serious showdown for the president-elect in the early days of his administration. And, Brianna, this is a very important position. The question is, does he want to have that battle? There are some Republicans that are showing support for Tillerson, some prominent Republicans like former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. So it's not as if there aren't Republicans that support the Tillerson nomination. I think that we should just be prepared for a fight if it does end up being Tillerson.

Brianna.

KEILAR: And there's -- there's this other fight going on as Donald Trump is positions himself as a Russia hacking denier. Tell us about this feud with the intel committee -- or with the intel community, I should say.

NOBLES: Yes. Well, I mean, it seems pretty clear that the president- elect and the transition, they don't want to allow any type of question as to whether or not he won this election fair and square. That's why they're pushing back on these reports in a big way. The transition putting out a statement over the weekend that reads, "these are the same people talking about the intelligence community that said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." And, of course, remember in the run-up to the Iraq War, everything that happened there, and then, of course, those weapons of mass destruction were not even found. And it's not just the transition via statement, it is the president-elect himself pushing back on this. Listen to what he told Fox News over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it. They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace. I mean they have no idea who it is.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: So why would the CIA put out this story that the Russians wanted you to win?

TRUMP: Well, I'm not sure they put it out. I think the Democrats are putting it out because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOBLES: And, Brianna, it's important to point out that just like that Tillerson nomination that we talked about, there are Republicans that believe that this situation should be investigated. Among them, one of the most powerful senators, Mitch McConnell, who said today that that bipartisan investigation should go forward.

Brianna.

KEILAR: Ryan Nobles in New York for us, thank you.

And I want to bring in my panel now, CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash, from "The Hill" with have editor in chief Bob Cusack, and we have CNN political analyst Rebecca Berg from Real Clear Politics.

OK, why is Donald Trump feuding with the CIA, Dana?

[12:05:02] DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: One reason -- main reason, and that is because if the CIA is correct in the finding that Russia did get involved and try to basically affect the results of the election, then that suggests that the results of the election, which he says -- in the electoral college at least were a landslide -- are not necessarily valid.

Now, that obviously takes a very big leap from what I just said at the beginning to the end, but even the suggestion that that could be possible is something that is anathema to Donald Trump and he wasn't -- does not want that in the ether. He doesn't want that to be suggested in any way, shape or form. And that's really, I think, there's no question the main reason why he is challenging that finding in the most -- you know, the strongest of terms.

KEILAR: Can he really get rid of that being in the ether, though, Bob, because it seems even with the CIA saying this is Russia and this is why Russia was trying to do it, the effect is hard to quantify, right?

BOB CUSACK, EDITOR IN CHIEF, "THE HILL": Yes, it is. And it's not like the CIA has never been wrong about the rise of ISIS. They were wrong about Iraq. But this is just remarkable that you have Democrats blaming the FIB for Clinton losing, you have Trump at war with the CIA. This puts, I think, Mike Pompeo, the congressman who's going to lead the CIA, in a very difficult spot.

BASH: No question.

CUSACK: His confirmation could be a little interesting during the questions. So I just think this is unprecedented that you have the intel community so politicized.

KEILAR: I want to look at a tweet that Donald Trump put out. He said, "unless you catch hackers in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before the election?" Well, it was brought up before the election. I mean we covered it for months before the election, Rebecca.

REBECCA BERG, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure. KEILAR: And hackers were caught in the act, especially in the DNC

hack. What is he talking about?

BERG: Well, again, I think, as Dana was noting, Donald Trump is concerned about these findings potentially delegitimizing his victory. And so obviously what he tweeted is not true because the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security a month before Election Day put out a statement saying that Russia was behind this, and that they were working to affect the election in some way. They hadn't concluded, you know, whether it was just for Donald Trump or just to stir up some chaos in the electoral system. But, either way, they knew Russia was behind the hack and in light of that statement Donald Trump would not acknowledge it and he's still not acknowledging it now.

BASH: But I just want to say, despite what Donald Trump is doing and pushing back extremely hard for the reasons we just discussed, the fact that there is bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill, that it should be investigated, because it just -- the notion of Russia getting so involved in an American election, if true, is so unbelievable, and something that needs to be addressed, and investigated, and looked into and there needs to be somehow, some way a conclusion found I think tells you a lot.

KEILAR: It goes beyond the partisan lines there.

BASH: Sure.

KEILAR: And Donald Trump had said, "can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and we tried, meaning we, my camp, tried to play the Russia CIA card, it would be called conspiracy theory." To Dana's point, you have Democrats and Republicans who are saying this needs to be looked into, but is he right?

CUSACK: Well, I certainly think sometimes there can be a double standard, but Chuck Schumer issued a joint statement over the weekend with John McCain, as well as Lindsey Graham. This plays into the Democrats kind of conquering -- divide and conquer. And I think now the big question is, Mitch McConnell said this should be investigated. Not a select committee, but through senate committees. Now, what does Paul Ryan do? Does Paul Ryan direct his house committees to also look into this and see if anything was there?

KEILAR: And then you have this nomination that could be happening, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, Rebecca, and he does have ties to Russia through business. Is this something with some bipartisan concerns that would be insurmountable for him in a confirmation process?

BERG: Not necessarily insurmountable, but certainly these revelations that Russia was trying to disrupt the election with its hacking, trying to help Donald Trump in this election, certainly that will complicate his nomination process further because of his very close ties to Vladimir Putin. And Marco Rubio, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, tweeted over the weekend that he feels uncomfortable with anyone who is considered a friend of Vladimir Putin moving forward as a potential secretary state.

And it's not just Marco Rubio on the senate Foreign Relations Committee. There's also Jeff Flake, who was a big skeptic of Donald Trump during the election, to put it lightly. And you have Rand Paul, who is not a big fan of John Bolton, whose name is out there for deputy secretary of state under Tillerson.

[12:10:00] So some major complications. Republicans, it seems, are sort of sending warning signals to Donald Trump right now. Maybe don't pick these people for secretary of state, but it's unclear whether he will heed those warnings.

KEILAR: It seemed, Bob, like he's pretty set on this pick, though. Is there anything that could derail any Donald Trump pick?

CUSACK: I think the chances of Tillerson being picked are on the decrease at the moment. I thought for sure last week he was going to be picked. But because you have these Republicans, as Rebecca said, this could be a bruising fight. But what does Donald Trump like? He likes bruising fights. So maybe he just doubles down.

KEILAR: What do you think?

BASH: Yes, I mean, I think you're exactly right. I think that, you know, in -- in sort of normal Washington times and terms, having these Republicans, like Marco Rubio, send these warning shots via Twitter that this is not a guy who they're very interested in confirming because of his ties to Vladimir Putin, that that would be, well, it would make the transition take a step back and even the president- elect take a step back. I'm not so sure that's true with Donald Trump.

KEILAR: Donald Trump took on Boeing. Now he seems to be taking on Lockheed. He tweeted, "the F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military and other purchases after January 20th." Now, this is a multibillion dollar program, the F-35 program. But Lockheed's stock dropped 4 percent at the opening. Is this about the image of doing something, or actually doing something to diminish costs? What do you think?

CUSACK: I think -- Brianna, I think it's both. I mean this is -- he -- he vowed that he would take down the special interests and he is not your typical Republican. He is going after big corporations. And, of course, that has huge effects. And I think corporate America, whether you're in the health care field or defense or drug pricing, I mean, you've got to be concerned that Donald Trump is going to go after you next.

KEILAR: And we -- I heard Democrats this weekend commending him on getting involved. So that's something to be said as well.

BASH: Remember, he is a populist and he agrees and lines up on issues like that with many Democrats. So you're exactly right.

KEILAR: Many people. Dana Bash, Bob Cusack, Rebecca Berg, thank you guys so much. Up next, the CIA and FBI are not on the same page when it comes to

Russia's role in the U.S. election. Why is there this split between the communities there? We'll discuss, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:44] KEILAR: While the motive may not be clear just yet, the U.S. intelligence community is growing more confident that Russian hackers were meddling with the U.S. election. A bipartisan group of senators is calling for an investigation now. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham. And then for the Democrats, Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Jack Reed. But the man who will be their boss in 39 days, he is not on board.

I want to bring in CNN's senior law enforcement analyst, Tom Fuentes, a former FBI assistant director and CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem.

We should say, Donald Trump will certainly be kind of the boss of the U.S., maybe not their boss. They do have a check on him as well.

I want to ask you, Juliette, because Donald Trump says that the intel community's assessment is ridiculous. He says, I don't believe it. One of his top aides is trying to clean that statement up. Here's what Kellyanne Conway said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, TRUMP SENIOR ADVISER: What he's calling laughable and ridiculous yesterday, George, is the specific conclusion that what Russia did led to his victory and Hillary Clinton's defeat. That's where our beef is. He respects the intelligence community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: That's not exactly what Donald Trump said. He actually questioned, Juliette, the very assessment that Russia is behind the hacking. Not just claims from the CIA that this could have had an affect or that this was the motive, I guess is what they said, by Russia. What -- why does that distinction matter, that he is indeed questioning the findings of the intelligence community?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it's probably one of the most distressing aspects of a year that certainly brought a lot of distress in the national security and intelligence world. Basically you have almost near sort of unanimity that Russia not only hacked the system, and there's questions about where exactly it had its influence, but that it did so to favor Trump.

Now, I think, you know, people who are worried about this just concede that Trump will be president in January, right? That's not why people like me and others who are your analysts are concerned about this. The concern is that it's a foreign power that tried to sway an election, a democratic election. And if it is not confronted, if it is not addressed, if it is not penalized for doing so, we have midterms in 2018 and another presidential election in 2020. So that is why it's important for Trump and his team, no matter how much they try to clean it up, not throw the entire intelligence apparatus under the bus. They can have different policies related to their conclusions, certainly.

But, look, there's men and women, right, who are, like, you know, are basically risking their lives to provide Trump and his team daily intelligence briefings, whoever on his team is taking them, and to give them the information that they can make sound and fact-based policy decisions. And I think at the very least we have to respect those sacrifices and sort of recognize that this is not about Trump. It is about the United States.

KEILAR: Tom, she said differences of opinion, which you heard from the FBI and the CIA. The CIA went far enough to draw a conclusion that Russia was trying to affect this in a positive way for Trump in the election. The FBI did not. Why is there that split?

TOM FUENTES, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, because I think that the CIA information coming out is more along the lines of the Russians got into the e-mails of the DNC and some of the officials, you know, associated with the Clinton campaign. Therefore, it must have been to throw the election. You know, so we haven't heard any direct evidence that shows that that was actually the motive for them getting into it. The other thing is that, you know, the question I have here is, what did the president know and when did he know it? He --

KEILAR: President Obama?

FUENTES: President Obama.

KEILAR: Because this was going on for months and months.

FUENTES: These accusations were being made in the summer, in the fall. You know, Director Clapper testifying in October that they thought the Russians were interfering. Now, he's the president of the United States and its his duty to protect the sacred aspect of our election process. What did he do? Now a month after the election, oh, let's have an investigation.

KEILAR: There's a review. There's an investigation.

To the point that you're bringing up, Tom, Donald Trump tweeting this morning, "unless you catch hackers in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before the election?"

[12:20:05] You just said it, this was brought up months before the election. Maybe -- and, Juliette, weigh in here, maybe this wasn't treated with the gravity that certainly -- Tom says it should have been treated with more gravity, but just respond to this tweet that is so clearly untrue?

KAYYEM: So it is absolutely untrue. I mean it was certainly raised by the intelligence agencies. And I just, you know, this may seem like a hodgepodge of agencies, but the CIA obviously would have foreign intelligence leads if something -- if they were picking up signal intelligence, if we had assets in, or near, Putin to figure out whether they were talking about swaying the election towards Trump.

What's also interesting is the Department of Homeland Security, the department I used to work at, they statutorily have oversight and are sort of meant to protect the dotcom domain. Why is that relevant? Because that's the domain likely that John Podesta and the DNC were working on. They weren't in government. They weren't on dot gov or dot mil (ph). So that's why it's relevant that these intelligence agencies are saying this.

As to the timing issue, what we don't know is, you know, maybe it wasn't taken seriously. It was certainly raised. What we don't know is what information or sort of coalition of information was gathered to raise the desire by President Obama to start this investigation this last Friday. What we do know is, it matters not to Trump versus Clinton at this stage. It matters for 2018, 2020, 2022.

KEILAR: Sure.

KAYYEM: This is serious stuff not related to any candidate at this stage.

KEILAR: OK. And so I want to ask you, because -- I think we're seeing this call from Donald Trump, Tom, that basically the -- he's pouring cold water on whether the intel community should be trusted. You have -- you have some experience here.

FUENTES: Yes.

KEILAR: Does he have a point? Is he going overboard? Is there some credence to that? What do you think?

FUENTES: I think he's going a little bit overboard and, you know, the accusations against the entire intel community. But there are times when even a sitting president doesn't take it seriously, even when getting it, or throws the CIA, let's say, under the bus. Which President Obama just did that in his interview that was aired last week with Fareed Zakaria where he says, you know, regarding ISIS and the rise of ISIS, well, it didn't -- it wasn't on my intelligence radar. And you had people like General Michael Flynn, DNI leader in 2014, February 2014, testifying before the Armed Services Committee at the Senate about the rise of ISIS. So this has already been something that's been coming to the White House for several years. We had 2013, the leaders in Kyrgyzstan, northern Iraq, telling the State Department, telling the U.S. government about ISIS rising in northern Iraq and in Syria and at that time President Obama referred to them as the JV team. So he hasn't exactly been true to the intel briefings he's gotten either.

KAYYEM: Well --

KEILAR: No, we've seen -- I'm, unfortunately, going to have to --

KAYYEM: Well, can I say something to that?

KEILAR: Yes, Juliette, very quickly. KAYYEM: Well, there's a difference between accepting data and facts and then making policy decisions that may be right or wrong, deployment of troops, calling ISIS JV. It's different what Trump is doing where he's saying he actually does not believe the facts and assessments. So we have to just distinguish between policy differences and facts. This is very different than previous presidents calculating policy based on intelligence. It's just a -- it's just a difference.

KEILAR: Quick final word to you, Tom?

FUENTES: Well, I think that, still, what did he do about any of this information over the last couple of years? So if you're going to relate policy to the intel briefings you get, then show what you did with it that affected policy.

KEILAR: All right, Tom Fuentes, Juliette Kayyem, thank you so much to both of you.

We could talk about this all day, I know.

And still to come, Donald Trump's leading candidate for secretary of state is Exxon's CEO Rex Tillerson, but his deep ties with Russia is drawing major scrutiny and not just from Democrats. We'll break it all down, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:27:31] KEILAR: The next 48 hours could bring perhaps the most important cabinet announcement that president-elect Donald Trump will make before he takes office. A source says his choice for secretary of state will be revealed midweek and we're told this oil industry executive is now the front-runner. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson that close business ties to Russia and was even given the country's order of friendship award by President Putin. Trump calls Tillerson a world- class dealmaker. But even some Republican lawmakers are weary of his close Russian connections, including Senator Marco Rubio, who said this on Twitter. "Being a friend of Vladimir is not an attribute I am hoping for from a secretary of state."

Let's dig deeper into who Rex Tillerson is as a business man and how his selection could be viewed overseas if Donald Trump picks him.

I'm joined now by CNN Money's Cristina Alesci and our global affairs correspondent Elise Labott.

Cristina, first to you. Tell us about Rex Tillerson's ties to Russia.

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN MONEY: Well, Putin's quote in 2014 kind of sums it up. He called Exxon an old reliable partner. Look, the reality is, Exxon has been operating in Russia for 20 years, but Tillerson helped strengthen the ties between the company and Russia. He was the architect between Exxon's biggest deal there. The two partnered on a big oil development in the Black Sea, the Arctic, in Siberia. They signed the joint venture in 2011.

And it was a really important one for Russia. Here's why. Russia has plenty of oil, but it doesn't have the technology to develop it all. For that, it really depends on partners like the United States. Now, Exxon reported that agreement was for 64 million acres. Just to put that into context, it's the size of Oregon we're talking about, Brianna.

KEILAR: Wow.

ALESCI: The deal should have been profitable for Exxon. But, in 2014, the U.S. and the EU imposed sanctions on Russia over the annexation of Crimea and Exxon ended up taking a huge loss. As much as $1 billion. This is why lawmakers are so concerned about Tillerson. As secretary of state, he could push for removal or relief of sanctions in Russia, which would be a windfall for Exxon.

Brianna.

KEILAR: Well, thank you for explain that very important stuff there. And he's actually been with Exxon for decades. How did he rise through the ranks there?

[12:29:54] ALESCI: He actually joined in 1975 as an engineer and then he took a major role managing the Russian account in 1998. Look, his relationship with the country is one of the reasons he actually became CEO because the company wanted to expand there.