Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump vs. China; Trump to Nominate Secretary of State Friendly to Russia?; Did Russia Interfere in U.S. Election?. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 12, 2016 - 3:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Would Trump have won this race if Russia did not get involved?

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: All I know is that Russia helped a lot.

Those WikiLeaks coming out drip, drip, drip hurt her. And Comey helped Trump significantly. A week before the election, he came out with this. Oh, we found some more e-mails. And, as a result of that, we lost Senate seats and I think we lost the presidency.

RAJU: So, you think he -- Comey single-handedly swayed this election to Clinton and kept Republicans in control of the Senate?

REID: Well, I'm not saying single-handedly, but he -- but for him -- well, so, I will say single-handedly.

Had he not written that letter a week or so before the election, she would have won. We would have picked up at least two more Senate seats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Manu Raju with the interview.

With me now, CNN senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson.

It's nice to see you, my friend.

Let's just begin with, listen, we heard from the top Republican senator. He declined to comment specifically, though, on Donald Trump. What about Speaker Ryan?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Paul Ryan came out two hours ago with a statement. He has called any interference by Russia into this American election unacceptable, problematic, because Russia, as he said, has been an aggressor.

But he also cautioned against seeing this through a partisan light, essentially saying any attempt to view this election as illegitimate was not in keeping with what he wanted to see out of any of the conversations around this.

Certainly, if Donald Trump thought folks on the Hill, whether it be McConnell or Paul Ryan, would follow him, you know, in terms of questioning the CIA, that hasn't happened. It seems like we have got people at the top ranks of the Republican Party, both on the Senate side and the House side, willing to look into this and follow through with investigations.

That's certainly something that Paul Ryan has said in terms of the investigations committee on the Hill, that he is encouraging their work into cyber-threats more generally.

BALDWIN: What about, just quickly -- we heard that Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta, supporting this notion that these electors, the Electoral College electors, want these intel briefings on any sort of foreign intervention ahead of the big vote next week. Why do you think he's saying this?

HENDERSON: Well, listen, he's come out -- essentially, about 10 electors have come out asking for that, nine Democrats and one Republican, saying that they have a right to this information, that essentially they should be given that security clearance, so that they can be party to whatever these investigations find out and uncover about Russia's involvement in this election.

And the argument there is that they need to be informed before they cast their ballot in the different states for or against Donald Trump. So, listen, I mean, this is sort of a drip, drip, drip thing that's going on. We had known about some of this as the election had gone on, but for this kind of bombshell to come out on Friday, and then you have an extraordinary day, right, today with Mitch McConnell coming out and talking about an investigation into this, folks wanting to get to the bottom of it, and then Paul Ryan saying the same thing, each cautioning, of course, that this doesn't have anything to do with undermining the legitimacy of the outcome, but certainly wanting to figure out what Russia's hand in this election might have been.

BALDWIN: Not about changing the election results, but intent, intent, intent.

Nia-Malika Henderson, thank you so much.

HENDERSON: Thank you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Bombshell, indeed. Thank you.

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, he is also speaking up, going after the FBI director, James Comey, over Russia's involvement in the election. Senator Reid says Comey was slow to act when he, himself, urged the FBI to look into this further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REID: I thought it was important to put the FBI on notice: Do something about it. I wrote in August, and the FBI director didn't have the decency, the courtesy to even respond to my letter. So, I got something from somebody in the Government Affairs

Department, somebody that probably doesn't know his way down to the Capitol, sent me a letter saying, we're looking into it.

They looked into nothing.

RAJU: Why do you think that is?

REID: Well, it was obvious he was a partisan in all this.

RAJU: Comey?

REID: Yes, Comey, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: While the FBI agrees with the CIA that there was, indeed, hacking by the Russians, there's a question as to why it was done. The CIA says it was, in fact, to help Donald Trump win, but the FBI hasn't quite reached that conclusion.

Let's go to our justice correspondent, Evan Perez.

And I want you to explain to me the differences, the nuances between how the CIA arrived at this bombshell allegation and where the FBI is.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

Well, you're right, Brooke. There's a lot of nuance to be gotten. And strictly speaking, you know, the CIA arrived at this conclusion, this view, that the Russians were trying to help Donald Trump get elected.

[15:05:05]

That's what they told lawmakers when they did a briefing a couple weeks ago. However, even that conclusion, that assessment that the CIA presented is not 100 percent. They're simply doing a little bit of guesswork based on -- it's an educated guess based on some circumstantial evidence.

And also, according to people we have talked to, that the CIA developed additional information from their own sources. Now, none of this information apparently leads directly back to Moscow, from Moscow to WikiLeaks, which is the Web site that published some of these embarrassing e-mails that hurt the Democrats.

The FBI is sort of not ready to go there. They just don't -- they don't quite yet see enough evidence to be able to say that the motivation that the Russians had was to get Donald Trump elected. They simply think right now the Russians were trying to mess with the elections, to undermine the system. It appears that's what they have done.

BALDWIN: OK. Evan, thank you very much.

Let's take a closer look. Let me bring in some additional voices here.

Dana Bash is with me, CNN chief political correspondent. Buck Sexton is here, a former counterterrorism analyst for the CIA, and Jill Dougherty, a global fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and former CNN Moscow bureau chief.

Great to have all of you on.

And I also just to underscore some of this, Mike Morell, in an interview over the weekend, he's a former CIA acting director, he called the CIA report the political equivalent of 9/11.

Dana Bash, just underscore for me, you know, when it comes to democracy here in this country, how this is such an explosive allegation.

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is. I mean, look, 9/11 happened. There's no alleged -- there's no nothing. It happened. And it was, obviously, the biggest tragedy on American soil.

To call it the political equivalent is to assume that the investigation is fully done and we know exactly what happened, which we don't yet. Obviously, the CIA has drawn an initial conclusion that there was tampering by Russia.

But we don't know the extent to which that has happened, which is why there is very rare bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill that there should be an investigation. I mean, I can count the number of times that the Democratic leader and the Republican leader in the United States Senate agree on something on one hand, maybe half of a hand, especially with something that is this -- that is this politically explosive, at least potentially politically explosive.

But it is incredibly urgent, both sides agree, that we get to the bottom of whether or not a former superpower, another superpower, whatever you want to call Russia -- I will let my friend and former colleague Jill Dougherty describe what they are right now -- tried to and maybe even successfully meddled in the United States of America and its ultimate action in democracy, which is elections.

BALDWIN: Well, Jill, let me go to you just as someone who knows so much about Russia. Before I hear from you, I just want to add this sound. This is from former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul on "Meet the Press" as far as perhaps a motive for the Russians. Here he was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL MCFAUL, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO RUSSIA: One is revenge against Secretary Clinton. Let's remember that Vladimir Putin thinks that she intervened in his election, the parliamentary election in December 2011, and has said as much publicly. And I have heard him talk about it privately.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BALDWIN: Jill Dougherty, I mean, is that even a possibility, retribution against Hillary Clinton?

JILL DOUGHERTY, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS: Oh, absolutely.

BALDWIN: Yes.

DOUGHERTY: I mean, no surprise there, because there's a lot of animosity, I think probably mutually, but certainly on the part of President Putin, because he does believe that the United States, Hillary Clinton interfered in starting those demonstrations on the streets of Moscow.

And he also has made the point many times that democracy organizations, NGOs that help with like how to run elections, et cetera, he considers them, you know, organizations that are trying to start color revolutions in Russia and potentially overthrow him.

So, yes, that theory is, I think, very much on the table. I mean, there are others. It could be not only to hurt Hillary Clinton, but then you get into that area of help Donald Trump.

But, in my book, if you hurt Hillary, you help Trump, so that kind of evens it out. And then the final thing is to hurt any perception of democracy in the United States.

BALDWIN: So, there's a lot, Buck. Let me just turn to you. You have this allegation from the CIA of the Russian involvement, but then you also have the fact that we have the next president of the United States, he's not buying what the CIA is selling. He's not sure. He said it could be Russia, could be China, could some guy in a bedroom.

[15:10:02]

You, as former CIA, underscore the importance to me of a -- because I know intel community members are now nervous -- the importance of the relationship between the president of the United States and intelligence.

BUCK SEXTON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think Trump is reacting specifically to leaks here, which is what we're talking about, whether it's from Senate Democrats or from people inside the intelligence community, that are clearly meant to undermine him, because there is not consensus in the intelligence community, and, therefore, they would not come out and say openly that Putin was actually actively trying to help Donald Trump.

It's a very important distinction. For a long time, it's been known that Russia intervened in the election. This hurts the relationship going in for Trump, to be sure. But I can understand the siege mentality the Trump -- I was going to say campaign -- the Trump transition team now feels, because there's been a series of stories that have been getting a lot of attention, and I would argue inflated attention in the media, whether it's the role of Comey in turning the election against Hillary Clinton, which we just heard Harry Reid. He's essentially going scorched earth on his way out. Or the fake news stories. We have been hearing so much about fake news, as if, one, that is new, or, two, that swayed the election. And now, with this, it just feels like there's a constant effort not just to criticize Trump, to say that he's not going to be a good president or people think he's in over his head, but just to completely delegitimize the entirety of the election and him as president, the not my president movement essentially being made real by these allegations in the media.

I think that's where Trump hardens on his line on this and just says, that's it, I'm not going to take it, I don't care about the assessment that's been leaked, by the way, it's not a formal assessment.

And I think this is setting a very difficult path going forward for relations between the president and I.C., unless something of this gets mended, which I, by the way, do think will happen actually rather quickly.

Pompeo will come into office. There will be plenty of ways for this to get better. But right now it looks like they're trying undermine the next commander in chief, and that is not good.

BALDWIN: Well, let's listen to Donald Trump here. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't -- maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Somebody who is sitting -- Dana, to you. Buck, I'm hanging on your every word. I think what you said is absolutely fair.

Dana, I know you're agreeing with what Buck was saying. But when you hear -- and I know that was in September, during a debate with Hillary Clinton, some guy -- some guy in a bedroom. I mean, does he realize how sophisticated this hack and interference is, is my question?

BASH: Unclear.

He's been saying on Twitter that even to get to the bottom of it, you would have had to figured it out real time or at least close to real time, which I don't know -- maybe -- I don't know if that's exactly accurate in terms of the forensic investigation of a hack or a potential hack.

But, look, at the end of the day, the idea that he is going to be coming into a White House to be the commander in chief when he is so openly questioning the intelligence is problematic. But I have to -- I totally agree with Bud, in that you have a

situation where the intelligence community isn't necessarily in agreement. And this is certainly a school of thought within the intelligence community, but it is not a total conclusion, which is why at the beginning when you asked me about the comment saying this is the political 9/11, I think that's way too strong for...

SEXTON: Yes.

BASH: ... for an allegation, not an incident, not a conclusion, which is why it's so important that members of Congress on both sides say they do want to investigate. Unclear if they will get to the bottom, but at least they are going to try.

BALDWIN: What Mike Morell said about it being a political 9/11 is completely out of bounds, way too far.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Too far.

Let me stay with you, Buck, and let me just play some sound again more from Donald Trump, because, speaking of the intelligence community, again, other members are concerned he hasn't been getting these PDBs, these presidential daily briefings. You know a thing or two about that.

Here's what Mr. Trump said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: These are very good people that are giving me the briefings. And I say, if something should change from this point, immediately call me. I'm available on one minute's notice. I don't have to be told -- you know, I'm, like, a smart person.

I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years, but eight years. I don't need that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Buck, you gave briefings at the White House to President Bush. What do they involve? Is he right that they could be repetitive?

SEXTON: It depends on whether it's the usual briefer or somebody who is coming in with a particular expertise.

But the truth is that the process of bringing the intelligence community's product comes to the president changes with each presidency and changes throughout the presidency. It's always a work in progress depending on what the commander in chief wants, how he or she consumes information and wants that information to be presented

[15:15:10] So, there will always be changes. I think with Trump, you will

probably see a lot of delegation, especially in the early days of his presidency, to those who do have a lot more national security expertise than he does.

That may not be a bad thing. I think we should at least wait and see how he approaches this before jumping too far down the pathway of, well, he doesn't take this seriously.

I think the moment that he realizes he has got the nuclear codes, he will take it quite seriously.

BALDWIN: All right.

Buck, thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: Can I just say, Buck, not Bud, Buck, you have free passes to call me Dana, not Dana.

(LAUGHTER)

BALDWIN: It's all good.

BASH: Sorry.

BALDWIN: Dana, Buck, Jill.

SEXTON: I thought she said Buck. It was fine.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Whatever. Apparently, the Easter Bunny exists, according to Bill Press, so whatever.

SEXTON: Good to go.

BALDWIN: Let's move on. Thank you all so much for joining me.

Coming up next, Trump's leading candidate for secretary of state, a big oil giant, a buddy of Vladimir Putin's, and now Republicans are sounding the alarm. We will speak with someone who says this could work.

Also ahead, China calls Trump a -- quote, unquote -- "ignorant child" after the president-elect uses a decades-old policy as a bargaining chip. Is this escalating a bit too fast?

You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: Got some breaking news from Mark Preston. He's breaking it that we are now hearing the Michigan Republican Party chair, Ronna Romney McDaniel, this is Governor Mitt Romney's niece, she has now reportedly been tapped to become the next RNC chair, taking the job of Reince Priebus, who, of course, is going on to become the White House chief of staff.

This is what we're getting from a transition source to CNN. The announcement is expected to happen this week, according to this source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. There you have it. It is going to be Ronna Romney McDaniel as the RNC chair.

[15:20:08]

Let's move on.

Donald Trump's top contender for secretary of state could be rejected by a small, but vocal uprising within his own party. Rex Tillerson is one of the most recognized faces in big oil and has negotiated oil deals with Russia, deals that are worth billions of dollars.

Tillerson, who has zero diplomatic experience in the traditional sense, has actively spoken out against U.S. sanctions against Russia and just a couple years ago he was awarded Russia's Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin himself.

So, Sunlen Serfaty joins me now here, along with Forbes Ellen Wald, who just penned a piece entitled "Eight Reasons Exxon's Rex Tillerson Could Succeed as Secretary of State."

Ladies, great to have both of you on.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Brooke.

ELLEN WALD, FORBES: Hi. Thank you.

BALDWIN: Sunlen, first to you. The backlash has been swift, it has been strong, including a number of top Republicans. Tell me about that.

SERFATY: That's right, Brooke.

It's very notable that many prominent Republicans on Capitol Hill quickly pushed back on this saying they're concerned over the ties that Rex Tillerson has with Vladimir Putin, the work he's done with Russia over the years. We heard from Senator John McCain over the weekend saying he's very concerned about their friendship.

He's called Russian President Vladimir Putin a murderer and thug. And we also heard from Senator Marco Rubio really sounding the alarms as well. He took to Twitter and tweeted this -- quote -- "Being a friend of Vladimir is not an attribute I'm hoping from, from a secretary of state."

Notably, Rubio is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So, he has a big role in potentially considering Tillerson should he officially be nominated by Donald Trump. He potentially has some sway with other members on that committee that could potentially tip the balance. Might not even get this nomination out of the committee should it be fully considered. I think it is very notable that not only you're hearing grumblings,

but grumblings from many important players on Capitol Hill, really indicating to Trump and his transition team that there might be a fight ahead.

BALDWIN: All right, Ellen, we have heard the grumblings on a Rex Tillerson pick. I want you to tell me now some of your reasons why he would be an excellent pick.

WALD: Sure.

Well, I think it comes down to the fact that he has a lot of the skills and experience as the CEO of Exxon that actually dovetail very nicely with what you would want to see in a secretary of state.

So, for example, he has negotiated many, many deals. And you mentioned some of them with Russia, but there are many others, and not just with foreign leaders. And this is clearly an issue that secretaries of state have to deal with, sitting down at the negotiating table and working with people, but also advocating for the interests of, in his case, Exxon.

But if he was to be secretary of state, those interests would become those of the United States. He's a great manager. Exxon is a huge company with operations in 50 companies -- in 50 countries, and the Department of State, you know, is almost everywhere in the world.

So it's pretty clear. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that his skills and his experiences would have -- wouldn't make him an excellent choice to do well in the job. The real question, what we're hearing about, is his loyalty. And they're questioning, is he loyal to U.S. interests, as opposed to, say, Exxon's interests?

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Right. The fact his company, with a stake in Russia, how much of that would be a liability, a conflict of interest if he were to be asked to take the post?

WALD: Well, here's what I would say.

He has demonstrated incredible loyalty to Exxon over his years. That's his fiduciary duty. If he is going to become the secretary of state, then he is going to have to replace that loyalty with loyalty and pursuit of American interests.

The fact that he's demonstrated the capability to pursue interests of his employer with incredible success, I think, demonstrates that he very well could be a very effective advocate for the United States.

Of course, that's something that the Senate will need to explore when or if he comes before them for confirmation. Can he replace those loyalties with Exxon to loyalties to the United States? I don't think there's anything to suggest and evidence to suggest that that wouldn't necessarily be the case. BALDWIN: OK. OK. That's fair. We will see if, in fact, he is the

choice and move from there. Sunlen and Ellen, thank you so much on Rex Tillerson.

Coming up next, president-elect Donald Trump, he bucks decades of U.S. policy towards China, and now China is warning there could be consequences.

Plus, I will be joined live by one of the members of Congress calling for a full investigation into Russia trying to interfere with U.S. elections.

Stay right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:28:31]

BALDWIN: It is what's being called a message to president-elect Donald Trump.

China for the very first time flew these nuclear-capable bombers over the South China Sea. Senior defense officials tell CNN it happened on December 7 and again the next day. The action comes after Mr. Trump broke with U.S. protocol as he spoke on the phone can the president of Taiwan.

Since that call, Trump has been vocal about using the one-China policy as a bargaining chip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I fully understand the one-China policy, but I don't know why we have to be bound by one-China policy, unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Let's bring in our CNN chief national security correspondent, who I know knows China very, very well, Jim Sciutto.

First of all, explain, you know, a one-China policy and tell me more about these flights.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: OK.

So, first of all, one-China, not to go too deep into the history there, but it goes back decades. Right? This goes back to Nixon going to China. For years, the U.S. recognized Taiwan as China, this after a civil war in China.

But in the '70s, the U.S. switched that, first led by Nixon and then Carter. So, it's been in place for some 40 years. And it's a really delicate thing.

The U.S. has deep relations with China, a big trading partner, et cetera. And it still has relations with Taiwan on 1,000 different levels, sells them loads of weapons, diplomatic -- not official diplomatic relations, but ties.

And that's the balance that they have struck there. So, in effect, you're -- you're not allies with both, but you have relationships with both.

The thing is, China looks at Taiwan as if, say, a U.S. state left --