Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Details Emerge About CIA Spy Extracted From Russia; NOAA Acting Chief Addresses New York Times Report That Commerce Secretary Threatened Firings Over Contradicting Trump; U.S. Envoy For Afghanistan Says, Taliban And U.S. Reach Deal In Principle, Pending Approval From Trump; Lawmakers Face Tough Fight Over Guns After Recent Mass Shootings. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired September 10, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NEWSROOM: A very good morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN NEWSROOM: And I'm Poppy Harlow.

We again begin with really important breaking news this morning, reporting on the president and his relationship and belief in the intelligence community, this is after your stunning exclusive report yesterday about the covert operation to remove a Russian informant from very high up in Moscow in the Kremlin. We'll get to those details in a moment.

But, first, new reporting to me this morning on the president.

SCIUTTO: And it's reporting that has consequences for U.S. national security. Multiple senior officials who served under President Trump tell CNN that Trump has privately and repeatedly expressed opposition to the U.S. foreign intelligence from covert sources, including overseas spies who provide the U.S. government with crucial information about hostile countries.

In private, the president has said foreign spies can damage relations with their host countries and undermine personal relationships with their leaders, the sources said.

The president, quote, believes we shouldn't be doing that to each other. One former Trump administration official told CNN.

In addition his fear, such foreign intelligence sources will damage his relationship with foreign leaders. Trump has expressed doubts about the credibility of the information they provide.

Another former senior intelligence official told CNN that Trump, quote, believes there are people selling out their country. Of course, we should note that even in public, Trump has looked down on these foreign assets because they are known in the intelligence community.

Responding to reports that the CIA had recruited Kim Jong-un's brother as a spy, this is what the president said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I saw the information about the CIA with respect to his brother or half brother, and I would tell him that would not happen under my auspices, that's for sure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Trump's skeptical view on foreign informants undermines one of the most essential ways that U.S. intelligence agencies gather information about U.S. adversaries, including analysis of their capabilities and intentions.

Intelligence assessments of national security threats all typically depend on a combination of both human and signals intelligence and other sources. This includes assessments about a whole host of U.S. national security threats, North Korea's expanding program, terror threats from Al Qaeda and ISIS, military capabilities of Russia and China.

I will note that the CIA and White House both declined request to comment for this story.

HARLOW: So, Jim, I mean, there is that and then this other new information that you've gotten or can talk about in the last 24 hours from your reporting on that very high level informant within the Kremlin.

SCIUTTO: That's right this speaks to how high this person was and therefore how valuable to U.S. intelligence. This was a Russian national who had provided information to the CIA for more than a decade, who had risen to the highest levels or Russia's national security infrastructure.

They have one kind of mimics ours, the NNC, and that it was someone with such access to the Russian president that they had the remarkable ability to even take photographs of presidential documents. So providing enormous insight to U.S. intelligence agencies, that insight contributed to the U.S. intelligence assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including on the crucial finding that President Putin directed, ordered that interference and that he did so not just to disrupt U.S. politics, but also to advantage President Trump over Hillary Clinton.

So the loss of this asset as it's known in intelligence circles is a real one to U.S. national security.

HARLOW: And the reasoning behind why it was lost is so consequential to your reporting. Great job. Thank you. Stay on it, I know you will. We will stay on it on this show. Jim.

SCIUTTO: Let's get reaction from the Kremlin. CNN's Senior International Matthew Chance in Moscow. the president's spokesman, Matthew, asked directly about this reporting today.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: yes, he was. And, basically, you will be happy to hear that he described your reporting Jim as a pulp fiction, cheap sensationalist, nonsense, essentially. I mean, you should be flattered by that because it's a sign of how sensitive this issue is. Because, remember, what was undoubtedly a major intelligence [10:05:00] coup for the authorities in the United States.

You can see it from the Russian point of view, a major embarrassment to have it revealed in this way that there was a mole working for the United States so high up in the echelons of power right in the sort of corridors of the Kremlin, communicating important, sensitive information back to the handlers back in the United States.

That's not something that the Russians want to talk about. They're embarrassed about this. They do not like it. And remember, Russia has a ruthless record when it comes to dealing with its traitors. We don't have to go back very far to see evidence of that, Sergei Skripal just last year, poisoned in Salisbury in England along with his daughter with Novichok. He was a former agent that betrayed his country.

Back in 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with a radioactive isotope, polonium-210, and had an agonizing death in his hospital bed in London as well.

I can't say for sure, but the expectation is there will be concerns about the security of this informant now as well.

SCIUTTO: And one note about both the attempted murder and the murder of Litvinenko, both on British soil, both using substances that threaten not just those targets but a whole people in the U.K., Novichuk, the most powerful nerve agent in the world, polonium-210, which they used against Litvinenko, extremely radioactive.

Matthew Chance, great to have you on the ground there in Moscow.

HARLOW: Pulp fiction. As he said, you should take that as a compliment.

SCIUTTO: Yes, I suppose.

We're hearing this morning here at home from the acting Chief of NOAA, this after The New York Times reported that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross threatened to fire top NOAA employees if the agency did not support President Trump's claims that Hurricane Dorian would impact Alabama.

Neil Jacobs just finished speaking at the National Weather Association meeting. Our Martin Savidge was inside the room there in Huntsville, Alabama. Martin, how did Jacobs address this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, he walked a very fine line, Jim, in support both of the National Weather Service and, of course, also he seemed to have handedly be supporting the president as well. It is hard to really describe to you how carefully he was trying to walk the line in between the two.

He did not mention the president by name. He did not mention the erroneous tweet that the president put out, talking about Alabama being in danger of Hurricane Dorian. What he did do is go into the difficulty of forecasting and on and on and on about that.

He did though also talk about what is up until advisory 29. This is one of the key advisories that came out actually 24 hours before President Trump. And he made what many might consider a controversial remark. He said, up until advisory 29, the Gulf States, that would include the area of Alabama, were under more of a threat than the Carolinas. There are many in the weather profession that would disagree with that particular characterization, which would seem to lend support to president of the United States.

I want you to listen though to further comments that came from director -- acting Director Jacobs talking about Alabama. Here is what he had to say. It's an audio recording.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEIL JACOBS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NOAA: At what point, Alabama was in the mix, as was the rest of the southeast, the ensembles (ph), not just the GFS ensembles (ph), but the bureau ensembles (ph), remember, throughout all over the place, particularly (INAUDIBLE) forecast.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Now, let's get back to that very controversial statement that came out from NOAA. Remember, that was unsigned, so you really couldn't trace it back to anyone. But it seemed to support the president, and at the same time, not the Birmingham, Alabama office that had come out with a contradictory report that Alabama was never in jeopardy.

And the director, acting director, says the purpose of that statement was to clarify the technical details. What it did not say, however, was that we understand and fully support the good intentions of the Birmingham Weather Office as he tried to calm fears and ensure public safety. He says, no one is going to be fired over this, but it's clear this issue is not going away. Jim and Poppy.

HARLOW: Okay. Marty Savidge, glad you are there. Thank you for that reporting.

Let's talk about this and more with Toluse Olorunnipa and Lisa Lerer. Good morning to you both.

So, Toluse, let me begin with you. You had Jim Himes, the Democrat in Congress, saying if this is true, The New York Times reporting that Wilbur Ross threatened fire NOAA officials if they didn't stand down from contradicting the president, if that's true, Wilbur Ross should resign. The Commerce Department is saying, this is all hogwash, you know, this reporting is false.

You have John Thune, the Republican, John Thune, the second ranking Republican leader and the newly [10:10:00] appointed chairman of the Commerce Committee, saying, quote, we want the weather service to operate with integrity and without bias.

I mean, where have we come that weather has become politicized?

TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, Poppy. Weather, typically, is not a partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats suffer from natural disasters. And they both want to rely on the National Weather Service to put out accurate information.

But it's clear from this statement that came out last Friday that this was done under duress. This was not a statement they wanted to put out. They were putting this out without a name attached to it several days after the original tweet from National Weather Service in Birmingham. It was clear that something triggered this.

And The New York Times reporting shows that it was the threat of firing that this had become such a hot button issue, something so important to the administration, to the White House, not only do they put out multiple statements from the Homeland Security Adviser and the president's Twitter account, but it also pressured the normally apolitical National Weather Service to put out a statement backing up the president and really undercutting their own officials.

So it was clear that this was done under duress and there were ramification of this are starting to continue into a second week as members of the National Weather Service pushed back and say that they're not comfortable with the idea of having their service politicized by the White House, by the Commerce Department or by anyone in the administration.

SCIUTTO: Lisa, it seems what happened here is that several days before, it was possible Alabama was in the sights of the storm. By the time the president was tweeting about it, new information had made that no longer true. But to kind of backfill this statement now the wheels, the machinery of government had to kind of come in to defend the president because he wouldn't admit just a simple mistake there. I mean, that is the core issue.

LISA LERER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. And I think that's important to raise because this is something that is truly extraordinary. The machinery of government is not supposed to be used for -- you know, to cover up for political missteps. That's not the point of government.

And, traditionally, there has been a bit of a separation between the civil service, the people who are supposed to be delivering non- partisan information, in this case, for the benefit of the American people's safety, and the White House and more of the political appointees.

President Trump has really violated that in a number of ways. Throughout this administration, we've seen him attack the civil service quite aggressively, certainly n the beginning of his time in office.

And now I think you see that sense that everything is political filtering in a concerning way into these -- down into the government, that the job is to please the boss rather than deliver information, reliable information to the public.

HARLOW: Let's turn the page here. Of course, we'll stay on this story and see where it all shakes out. But on the economy, which has really been propping up the president, Toluse, you are on the byline of The Washington Post piece about your new polling, Washington Post/ABC News polling. The headline is that most Americans now think that the U.S. economy is going to fall into a recession in the relative near-term six and ten, right? There you go. What does this mean for the president?

OLORUNNIPA: Well, this is typically for this president, he likes to talk about the economy. And he thinks that's the strongest message going into 2020. But right now, it seems that people are worried that a recession may be coming.

As you said, six in ten Americans, according to this poll, believe that a recession is likely in the next year. Also, six in ten believe that their prices at the grocery store and on the other things they buy will increase because of the president's trade war with China. And they directly link the economic uncertainty with the president's trade policies, with the president's economic policies.

So what had been a strong suit for the president, the economy, is now more of a mixed bag with a lot of Americans still saying the economy is in good shape, but even more Americans believing that it's going to take a turn for the worst, that there is going to be a slow down.

And that is a difficult message for President Trump in the White House to hear, because on every other issue, the president is under water. And if he starts to fall under water on the economy, it's going to make his re-election even tougher over the next 16 months.

SCIUTTO: It seems to be affecting the top line number two, overall approval now at 38 percent.

Toluse Olorunnipa, Lisa Lerer, thanks so much for coming on this morning.

Still to come this hour, voters hitting the polls right now for a critical race in North Carolina, one that is widely seen as a test for the president and Republicans heading into 2020.

HARLOW: Plus, the president says the talks of the Taliban are dead. The administration's special envoy to Afghanistan says this morning that there is still hope for a deal. We'll get into that ahead as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00] HARLOW: Welcome back to this morning. The president's special envoy to Afghanistan says the U.S. and the Taliban have reached an agreement from principle, pending final approval by the president. That agreement would see the U.S. pull troops from five bases within 135 days if the Taliban meets certain conditions set in the agreement. This news comes as the president said just yesterday, talks of the Taliban were, quote, dead.

Joining me now is Republican congressman of New York, Tom Reed. He co-chairs the problem solvers caucus. Good morning, sir. Thanks for being with me.

REP. TOM REED (R-NY): It's good to be with you, Poppy.

HARLOW: So given that and given what Khalilzad just said, even as recently as just a few weeks [10:20:00] ago in late August, we saw a Taliban commander tell Reuters, quote, we will continue our fight against the Afghan government to seize power by force, regardless of any agreement with the United States.

Do you believe that the Taliban can be trusted to truly end the violence if there is an agreement?

REED: Well, obviously, the Taliban has a rich legacy of not being a trustworthy person or group to negotiate with or to honor any agreement. But the reality of the situation is we are going to have to have some type of negotiation not only with the Taliban but the Afghan and others in that region to make sure when we withdraw, we don't create a bigger problem down the road for America's interests.

HARLOW: And are you comfortable with those negotiations happening at Camp David as the president had planned just a few days before 9/11 and happening without the involvement, at least at the outset of the Afghan government, is that the right course?

REED: Yes. I'm not so concerned as to where. Obviously, I don't appreciate the fact that a member of the Taliban would be America on soil, especially around 9/11 coming from New York. And that to me is something that needs to be taken into consideration.

But what I really focus is not the where but when and how are we going to withdraw from Afghanistan. I think it's prudent for us to do that. And I appreciate the president's disruptive style of at least honoring the commitment of negotiating with anyone he has to in order to keep our men and women in the military safe and sound by bringing them home.

HARLOW: Let's spend some time talking about guns. Because today, the House Judiciary Committee will vote on a series of gun violence prevention measures, banning high-capacity magazines, red flag legislation, a bill to prevent people convicted of misdemeanor and hate crimes when purchasing firearms. You voted against both of the House's background check bills earlier in the year. That was H.R.8 and H.R.1112. Should the House pass any of those measures that I just outlined, sir? REED: It depends on the details, obviously, as they come to the committee, and we'll see. But I believe the better solution here is to focus on the who solutions. Who are committing these crimes? Who are committing these horrific acts? And how do we prevent those individuals from getting access to a weapon because they demonstrated that they do not have their Second Amendment fundamental freedom as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

HARLOW: So let's spend time then on the legislation that you have read, because you voted on it, both of them that I just laid out H.R.8 and H.R.1112, which is just simply something that 89 percent of Americans agree should happen, and that is universal background checks, something that would have stopped the Odessa shooter from getting that gun after he failed that federal background check.

Listen to your fellow Republican of New York, Peter King, just a few weeks ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER KING (R-NY): It's not going to answer all of it. It's a small part and we don't know. But we do know it will save lives and it will start making it harder and harder for people who are the most dangerous to obtain weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: He says it's not perfect. He says it will save lives. You're co-chair of the problem solvers caucus. He voted for a legislation. He was standing alongside Chuck Schumer at that event. Is he wrong, Congressman?

REED: I do disagree with my colleague from New York on this issue. I think you go down the slope of universal background, now are you talking law abiding citizens caught up into a system that is proven with a background checks that we have today to be flawed and defective. Maybe the better course is if we're going to focus on the background check solution, how do we fix the existing legislation, how do we fix existing background checks?

HARLOW: How is it flawed? Do you truly not believe, Congressman, that having universal background checks would save lives?

REED: What's is flawed is you have people that are in the system today of the existing background check with false information, with erroneous information.

HARLOW: I get that. And there have been efforts to fix NICS. I get that. But I'm asking, clearly, do you really not believe that just having universal background checks, which has such overwhelming bipartisan support from American voters, would not save lives?

REED: Poppy, I'll be very clear with you. I believe in the Second Amendment, I stand on the Second Amendment and I believe that's an (INAUDIBLE) an infringement on law-abiding citizens. HARLOW: The Second Amendment does not say crazy people should have guns. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says nothing about people that are nuts being able to have guns. It says nothing about people that have true mental illness. Those people as well. It says nothing about that, sir.

REED: Now, you are talking my language. So if you want to go and establish a system where somebody is adjudicated to be a psychopathic individual with violent tendencies. I don't use the word crazy. I think that's that bridge too far. But if you have a diagnosed and declared psychopathic mental illness, yes, I would agree with you, that individual should not have access to a gun. That's not universal background check.

Now, what universal background check is [10:25:00] everybody has to go into that system and I don't think that's too far.

HARLOW: But, Congressman, why shouldn't everyone? Let me talk about your district. Okay. Let me talk about one of the people in your district who was murdered just recently. You've talked about him. His name is Trevor Irby. He was 25 years old and he was murdered with an assault-type rifle at the Gilroy Garlic festival in California.

REED: I know Trevor.

HARLOW: You know him?

REED: I don't know him personally but I know his story, yes. And, of course --

HARLOW: And yet you believe that there should be no legislation, sir, none at all limiting those weapons? Is that correct?

REED: That's not what we're saying. What I'm saying is if you attack the what solutions going after weapons per se, that's not going to solve this problem. But, as you say, when you used the term crazy, psychopathic individuals that have been adjudicated, I will work with you to say those individuals should not having access to a weapon. A defendant who's been criminally convicted and used a weapon in a crime should never have the Second Amendment going forward (ph). That, we can find common ground on.

HARLOW: On assault weapons, you do not support any legislation restricting them, correct, the same type of weapon that murdered Trevor, is that right?

REED: When you talk about banning assault rifles, I do not support that. Because how do you define an assault rifle? I have seen folks throw this term out in such a way that it would trigger folks that have shotguns, rifles, handguns duly licensed and banning those who are in existence.

HARLOW: That's not the same thing. And Jim asked you, as you know, just a few weeks ago on this program about high-capacity magazines, right, like the one that was used in Dayton. Do you think there should be any limits on those?

REED: I stand on finding common ground on the who solutions and a firm believer of the Second Amendment, and I will stand with the individual and I will stand on the side of freedom.

HARLOW: Can I just put a button on it because the House again is voting on these measures today on a number of these measures that I just laid out. What gun reform laws in the United States right now do you support? Are there any?

REED: Yes. I supported the background check, fix the NICS Act. I voted for that. That was a step in the right direction. And I would also say --

HARLOW: Currently, are there any proposals out there that you support that you think would help keep Americans safer on guns?

REED: There are proposals, for example, on criminal defendants that have used a weapon, for making sure that they have stiff incarceration that would remove the individual from society to commit these crimes. That would prevent a lot of gun violence in our inner cities in particular. I also focus -- I am very supportive of psychopathic individuals that have been adjudicated, losing their Second Amendment right as they get the treatment that they rightfully, and we should provide to them to get them into a stable condition. That legislation, I am supportive of.

HARLOW: Except without red flag laws, don't you lose some of the ability to identify those people?

REED: Well, that's where we are potentially open to a conversation on that, Poppy, to be sincerely honest with you. And that's where -- if we engage on the who, you bring more people together. And that's where I think maybe there is some common ground.

HARLOW: Okay. Common ground, we heard Adam Kinzinger this morning talking about compromise. I appreciate your time this morning, Congressman Tom Reed. Thank you very much.

REED: Great to be with you. Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: You got it.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And that's (INAUDIBLE) if you get Republicans support behind red flag laws because that has been opposed by the NRA and others in the past. That's notable.

HARLOW: We'll see. We'll see what happens. These votes are today.

SCIUTTO: It is a do-over from the 2018 midterms but it may as well be 2020. There is much more than a House at stake in North Carolina's special election today. It's had to be rerun because of election fraud in a previous election. We'll have an update coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [10:30:00]

END