Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Lawmaker Question DOJ Inspector General on Russia Probe; Tonight: House Begins Debate on Trump Impeachment Articles. Aired 2- 2:30p ET
Aired December 11, 2019 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
KLOBUCHAR: And first I want to express my gratitude for the thousands of men and women who work every day on the frontline with the FBI, I come from a background as a prosecutor and our local law enforcement work with the FBI everyday in our local office in Minnesota.
And then in the Senate I've had the privilege to work with many, many people in the FBI. And I think the inspector general's job is incredibly important. He keeps everyone honest.
But I do think it's important for those agents and for those in law enforcement that are watching today that people understand there are people up here that understand that you're simply doing your jobs, which I think is basically with some suggestions and recommendations for change what the inspector general found in this report.
So before I start my questions I think it's important to put this discussion in context with what happened in the 2016 election, which is why we are here today. It is now undisputed by our intelligence agencies that Russia invaded our democracy.
Not with bombs or jets or tanks but with a sophisticated cyber mission to undermine the underpinnings of our very democracy. A democracy that hundreds of thousands of men and women have lost their lives on the battlefield defending both our democracy and democracies abroad.
A democracy that four little girls innocence at the height of the Civil Rights movement lost their lives in a church in Birmingham, Alabama because people were trying to hold on to that democracy and make sure that it was extended to people in this country.
So let's remember why we're here today. Let's remember the words of Dan Coats, the former director of the National Intelligence Agency who served in the Senate, well respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
He said that in fact Russia has been emboldened to do this again. And I did appreciate Senator Graham's words that he made clear that it was not Ukraine that invaded this election, it was Russia. And it was the words of Fiona Hill and the impeachment hearings over in the House that I thought were important to remember. She said anyone that is repeating this lie is basically pedaling in Russian propaganda. So let's remember that this is not about one election or one party, it is about our democracy. What can we do? Well, we can be honest and we can stop making political hay out of this and we can actually take some actions that would protect our election in 2020.
And that includes finishing the work that Senator Lankford and I have started to pass, not only the money, which I appreciate to help states to secure our elections but to also get in place requirements to push those states that don't have backup paper ballots fully, 11 of them, to get those back up paper ballots and to make sure we have audits.
And to make sure we have better communication if -- between Federal and State authorities to do something about the propaganda by actually moving forward on the bill that Senator McCain and I had and that Senator Graham and I now have, the Honest Ads Act, which it requires those social media companies and I have absolutely no idea why we don't do that to play by the same rules of the road for paid political ads, which would greatly help us -- but not completely, but greatly help us with this propaganda problem.
So here we go, you wrote this report, Inspector Horowitz, after interviewing more than 100 witnesses and reviewing over 1 million documents, is that right?
HOROWITZ: That's correct.
KLOBUCHAR: And under department guidelines an investigation has an authorized purpose if it is open to detect (ph), obtain information about, or prevent, or protect against federal crimes or threats to the national security, or to collect foreign intelligence.
You found that the investigation at issue today was open to determine whether people associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating with the Russian government, is that right?
HOROWITZ: That is the reason the FBI provided.
KLOBUCHAR: And again, to be clear, you did not find that the FBI acted improperly when it opened the counter-intelligence investigation that you reviewed in writing in this report, is that right (ph)?
HOROWITZ: That's right.
KLOBUCHAR: The department's guidelines also require (ph) that a decision to open investigation is supported by, as you describe in your report, allegations, reports, facts, or circumstances that indicate the possibility of criminal activity or a national security threat.
You found that the FBI's investigation was predicated on a report from a friendly foreign government that heard that the Trump campaign had received some kind of suggestion that Russia could help them by releasing information that was damaging to Hillary Clinton, is that right? [14:05:00]
HOROWITZ: That's correct.
KLOBUCHAR: As a former prosecutor, I know that it is critical that the FBI is able to take in action like it did here to investigate threats to our national security, do you think that interference in our elections by a foreign government constitutes a national security threat?
HOROWITZ: Yes, I do.
KLOBUCHAR: OK. Does anything in your report call in to question the finding in the Special Counsel's report that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion?
HOROWITZ: No, it doesn't. In fact, we cite the Special Counsel's report here in a footnote laying out all the different reports that have been released on that issue.
KLOBUCHAR: Does anything in your report call in to question Chairman Burr's statement -- the Republican Chairman Burr's statement that "Russia is waging in information warfare campaign against the U.S. that didn't start and didn't end with the 2016 election"?
HOROWITZ: No, it doesn't.
KLOBUCHAR: Does anything in your report call in to question the assessment by FBI Director Wray that Russian's (ph) interference in our elections is ongoing and that its interference in the 2018 midterms were a "dress rehearsal," for the 2020 elections?
HOROWITZ: No, it doesn't.
KLOBUCHAR: Does anything in your report call in to question the finding in the Special Counsel's report that "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome"?
HOROWITZ: We don't take issue with any part of the Special Counsel's report now.
KLOBUCHAR: OK. Did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper consideration effected the FBI's decision to open the investigation in to George Papadopoulos?
HOROWITZ: No, we don't.
KLOBUCHAR: Did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper considerations effected the decision to open the investigation in to Paul Manafort?
HOROWITZ: No we don't.
KLOBUCHAR: Did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper considerations effected the decision to open the investigation in to Michael Flynn?
HOROWITZ: We did not.
KLOBUCHAR: Did you find any investigation (ph) that political bias or other improper considerations effected the decision to open the investigation in to Carter Page?
HOROWITZ: No -- no documentary, or testimonial evidence, or other evidence.
KLOBUCHAR: So we are clear, did your report uncover systematic political bias at the FBI?
HOROWITZ: As to what we looked at, in the openings we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence to support a finding of bias.
KLOBUCHAR: Can you comment on why it is critical that the American people have confidence in the rule of law and the independence of the Justice Department?
HOROWITZ: Absolutely. I also was a former prosecutor and a federal prosecutor previously. I did public corruption cases in the southern district of New York. And the whole foundation of the Justice Department and law enforcement on the federal level, and at the state and local level is apolitical, nonpolitical decisionmaking made by prosecutors and agents working together to protect communities.
KLOBUCHAR: Very good. I want to follow-up on your discussion on the issue you briefly discussed, whistleblowers, with Senator Feinstein. Because it's so important -- and I know that Senator Grassley also cares a lot about this issue.
Can you speak generally to how often in your career information provided to whistleblowers has proved important and lead to uncover wrongdoing?
HOROWITZ: Well I'll speak to certainly my experience in the seven years at I.G. as in the first instance. From the get-go fast and furious, critical that the agents came forward there. We've found numerous instances in our audits, in our reviews with whistleblowers coming forward and reporting the evidence.
And I'll add going back 30 years to my career as a prosecutor in New York doing police corruption cases we had a incredibly brave and courageous police officer who saw corruption in his midst and came forward and reported it, and allowed us to make a very substantial police corruption case that would have continued, but for that courageous officer.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, that's really helpful. Last, after your report was released on Monday, Attorney General Barr stated his opinion that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions.
When the FBI decided to open its investigations the U.S. Intelligence Committee was already aware of Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 election, is that correct?
HOROWITZ: I'm actually not sure what the Intelligence Committee knew at the time.
KLOBUCHAR: It was in that context that the FBI received information -- I'm just going to just --
HOROWITZ: Yeah.
[14:10:00]
KLOBUCHAR: Move forward, I understand your answer. That the FBI received information from a foreign government which we know from reports came from an Australian diplomat.
They reported that a Trump campaign official suggested that the Trump campaign had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that would assist the campaign by releasing information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, is that correct?
HOROWITZ: That's correct.
KLOBUCHAR: Your report also quoted then Chief of the National Security Division David Laufman, who said that it would have been a "dereliction of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to commit the appropriate resources as urgently as possible to run these facts to the ground and find out what's going on." Is that correct?
HOROWITZ: That's correct.
KLOBUCHAR: In light of all of that (ph) was occurring at that time, and it's always easy in hindsight to look back at things -- but at that time do you agree with Attorney General Barr that the investigation was predicated on the thinnest of suspicions?
HOROWITZ: Well, I'm not going to get in to a comparison on what his view -- he's free to have his opinion, we have our finding and our -- as I said earlier, I stand by our conclusion.
KLOBUCHAR: And your conclusion again, is --
HOROWITZ: That is was sufficient predication to open the investigation based on the low threshold required by Department and FBI policy.
KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Just -- we talk a lot about (inaudible) Papadopoulos, I don't want anybody to believe that anybody named in the initial investigation -
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: OK, so you have been listening to a couple different senators, right. They're alternating Republican/Democrat -- in this whole Senate Judiciary Hearing on the investigation into the Russia investigation.
And on the right side of your screen you saw the DOG, IG, ah, the Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who's come out with this entire investigation and you know, a lot of those questions from Senator Klobuchar about political bias and he said that basically he found no political bias when the FBI launched this whole investigation.
Is he saying the FBI did an A++ job? No, not necessarily, and we can get into that. But the bottom line is, this is hyper-partisan; both parties are taking this and interpreting it very differently and really the headline in the last day or two has been the Attorney General, which they were just discussing Bill Barr, who is the top cop. Right? Who oversees the entire Department of Justice and he doesn't agree with his own department's findings.
So that's where we're going to start. Elie Honig is a CNN Legal Analyst and a Former Federal and State Prosecutor; CNN's Josh Campbell, Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent. Elie, first to you; let's go. The most recent senator, Senator Klobuchar -- what was your takeaway from that exchange?
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The point I think Senator Klobuchar was trying to make is just how badly the Department of Justice is being damaged and undermined, not just by statements from anybody, but from the President of the United States and the Attorney General -- and not just statements, but demonstrably false statements.
BALDWIN: Yeah.
HONIG: And I think what Bill Barr has shown us is sort of a primer on -- everything the opposite that you're taught when you're a new employee of DOJ, whether as a prosecutor or as an FBI agent. I mean, if I had to boil it down to three lessons, how to do your job; you never play politics. You never, ever comment on a pending case or investigation and you always let your facts dictate your conclusion; you never start with a conclusion and then fill in the facts. He's violating all three of those.
BALDWIN: We'll come back to your last point on Bill Barr in just a second, but Josh Campbell, then just jogging back, prior to Senator Klobuchar, we heard from Senator Ted Cruz. You want to fact check any of that?
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's interesting. If you look at the I.G. Report itself, it's important to remember that there are two main takeaways. The first is that there was wrongdoing by the FBI --
(CROSSTALK)
-- as it related to the handling of these surveillance warrants, the FISA warrants; there was wrongdoing. That is true at the same time it is true, the Inspector General found there was no political bias --
(CROSSTALK)
-- operating by the FBI -- which is the key takeaway, because that is what the president has been saying for over two years now, that the FBI was weaponized by President Obama to go after Donald Trump and his campaign. What's so interesting is, you know, and this was somewhat predictable, you know, we're talking about this, is that you have the Republicans --
(CROSSTALK)
-- and the Democrats; the Republicans seem to be focusing on the FISA abuse; you have the Democrats that are focusing on this narrative, that there was no political bias.
(CROSSTALK)
And one thing that was interesting in listening to Senator Cruz there is that he seemed to bookend his argument with political talking points. He started by saying that we need a Justice Department that's nonpartisan, which I think people agree with. He launched into the FISA abuse and then at the end says the FBI were, and in his words, "Hatchet men for the DNC," which is simply not the case, if you listen to the Inspector General. So I think, again, there's a lot of political spin. People will look at this and you know, through their own political lenses --
(CROSSTALK)
-- but the key takeaway, again, is that this narrative that the FBI was politicized --
(CROSSTALK)
-- and operating politically is simply not true, according to the I.G.
BALDWIN: But back to Bill Barr -- Elie, why are the Attorney General's comments so outrageous?
HONIG: First of all, why is this case Bill Barr's number one priority? And seemingly, only a priority. If he has a number two priority, I can't tell you what it is. Why is he so obsessed with this case? Because it's political. Because I think it's clear he's trying to throw Donald Trump a convenient talking point. And look, the fact is, he is somehow out of hand rejected the findings of this Inspector General.
[14:15:00]
As Senator Klobuchar just said, this Inspector General talked to over 100 witnesses, over one million documents and Bill Barr, very casually just says, "Nah, I don't see it. I don't agree," why is that? How did he get there? And why is he always coming out the same way? And now he says, I'm not satisfied. We still have (ph) Durham out there; why he has two different investigations --
(CROSSTALK)
-- Lord knows. But it seems like his M.O. is we're going to keep investigating; we're going to keep trying again and trying again until I get to the answer I like and Donald Trump will like. BALDWIN: What are the long-term ramifications of -- I mean, I think of also the president speaking last night about rally and calling the FBI "scum" -- to how you see how, you know, the A.G. has been speaking about his own department -- what are ramifications? What's morale within DOJ and FBI?
CAMPBELL: You read my mind. That's what I was going to jump in and say that, look, this has real consequences on the men and women who do this job. They're imperfect. Obviously we learned from this I.G. Report that some of them, it appears, probably conducted a crime, as it relates to this FISA abuse. But again, in the main, to broad brush this agency as "human scum" you know, again, the hatchet men of the DNC; that really grates on people and going back to the Attorney General, what is really irking people inside the FBI, based on our reporting, is this language that the Attorney General is using -- adopting the same witch hunt terminology that the president uses --
(CROSSTALK)
-- to say the FBI was "spying on the Trump campaign" -- when again, you have an independent I.G., quoting highly credited --
(CROSSTALK)
BALDWIN: What are the consequences of that?
CAMPBELL: The consequences of that is that you have people inside government that are conducting these investigations, who simply won't be trusted by the public and they have to have public trust to do their job. As we've said, when an FBI agent knocks on someone's door --
(CROSSTALK)
-- they need help from the public; they have to be trusted. This is a corrosive narrative that's been forming now, that may have long-term consequences to public safety.
BALDWIN: Credibility undermined. Josh and Elie, gentlemen, thank you very much. Another historic day here. Just hours from now, Democrats will start debating the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. Find out what to watch. And what Speaker Pelosi told her caucus today. Plus we have new reporting on how President Trump is reacting to all of this in private; what he referred to at that rally last night as "Impeachment Lite" -- you're watching CNN's Special Live Coverage. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:20:00]
BALDWIN: We are back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. House Democrats around the clock march toward a vote on impeaching President Trump enters a crucial stage tonight. In just a couple of hours the 41 members of the House Judiciary Committee will begin debating the Articles of Impeachment; that being Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress, all related to Trump's dealings in Ukraine and then tomorrow morning lawmakers will be able to propose amendments to those articles.
But before any of that takes place, questions continue to swirl about Democrats who are still on the fence -- from those who may vote against the articles to others who want a more scaled-down rebuke like censure. Several members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees tell CNN that the choice, at least for them, is clear.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): I hope everyone is able to vote for these two Articles of Impeachment. They're very well crafted and of course, they couldn't be more serious.
REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): On this question of what the president did in Ukraine, essentially using his authority as president to get Ukraine involvement in the 2020 campaign, is really impeachable conduct -- and to diminish it with a censure, I think would create a lot of dissention within our ranks.
SEN. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (D-NY): Why in God's name is any Democrat, you know, trying to lower the bar when the president himself says, to this day, "the call was perfect." I think this is a moment where we need to get clear about right and wrong and just listen to what your mama always told you, which is just do the right thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju is with me now. So Manu, what's the state of play up on Capitol Hill?
MANU RAJU, SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is moving pretty fast in the House. Expect tonight, that's when the beginning of the proceedings will occur, in the House Judiciary Committee, when they will take up those Articles of Impeachment. There's no serious talk about censure or anything else at that moment.
What the Democrats are going to do to the House Judiciary Committee is reject every Republican attempt to change and amend the Articles of Impeachment. Those votes on those amendments are going to happen all throughout the day tomorrow. And then next week is when the full House will vote on those two Articles of Impeachment; one on Abuse of Power, the other on Obstruction of Congress, all related to the president's handling of the relations with Ukraine, something the Democrats allege is a clear violation of the Constitution by, in their view, soliciting the help of a foreign power in the next elections and using the president's power and his office to do just that -- those two counts will be voted on next week and expect those votes to come down largely along party lines.
Now the question ultimately for some Democrats, particularly ones in difficult districts, is will they come down and support this? Because a number of Democrats did not campaign on impeachment, were reluctant to support an impeachment inquiry, but talking to a number of them today, they're telling me that they are still grappling with this. (CROSSTALK)
They are still deciding whether or not to get behind and vote yes, including Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who comes from a swing district, and she told me her phone is "ringing off the hook" from people on both sides, who are pushing her on this issue [14:25:00] and she has yet to make a decision on how she'll come down -- but a lot of other Democrats are telling me similarly, now we do expect two Democrats to defect. They have already opposed moving forward on an impeachment inquiry; so that's not a surprise.
The question is if there will be any other Democrats who join with the Republicans and if there are any Republicans who will break ranks. At the moment, no Republican is signaling they're going to break ranks; only one former Republican turned Independent, Justin Amash has signaled he would support both Articles of Impeachment, but expect in just a matter of days, this is going to come down largely along party lines --
(CROSSTALK)
-- and the vote will happen; in the Senate, of course, another question is that trial will take place all through January, whether or not that any Republicans break ranks still uncertain. One Democrat, Joe Manchin told me earlier today, Brooke, that he still is torn. He said he's very much torn about what to do about deciding whether or not to vote to convict or acquit the president. Of course, he is a Conservative Democrat, but nevertheless, these decisions are weighing on members on both sides, in both parties and some of them will have to cast these key, historic votes in just a matter of days. Brooke.
BALDWIN: Yeah. They're still grappling, to use your word. Manu Raju with all the reporting, chasing down these members of Congress, thank you. Let's discuss. Danny Weiss is the former Chief of Staff for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and is a Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation and Gloria Borger is CNN's Chief Political Analyst. And Danny, I just want to dive in because you know, you left the Speaker's office in March and this is what she told the Washington Post; this was March 11th, this is what she said about impeachment, "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."
So I mean, that's quite a pivot, Danny, from you know, "not worth it" to now leading her caucus into the fight. I want you to tell me, why did Ukraine so change that for her? And do you think she still has concerns about this, as she moves forward?
DANNY WEISS, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF FOR NANCY PELOSI: Well, the Ukraine call overwhelmed everything. I think two parts of that; it was a three-part comment that she made. The Ukraine call was overwhelming and it was compelling. Unfortunately, the president has a lock on the Republican Party, so it is not bipartisan at this point and that's very unfortunate.
You have a vast number of Democrats in support of, in the country, in support of impeachment and a vast number of Republicans opposed to it. You still have a slight majority of the country overall in favor of impeachment. But her point of view was that this was a national security threat and a direct threat to the democracy of the country and what you're hearing now and what you've seen in the evidence that's been laid out, is that there's an ongoing threat to the upcoming election. I think she found that to be overwhelming; could not look back on it. There was no question that the Congress has to go forward with impeachment. Now her challenge is to manage the politics of this; but there was no question that they had to go forward with it.
BALDWIN: Hmm. And then Gloria, as far as you know, how America feels about this, there's a new Monmouth Poll out --
(CROSSTALK)
-- it was taken before the Judiciary hearings. It shows the needle really hasn't moved much from November.
(CROSSTALK)
Forty-five percent of Americans want to impeach the president and remove him from office, while 50 percent do not. But what's really even more striking here is only a quarter of respondents believe that new information from this impeachment inquiry would even change their minds.
So play this forward for me in 2020. What is the potential risk for Democrats?
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, I think what we see in those numbers is that the cake is baked. That people feel the way they're going to feel, on the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle -- although this same poll, by the way, did say that 61 percent of respondents believe that the president in one way or another has hindered the investigation.
As for 2020, it's a great risk for Democrats. You have these so- called frontline Democrats, the 31 of them who won in Republican, in Trump districts and they want to keep their seats and Nancy Pelosi wants to remain Speaker of the House. (LAUGHS)
(CROSSTALK)
So she knows it's dangerous and that is why I believe -- you saw the Articles of Impeachment so narrow.
(CROSSTALK)
Focused on Ukraine, which they believe is a narrative that is not only easy to explain, but it's easy for them to defend --
(CROSSTALK)
-- to voters. BALDWIN: Danny, they said that she really had no choice. And then
when you listen to Manu's reporting, he name-checked Elissa Slotkin; Danny, this is for you, Elissa Slotkin, you know, from that swing district in Michigan, Democrat, you know, tell us that her office phones have been ringing off the hook over this, both for and against impeachment and then you have another Democrat, Gil Cisneros, who won a tight race in the Midterms, admits he could face some blowback.
I mean, do you see any risk ahead for Democrats as a whole?
WEISS: Well, look, there's certainly this is an unknown situation. Fourth time in history that it's been done.
(CROSSTALK)
First time that it's really being done in a full-blown, social media, 24/7 news cycle environment.
(CROSSTALK)
And with a president that's the most unusual --
[14:30:00]
