Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Facing Foreign Policy Tests As Election Year Kicks Off; Julian Castro Drops Out Of Presidential Race; Trump Anxious Over Trial Uncertainty, Wants It To Start ASAP. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired January 02, 2020 - 10:00   ET

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

ANNA COREN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: -- Saturday whipping up fires, many of them have been burning for months, and there is no reprieve in sight.

[10:00:06]

And Australia is only halfway through summer. Jim?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Terrific pictures there, almost Hollywood- like, but it very real.

A very good Thursday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto in New York. It's an election year, there's a looming impeachment trial and critical foreign policy test. This Morning, the top commander Iran has a message for President Trump. Iran is not looking for a war, but they're not afraid of one either.

New pictures showing major damage inside the U.S. embassy compound after two days of attacks by Iranian-backed protesters there. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is now postponing his trip to Ukraine, one they've been counting on for some time, to focus on growing tensions with Iran.

Let's go to CNN's Arwa Damon. She is live on the ground in Baghdad, where she spent a lot of time.

Arwa, tell us what the latest is. These protests are over outside the embassy, but they haven't ended in Baghdad, have they?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: No, they haven't. What they have done is move across the U.S. embassy on the other side of the Tyras River.

Now, Kata'ib Hezbollah, that is the group that the U.S. targeted in those airstrikes on Sunday, said that they decided or rather agreed to move from in front of the U.S. embassy because they, one, felt that their message to America had been delivered, but also because they said that they had an understanding that within a week, parliament would begin debating, negotiating, a bill to deal with the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Because they say their ultimate demand, and that is that the Americans leave, that is still very much on the table, not something that they are willing to back down from. And this group in particular is technically part of the Iraqi Security Forces, because, Jim, they are part of what's known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, this paramilitary force that is predominantly made up of a number of different Shia groups who were actually back in the days of the U.S. occupation of Iraq actively fighting the Americans, who are very closely allied, tied to Iran, whether it's because some of them are directly getting their direction from Tehran or because they are getting funding, weapons and training from the Iranians.

But they are part of this group, and this group is meant to be part of the Iraqi Security Forces. So when the U.S. carried out this attack, the Iraqi government very much felt like it was an attack on its own forces, although the Iraqi government does not necessarily have that much control over them. The Iraqi security forces are now in front of the U.S. embassy, are now once again manning those checkpoints, but where were they for the last 24 to 48 hours when these protesters were attempting to scale the walls?

So this country is still very much caught in between Washington and Tehran, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And does that lead to forcing those troops out of the country? We'll see. We'll be watching the parliament there. Arwa Damon in Baghdad, thanks very much.

Joining me now to discuss, Vali Nasr, he's professor for the School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University, and Ambassador Robert Ford, he's and former U.S. Ambassador to both Syria and Algeria. Thanks to both of you, gentlemen.

Ambassador Ford, if I could begin with you, you say that the airstrikes by the U.S. over the weekend, which sparked these protests, that the U.S. helped change the narrative on the ground in Iraq. Explain that.

AMB. ROBERT FORD, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO SYRIA: Prior to the December 27th confrontations, the focus in Iraq, both in the capitol of Baghdad, as well as provinces in Southern Iraq, were protests, large street demonstrations, against the Iraqi government. And these protests frequently singled out Iranian influence. There were actually Iraqi protesters even in Shia holy cities, like Najaf and Karbala, specifically criticizing Iran's interference in Iraq.

But in the wake of the American airstrike, the militias, notably Kata'ib Hezbollah, have been able to portray themselves as victims of American aggression, and it's true that the Iraqi government itself urged the Americans not to conduct these airstrikes. So the narrative changed.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, the narrative and the fluid (ph), in effect, changed to some degree.

Vali Nasr, let's talk about Iran's position here now, because the Trump administration has attempted to isolate and weaken Iran. But in the midst of that policy, Iran has gotten more aggressive, it shot down $110 million U.S. drone, they've attacked Saudi oil facilities, they have now sparked these protests.

[10:05:06]

And you noted, you tweeted, in fact, that the next escalation, U.S./Iran tensions will come on January 6th when Iran takes another step away from JPCOA. Is the Trump administration's isolation policy failing?

VALI NASR, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Well, it actually has not really isolated Iran. Iran has very strong relations with China and Russia. And only last week they did join naval exercises for the first time in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.

I think what's happened is that President Trump very effectively has put Iranian economy under tremendous pressure, but has not been able to translate that pressure into some kind of a diplomatic track, which would allow him to get another nuclear deal or to change Iran's regional posture.

So Iranians gradually have developed this attitude that they can push back against pressure and they can exert pressure of their own, so in effect, they're basically sending a signal that maximum pressure strategy is going to lead to war, and either that President Trump has to be willing to go to war or he has to change his track.

SCIUTTO: Interesting. Calling his bluff, you might say. I wonder, Vali, just quickly, do you think that the Trump administration, that President Trump specifically, has overestimated Iran's desire to go to the table here?

NASR: No, I mean, Iranians are willing to go to the table, but they want to see relief of -- sanctions relief ahead of going to the table. They came close to having talks in New York in September, but President Trump was not willing to give anything before the start of the talks, whereas the Iranians wanted some kind of guarantees that if they started talks, they would see some kind of sanctions relief.

SCIUTTO: Ambassador Ford, the Trump administration, the president will often say America is respected again, feared again. In the region, when you watch the moves of Iran, for instance, not just in Iraq, but also in Syria, Russia, Turkey, et cetera, you spend a lot of time in Syria as ambassador there, do you see America as feared today, or that countries are attempting to take advantage?

FORD: Well, I also spent four years working in Iraq during the height of the war there. Of course, the American presence in the Middle East is different. I actually think it's better not to have 150,000, 170,000 American soldiers fighting in Iraq. That's not a bad thing. I think that's a good thing that they are not there.

The world is changing. The American economy is not as big relative to the rest of the world as it used to be. Other countries are building up their militaries. And so it's time to stop thinking about America as being the sole country that dominates regions like the Middle East. It's time for a joint diplomacy where we work with other countries and other allies to build coalitions, to maintain a balance of power, to contain countries with aggressive intent, if that's Iran, then we would work with allies. And there are plenty of countries that still want to work with the United States.

SCIUTTO: Vali, to Ambassador Ford's point though, that is not the Trump administration's approach. Their approach, in effect, is we're strong enough, you're either with us or against us, damn the alliances, as it were. Is that a mistake going forward?

NASR: Yes, it is a mistake. I mean, first of all, you can't build alliances unless people know what your policy is and where are they hitching their wagons to. The Trump administration talks tough against Iran but is not willing to actually enforce its position. At one level, it speaks about regime change in Iran, at another level it wants to have negotiations with the same regime in order to get another nuclear deal.

And in a way, it's not clear to the region what is American policy. I don't think the region is looking for 150,000 troops, they just want to know what does the United States want and how is it going to follow through with its policy.

SCIUTTO: Vali Nasr, Ambassador Ford, thanks so much and Happy New Year to you and your families.

FORD: Thank you.

NASR: Thank you. Same to you.

SCIUTTO: Other news back here at home, today, two major stories on the 2020 campaign trail. Democratic President Candidate Julian Castro has ended his bid for the White House. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, getting a major boost. The Sanders campaign announcing a massive fundraising haul in the fourth quarter that could make some of his rivals on the Democratic side nervous, bringing in more than $34.5 million in the last three months of 2019, all of this just weeks before the first voting of the 2020 campaign at the Iowa caucuses.

He's not the only one racking up cash. The Trump campaign says it brought in $46 million over just the past three months.

Let's break down the numbers, the effects, what it all means. Joining me now is CNN Political Commentator Errol Louis and CNN Correspondent Ryan Nobles this morning. Thanks to both of you.

Errol, Julian just a moment on that, he was the only Latino in the race and we have seen this Democratic field get less diverse.

[10:10:01]

I mean, let's be frank, there are still women in the race, you have Andrew Yang, but it's becoming less diverse over time. Is that a problem for the Democratic Party? ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Not necessarily. It's a problem, I think, for the candidates who want to champion the issues that Julian Castro was championing. The field, as a whole, yes, there will be some blow back. Big parts of the Democratic base like to see some representation, but I think more to the point, Julian Castro, his main issue was immigration. It's an important issue. It is a critical policy question, but it doesn't move the voters the way healthcare reform, the way climate change does.

And so for the other candidates, when you look at Julian Castro, you say, look, he staked his campaign on a really important issue that touches the hearts of a lot of members of the Democratic base, but apparently it's not enough to sort of get you to the level where you can be a serious contender.

SCIUTTO: Right. Okay, so let's talk about Bernie Sanders, Ryan. I mean, he's been counted out before for legitimate reasons. He had a serious heart attack a number of weeks ago, but also the concerns that the progressive vote in the Democratic race being split between them and Elizabeth Warren. That's a big number though for him.

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And the thing I've been most struck by, Jim, we've always known that he can raise money and we always knew that there was a base of support that was willing to donate to him, particularly these small dollar donations, $18 a contribution is what they're averaging.

But what's remarkable is how the field of contributors is growing, 300,000 new contributors to the Bernie Sanders campaign who have never donated to him before. So the biggest kind of knock on the Sanders campaign is that he's got a very loyal but not necessarily growing base of support. Well, now you start to see his trend line and the polls starting to go up, and along with it, even more donors contributing to his campaign. That's exactly the place that they want to be heading into the Iowa caucuses, just a month away and growing. That's exactly the place that you want to be in.

SCIUTTO: No question. Quickly, on other candidates, because we shouldn't forget, Pete Buttigieg, a small town mayor, until a couple of days ago, $24.7 million in the quarter, that's enormous. And Andrew Yang, who has not made the debate stage for two weeks from no, $16.5 million, a lot of that money just in the last few days, his campaign says, of 2019. That breathes a lot of life into both of those campaigns.

NOBLES: Well, I think that we have to start realizing that Andrew Yang is as viable, maybe even more viable a candidate as some of these established mid-type candidates, maybe Senator Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar. Is he more of a serious threat to win at least the Iowa caucus than some of these other candidates because his fundraising numbers continue to be impressive? And he is continuing to poll very well. He's made the debate stage and in each one of these debates.

But let me make this important distinction, Jim, about the way these candidates are raising their money. Yes, Pete Buttigieg has raised $24.7 million, but he's been willing to make the phone calls to the high dollar donors, they have bundlers, these are all things that Bernie Sanders isn't doing.

I think there's going to become a serious conversation within the Democratic primary going forward, the argument that Pete Buttigieg is making that we can't compete with Donald Trump and the $46 million that he's raised without a primary opponent if we don't take advantage of every legal fundraising mechanism.

But there's clearly a vain of support within the Democratic primary that says, the only way we're going to change money in politics is to do it ourselves. Sanders is making the argument he can do that without the --

SCIUTTO: In the heat of the race, they might change their mind.

Let's talk, if we can, about Donald Trump, $46 million, a lot of money, $150 million, I believe, for the year. Now, if you stack it up and you add it up with the Democratic candidates, obviously, as a group, out-raising him. But that is no small number. And it does show, does it not, the continuing strength of his support?

LOUIS: Sure. It's a huge number. He's got over $100 million in cash ready to be spent. That's one factor. There are all these outside groups. That $100 million doesn't count all of the groups that some of the Republican Party has put together to try and support his campaign. And, frankly, it doesn't include any outside foreign support. That has been an important question, and we don't know what's going to happen and it may, in fact, work to the benefit of Donald Trump.

SCIUTTO: Remember, Rudy Giuliani's two associates now indicted, were specifically asking for foreign money to be donated to domestic candidates.

I wonder, just drawing on your wisdom, Errol, having covered a lot of races here, is money overemphasized? Because a lot of candidates in previous cycles have raised a lot of money, sometimes more than their opponents, and went home.

LOUIS: Sure. Look, how you spend it, whether it's smart money or not, is what really makes a difference and it's something that is hard to determine just by looking at media buys and that sort of thing. We discovered four years ago that the Trump campaign was buying tons and tons of Facebook ads, which are almost untraceable and they were running thousands of them every given day to figure out the right color, the right wording, the right video images and so forth to throw at the people that they were trying to get at.

It's not clear whether or not the social media capabilities of the Democratic candidates are that sophisticated. But if they're not, they better catch up real quick.

SCIUTTO: True. Well, remember, you go back to 2008, Obama was praised for getting early on that train of the online donors, that kind of thing.

[10:15:01] But in the field, it's constantly changing. You've got to adjust.

NOBLES: If it were just about money, then we'd already be anointing Michael Bloomberg or Tom Steyer, because they're spending more in a week when some of these candidates have raised in the entire campaign, and it hasn't resonated.

SCIUTTO: Donald Trump was going to self-fund his campaign, wasn't he?

NOBLES: Yes, at one point.

SCIUTTO: That was the word.

Errol Louis, Ryan Nobles, thanks to both of you.

Still to come, waiting on Pelosi, the Senate might have kept the month of January open for a trial, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is making no impeachment plans yet. How long will this drag out?

Plus, he called the quid pro quo regarding Ukraine crazy. Now, Bill Taylor, the top diplomat in Ukraine, a key witness in the impeachment trial, is out. He's the second Trump appointee to leave. What's next in our relationship with that ally as it remains at war with Russia?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

SCIUTTO: The Senate returns from winter break tomorrow and as of yet, still does not have articles of impeachment delivered by the House. The president reportedly growing more anxious as the process drags on.

With me now, Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas. Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time this morning.

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): Thank you, Jim.

SCIUTTO: So let's begin, regarding impeachment, you tweeted that, quote, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has pledged to cover up, according to Trump, with a no witness pseudo trial. I wonder, without witnesses -- and there's no sign yet that the Republican majority will allow witnesses to be called -- should Speaker Pelosi refuse to send over the articles of impeachment at all?

DOGGETT: Well, I would certainly support her in doing that. The House has the sole responsibility under the Constitution for impeachment to send over the articles when the majority leader, Mr. McConnell, has declared that he will breach his oath, that he will not do impartial justice in accordance with the Constitution, but plans to act on cue and in accordance only with the defendant in this case, would be no trial at all.

So I think she could rightly say, we have done our job under the Constitution, the ultimate jurors will be the American people. They should consider what we've done. Of course, in ensuing weeks, we may have additional evidence out there through investigative reporting and other disclosures that would justify sending it at a later time.

Meanwhile, McConnell loses his excuse for not acting on other important business, like the new United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which he could take up next week.

SCIUTTO: What is the minimum Democrats need to see for this to be a fair trial? Is the minimum Mitch McConnell approving witnesses such as former National Security adviser John Bolton, others with direct knowledge of the president's involvement?

DOGGETT: Well, I think most of the witnesses that have been requested are all the president's men. They're not some hostile force out there unfair to the president, but they're the people that gathered in the Oval Office around his desk to try to convince him to not use Ukrainian military aid for his personal gain. And we should hear from them.

I wouldn't select the number of witnesses or who they are. That would be a Senate function. But at least to say, we're going to follow the oath and have a fair trial, not a sham proceeding, there's no reason for the Senate to consider our articles unless they're willing to do that and we ought not to have the first impeachment trial in American history with no witnesses.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you, it sounds like you would be happy if the articles never made it to the Senate here. Would you be? And do other members of the caucus feel the same way?

DOGGETT: Well, I would be happiest with a fair and impartial trial in accordance with the Constitution and the oath that these senators take. That's my strong first preference. But short of that, I don't think it helps to send over the articles if they're not going to get fair and full consideration as they have been with President Clinton and, of course, President Johnson and the impact of the House in forcing the resignation of President Nixon.

SCIUTTO: I want to talk about North Korea, because you have spoken about this publicly. Here we are in the New Year after three summits with the North Korean leader. North Korea is now threatening more, not less, nuclear tests, missile tests, et cetera. You've called Trump's policy on North Korea a failed policy. What does the U.S. gain from the president's diplomacy with Pyongyang?

DOGGETT: Well, President Trump's last book was "The Art of the Deal," the next one he is writing right now is the art of the blunder. It's truly incredible that he could have provided so much public recognition, positive recognition of North Korea in return for a few love letters flattering his ego. And what a contrast with what you've just been discussing in a very incisive discussion about our troubles in Iran and Iraq, that in North Korea, he cannot even get the first step, a weapons declaration and a material declaration that we got in Iran, the agreement that he's rejected, that has played a role in the current crisis, where he cannot even protect our embassy. SCIUTTO: When you look at the actions of Iran, for instance, and Iraq with these protests, other hostile acts, as well as North Korea, these threats, do you see countries around the world fearing Trump or taking advantage of him?

DOGGETT: I think many of them view him as a paper tiger. They certainly fear our military power but they recognize that he acts so impulsively. As you know, Jim, just before Christmas, 500 people in Iraq had been killed, 19,000 wounded, largely through the action of Iran-supported militias.

[10:25:09]

And Iran was being viewed as the source of the many problems that Iraq faces, not the United States. Now, President Trump, through his impulsive action, has completely reversed that.

Bush and Cheney had a horrible, dangerous policy to get us into Iraq in the first place. President Trump really has no policy at all. He doesn't seem to know what he's doing, no endgame. We certainly want to protect American personnel, all of them on the ground. But to have this damage to the wasteful billion dollar embassy in Baghdad and nowhere to go, President Trump clearly has to begin at least some backchannel discussions with the Iranians. He has coddled every other thug in the world, why not talk with the Iranians?

SCIUTTO: But I'm just curious. So the U.S. have not had responded to the death of a U.S. contractor on the ground there?

DOGGETT: Well, they should not have responded in the way they did. It should have been done in coordination with the Iraqi government and recognizing that with this great outpouring of public support in Iraq against Iranian influence, now is not the time to make the United States the enemy instead of Iran.

SCIUTTO: Right. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, thanks very much and Happy New Year to you and your family.

DOGGETT: Thank you so much.

SCIUTTO: CNN has obtained new evidence of what critics are calling an ongoing cultural genocide in China carried out against hundreds of thousands of Muslims. We're going to have a live update on what we've learned there, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]