Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

John Bolton Willing To Testify In Impeachment Trial If Subpoenaed; Trump Administration To Brief All Senators On Iran On Wednesday. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired January 06, 2020 - 14:00   ET

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

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We want to be able to make it a smooth flow for you and keep your kids, you know, going flowing through school year and not being stressed out as well.

NATASHA CHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Stressed out and concerned about when they'll see their loved ones again.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That was CNN's Natasha Chen reporting and that is it for me. NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.

[14:00:21]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Hi there. I'm Brooke Baldwin. You're watching CNN on this Monday. Thank you for being here.

We begin with breaking news on the pending impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

John Bolton has now stepped in line to possibly become its star witness. Trump's former National Security adviser announced just a short while ago, quote, "I have concluded that if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify." If Bolton receives the subpoena, he would be the highest level administration official to comply.

Now others inside the President's inner circle, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and Vice President Mike Pence have all refused to cooperate in this impeachment investigation following President Trump's direction.

So let's start with CNN political analyst, Lisa Lerer, is national political reporter for "The New York Times" and Kylie Atwood is CNN's national security reporter.

So ladies, Kylie, first with you, tell me specifically what John Bolton is offering?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, so what John Bolton is coming out with today is the fact that he is willing, he is open to providing testimony to the Senate as part of their impeachment trial, if he is subpoenaed.

So Brooke, this is big news, because as you have referenced, John Bolton knows a lot about the Ukraine policy and the discussions that were happening at the White House when that Ukraine aid was held. And we know that he was very, very opposed to what was going on in the White House.

We know that because former aides of the White House who provided testimony as part of the House Impeachment Inquiry explained that he was frustrated. He told folks working for him to go talk to White House lawyers about what they were seeing and saying he did not want to be part of that drug deal.

The other thing to consider, however, is the fact that John Bolton is someone who was in discussions that have not yet been revealed as part of that testimony that was provided to the House during that Impeachment Inquiry. So he has new information that he could bring to fruition.

Now, of course, one of the important things to consider here is the fact that it is the Republicans who are running this process and there has been no formal decision made about if there will be witnesses, as part of this Senate trial.

We know that the Democrats want there to be witnesses. They want John Bolton to come up and provide this testimony. But ultimately, that is a decision that lies with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and we know that before putting out the statement today, a source familiar with the statement told me that John Bolton did try and reach out to Mitch McConnell to essentially give him a heads up that this was coming. But the White House was not made aware that this statement was coming.

BALDWIN: So given everything that Kylie just reported out, just reminding us why he would be sort of money in terms of the information he could offer, depending on what side you're coming from, Lisa, why is he offering this now?

LISA LERER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, that is one of the biggest questions. He wasn't formally subpoenaed by the House. That's part of why he says he did not go in front of the House Committee, and he would do it now.

But the timing of this is really curious. It of course comes at a moment when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is essentially holding the process, the impeachment process in the House and refusing to move it over to the Senate until she gets some confirmation that there will be witnesses and the process will proceed in a way that Democrats would like it to.

You also have this escalating tensions with Iran that really was dominating the weekend news. So why he is doing it now is the question that's really rattling around Washington.

And one thing that we do know that it is clear is that it certainly puts Mitch McConnell in a much more difficult position. It raises the probability, or the chances, at least, that a couple of Republicans could break with him and vote to allow witnesses and that really is a key. That's what we're all going to be watching for this week. And that is the question every Senate Republican is going to have to answer this week.

BALDWIN: But to that point, like what is the actual probability that this could go the way of maybe how some moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans and certainly Democrats would like. What's the likelihood this would ever happen, given the fact that the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate?

LERER: Republicans have a majority, but this is -- they need 51 votes to compel Bolton to testify, and so that really only demands four Republicans splitting and there's a couple of groups of Republicans who could do it.

You have some folks in the Republican caucus who are retiring. You have people who are up for election and concerned in purple states that might feel more cross currents to have a process that has a little bit more visibility to it.

[14:05:07]

LERER: And so it's not -- it's hard to game it all out because the Senate Republicans haven't come back yet. They're coming back tonight, tomorrow morning into Washington, but we will certainly have a better sense in the next couple of days, but it will be the question.

BALDWIN: What about also, Lisa, you brought up the House, right? We know the House comes back into session tomorrow as well. The Intel Chair, Adam Schiff has just tweeted about John Bolton. Is there any chance that Schiff would issue Bolton a subpoena on the House side? Or does he just let it be handled in the Senate?

LERER: Well, I think that is something that House folks working on the House process are trying to figure out now whether that's something they could do and what the -- you know, if that would make sense from a strategic standpoint.

I think right now, at least, the focus is going to be on the Senate, where those Republicans go and whether this process moves forward and really what Mitch McConnell does in response to this.

BALDWIN: So we will be watching those moderates. We will be watching Mitch McConnell. Lisa Lerer, thank you very much. Huge questions around everyone coming back to work tomorrow.

Let's talk now as you alluded to what's happening with Iran -- the escalating tensions with Iran after President Trump gave the go ahead last week to kill Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top general in a drone strike at the Baghdad airport.

Soleimani whose casket has been carried through massive crowds -- look at this -- for days as part of this funeral procession could be buried in his hometown as early as today. That is coming as officials say Iran will no longer abide by the

limits of that 2015 Nuclear Deal, while reiterating a vow to retaliate against the United States.

In a tweet, President Trump said, "Any attack could prompt the U.S. to take aim at Iranian cultural sites." A move experts say could be considered a war crime and in neighboring Iraq, a different sort of pledge, but one that still targets the U.S.

The Iraqi Parliament voting in a non-binding resolution to expel some 5,000 U.S. troops after slamming the airport drone strike as a violation of its sovereignty. In return President Trump promised sanctions that would, in his words, make Iranian penalties look tame.

He also said this, quote, "We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build long before my time. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it."

And just finally, as we mentioned on Capitol Hill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is hoping to limit President Trump's military capabilities in Iran by setting a vote on a War Powers Resolution. It echoes similar measures introduced in the Senate by Virginia's Tim Kaine.

And speaking of the Senate, sources tell CNN that a briefing on Iran is set for senators this Wednesday.

But in Washington, the Trump administration is scrambling to explain the two words that led to all of this, imminent threat. You'll recall that was the justification for killing Soleimani in the first place, an action that former Presidents Obama and Bush declined to take in years past.

But when pressed for specifics on this, over the weekend, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hedged repeatedly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We will defend America and the strikes we took over this past week, including killing the terrorist, Soleimani. We will continue to take if we need to.

This was a bad guy. We took him off the playing field.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Was the justification this imminent threat?

POMPEO: Chuck, it's never one thing. You've been at this a long time. America is prepared that we will continue to keep the American people safe. He was a designated terrorist and we did the right thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House. And Kaitlan, the President has said he is not opposed to revealing the Intelligence, right, that imminent threat that led to the strike. What are you hearing about next steps? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that would be

notable because so far you've seen Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on these six interviews yesterday. He did not reveal anything. He wouldn't even tell Jake Tapper whether this was so imminent that it was expected to happen within days or weeks.

He wouldn't say on CBS that this threat is still in existence, because just because you kill Soleimani does not mean that threat goes away necessarily. The questions are, how close is it to being carried out?

So if the President did reveal more Intelligence on that that would be notable because we haven't gotten a lot of details yet, and that's why you've heard so many criticisms coming from Capitol Hill.

The other thing that they're facing backlash over are those threats from the President to target these Iranian cultural sides, and really the only defense you're seeing coming out of the administration for this is from Mike Pompeo saying that the President didn't say what he said, not only what he tweeted, but what he doubled down on yesterday when he was speaking with reporters on Air Force One.

And Kellyanne Conway said similar this morning, saying the President did not say something he not only said once, Brooke, but twice. So of course, those are the questions that are coming out coming out of this, and now with the President threatening to sanction Iraq, it really is going back to what the big question was on Thursday as news of this strike was coming out and the Pentagon was confirming that yes, the United States was behind it, which is what is the larger strategy here?

[14:10:01]

COLLINS: And if there is one, is the Trump administration going to be more forthcoming about what that strategy is? So those are really the questions that have surrounded the President so far as he is dealing with this.

And of course, he is returning to Washington. He has been gone for a little over two weeks to Florida, Brooke, and he has not only got this potential for big conflict with Iran happening, but he is also waiting for his judgment to go on trial here in the Senate, as we are still waiting on details of what that impeachment trial is going to look like or when it's even going to start.

So needless to say, there is a lot going on back here at the White House.

BALDWIN: A lot. A lot. Kaitlan, thank you very much. In Washington, as the Trump administration continues to cite this, quote, "imminent threat" to Americans, the Secretary of State is also blaming the Obama administration. They're blaming the Obama administration for the escalating tensions in this part of the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POMPEO: Jake, we're trying to restore deterrence that, frankly, is a need the results directly from the fact that the previous administration left us in a terrible place with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Team Obama appeased Iran and it led to Shia militias with money, Hamas, the PIJ, hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed by Soleimani himself. This was the place we found ourselves, and we came in and we have developed a strategy to attempt to convince the Iranian regime to behave like a normal nation.

That's what our strategy is about. We've been executing it. We will continue to do so. We have every expectation that we will ultimately achieve that goal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Tony Blinken served as the Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security adviser for President Obama. He currently serves as a senior foreign policy adviser for the Biden presidential campaign. So Tony Blinken, nice to have you on, sir. Welcome back.

TONY BLINKEN, SENIOR FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR FOR BIDEN CAMPAIGN: Good to see you, Brooke.

BALDWIN: So you just heard the Secretary of State basically throwing team Obama under the bus when it comes to what's just happened. I just want to start with your response to Pompeo.

BLINKEN: Well, let's just focus on what this administration has done because it's in office. It's in power. And this is a strategic debacle of its own making.

By tearing up the Iran Nuclear Deal, which the President did, with nothing to replace it, and then trying to exert maximum pressure on Iran with entirely predictable consequences, the Iranians weren't going to take that sitting down. We are where we are.

They've had no strategy for dealing with what we're going to be inevitably, Iran's responses to that maximum pressure strategy to tearing up the nuclear deal.

BALDWIN: You don't think they have a plan.

BLINKEN: One is not at all visible or evident. But look at where we are right now, Brooke. Even short of, God forbid, Iranian reprisals against Americans, already, what we know is that Iran is now walking away from all the limitations on the nuclear agreement.

That means we're going to be back to where we were before the nuclear agreement on a collision course. We are potentially being kicked out of Iraq.

Iranian protesters, who just a few weeks ago, were protesting the regime are now rallying around the flag and around hardliners in Iran. Iran now is in a dominant position in Iraq.

The counter ISIL mission, which requires a small presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and in Syria, it is on the verge of ending. And even the folks who are remaining there are now busy protecting themselves instead of going after what's left of ISIL.

The administration says Americans are safer. In the next breath, it tells Americans to get out of about half a dozen countries in the region. This is a total debacle and we have the threat of reprisals against Americans in the months ahead.

BALDWIN: I hear you and the list is long, but this administration says that they, you know, pulled the trigger. They executed this drone strike because there was this imminent threat to Americans in the region. Do you trust that justification?

BLINKEN: Look, we need to see the Intelligence and the evidence, and I hope that they will bring that forward to Congress as quickly as possible.

BALDWIN: Do you trust it? Do you trust it exists?

BLINKEN: Look, it's hard to see what that's based on, based on the reporting. Today, it's not at all -- it's not at all evident. And again, even if there was some kind of threat in the making, it is not at all clear that taking out Qasem Soleimani would have done anything to avert it. There are 10 guys behind him who are now stepping up to fill his role.

And you always have to ask in these situations, is the risk worth the reward? And previous administrations concluded when it came to Soleimani, that the risk was not worth the reward.

BALDWIN: And why do you -- well, let me ask you about that. Because I think a lot of Americans are, you know, they're just coming -- this is not a household name, right? Qasem Soleimani. He has been this enemy of America for years. He's been an enemy of both the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

And I know, they targeted him. I was talking to this drone operator on Friday about this, yet they chose not to take him out. Why then did they choose to do so now?

BLINKEN: Well, that's a good question for the administration. What I've seen, at least in reporting, is that the President was presented with a number of options, including responding to the militia in Iraq laying siege to our embassy, and one of the options was taking out Qasem Soleimani with the expectation he would never choose it because the second and third order consequences would be so grave that no one would want to do that. It didn't make sense.

[14:15:02]

BLINKEN: And yet, he chose it. But of course, we don't really know any of this for a fact. We need the administration to come forward to explain to Congress exactly what it was thinking.

But again, this all goes back to the original sin of tearing up the Iran Nuclear Agreement with nothing to replace it, and then trying to exert pressure on Iran without anticipating the almost necessary consequences that would flow from that.

BALDWIN: Tell me though, during your experience in the last administration, was taking out Qasem Soleimani ever anything seriously considered by former President Obama?

BLINKEN: Look, I can't get into those kind of internal deliberations. What I can tell you is that both the Bush and Obama administrations, I think it had discussions about that at various points, and both administrations came to the conclusion that, again, the risk was not worth the reward, that this was going to be, as former Vice President Biden said the other day, like dropping a stick of grenade into a tinderbox. And that's exactly what we've seen.

We've already seen the consequences of this action and the consequences for the United States, its strategic position and the safety of Americans is very bad.

BALDWIN: Right. Right. State Department telling Americans to go out of the region. We are sending thousands of U.S. troops.

BLINKEN: Yes, the President was talking about pulling troops out of the Middle East. He is sending more in. We've got 7,000 or 8,000 more troops in the Middle East now than when he started and with the potential, again, of being on a collision course with Iran that leads to conflict, the very last thing we need or the American people want.

BALDWIN: Tony Blinken. Thank you.

BLINKEN: Thanks, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Massive crowds filled the streets of Tehran mourning the death of General Soleimani with chants of "Death to America." We will tell you how his family is vowing revenge.

Plus, it's not just Iran the President is threatening, what he is saying to Iraq after the Parliament votes to expel American troops.

And in the midst of this crisis, White Houses have historically briefed the press every step of the way, but not this one.

You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:21:25]

BALDWIN: Welcome back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Inside the Iranian Parliament, a scene that mirrors the outrage that's overtaking the streets. Members gathered for an emergency session on Sunday repeatedly chanting, "Death to America" in unison.

[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]

BALDWIN: CNN's Senior International Correspondent, Nick Paton Walsh is in Beirut. And Nick, the daughter of Qasem Soleimani issued this direct wanting to President Trump quoting her here, she says, her father's assassination does not mean everything is finished. What could retaliation even look like?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's interesting, Brooke, isn't it? Because I think much of the world and certainly it seems the U.S. Commander-in-Chief was sort of expecting some sort of volatile or florid moment in the immediate days after the killing, something which would show visibly that Iran was retaliating.

But we're still seeing mourning now here, and interestingly, I was at a rally on Sunday, where a key Iranian ally, Lebanese Hezbollah leaders, Hassan Nasrallah, in fact, said that they weren't really focusing on attacking Israel, a normal U.S. ally. They shouldn't be thinking about reprisals against American civilians.

In fact, he talks about a longer game about pushing American troops out of the region entirely, about sending American troops home in coffins, echoing what Qasem Soleimani's daughter said, what the Foreign Minister of Iran hinted at, too, that the end of the U.S. presence in this area had begun.

And that may possibly be the longest strategy here from the Iranians, one that actually plays to something that voluntarily, Donald Trump will be very happy with -- he has long campaigned on withdrawing from this region.

So the possibility of a campaign which targets troops causes Donald Trump's instincts to get out possibly of a country like Syria that he called blood and sand, sand and death -- sorry -- that may possibly be the longer term Iranian strategy here.

Although Donald Trump being very clear when pressured that he is not going anywhere on anyone else's terms -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: So then where does this leave Iran and a nuclear weapon?

PATON WALSH: This is the key thing here because if we look at the last days, strip away the rhetoric, the noise, the mourning, the scenes of powerful grieving on the streets, Iran has done one thing and that's get out of its last commitments under the nuclear deal, not leave the deal, but basically say, we will enrich uranium as much as we want, and that's a key step towards getting a bomb.

While they haven't said they want the bomb, but it is complicated here because they probably are facing now the worst threat from the United States they have in a while, their top military commander killed in the capital of a friendly country.

So there may be some parts of the Iranian elite that maybe thing now is the time to move towards the bomb. Remember, all of this comes down to the nuclear deal that was designed to take the issue of a nuclear weapon in the Middle East, bar those held by the Israelis off the table to make sure that whatever happened with Iran didn't involve them getting hold of that.

Now, this is the really dangerous potential long term consequence we could be looking at. As I say, it's not clear if Iran is racing for the bomb now, but before the deal, experts said maybe they only needed a year. Other suggested perhaps that time has got even smaller.

If they're public about it, or if the Israelis or the Americans believe they are trying to achieve that, then there could be airstrikes trying to prevent it from happening.

And I have to tell you, Brooke, the last 19 years in this region, frankly will look like a rosy period if we see a nuclear arms race and a desire to try and stop Iran continuing to have the bomb or getting hold of it in the first place. That's a whole nightmare, frankly, nobody in this part of the world wants to imagine -- Brooke.

[14:25:08]

BALDWIN: Rosy period. That is quite a statement. Nick Paton Walsh in Beirut. Nick, thank you for the perspective.

Meantime, President Trump is threatening sanctions against Iraq if American troops are forced to leave. We'll talk about the choice that country now has between a neighbor and an ally.

And just context for all of us, it has been more than 300 days since the last White House briefing. Remember those? Now, we're in the middle of this international crisis, will anything change?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:00]