Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Tom Steyer Qualifies for Final Democratic Presidential Debate; Interview with Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA); Live Coverage of Mike Pompeo and Steven Mnuchin Press Conference. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired January 10, 2020 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: This is first on CNN. New video of a close and dangerous encounter between a Russian warship and a U.S. destroyer in the Middle East. Poppy, just the latest in a series of deliberate close encounters like this by Russia.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Let's go to the Pentagon. Barbara Starr is there. Barbara, tell us about the video.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, this video, now just in from the U.S. Navy in the Middle East, this happened yesterday. A U.S. destroyer, the Farragut, was sailing in the North Arabian Sea when this Russian warship came up behind it.

And you need to look at this video. You will see the Russian ship continue to approach, approach, and approach. It came within 60 yards of the U.S. Navy ship. The U.S. Navy had to -- the Navy ship, the Farragut, had to sound five alarms, an international signal for danger of a collision. But it wasn't until they conducted radio bridge-to- bridge communications that the Russians turned and backed away. They came within 60 yards.

My colleague, Ryan Browne, has learned that the Navy ship was sailing there at the time to protect the aircraft carrier Harry Truman. Of course, these are very sensitive waters right now -- you can hear some of the blast -- sensitive waters because of the situation with Iran.

The Russians did turn away, but the U.S. feels this was a very aggressive action by them and you can assume they're making the video public to the world to show what the Russians did -- Jim, Poppy.

SCIUTTO: Yes. They've done it off the coast of China, they did it in the Black Sea a number of months ago, something to stay on top of. Barbara Starr, thanks very much.

HARLOW: All right. Tonight is the deadline for 2020 Democratic hopefuls to qualify for the presidential debate next week. It will be the last debate before the Iowa caucuses.

SCIUTTO: Yes, folks are going to start voting soon. Tom Steyer is the sixth candidate to qualify for the Tuesday debate. Two new "Fox News" polls show double-digit support for the billionaire in South Carolina and Nevada. That meets the standard to get into those debates. Steyer, joining Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Senators Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Joining us now, Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for "USA Today." And, Susan, we're going to put these numbers up on the screen. The amount of money spent by candidates in this race so far, and the vast difference between billionaires Bloomberg and Steyer and the other candidates who, I suppose, do it the old-fashioned way, rely on donations.

I mean, for Democrats in particular, who have long criticized the amount of money in political campaigns, is that troubling, something that'd (ph) come (ph) across to voters as billionaires buying their way into the race?

[10:35:00]

SUSAN PAGE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, USA TODAY: Yes. Well, Tom Steyer has certainly found that money can buy you love, because it -- his extraordinary expenditure in Nevada and South Carolina that really paid off. He has really -- we did not expect him to make this debate stage next week.

These last two polls reflect his big investment, $11 million in TV ads in Nevada, $15 million in TV ads in South Carolina, at a time his rivals are mostly focused on Iowa and New Hampshire. So that has given that particular billionaire a place on the debate stage next week. That's an important opportunity for him. Doesn't guarantee him that he'll be an actual finalist for the nomination, but it's certainly helpful.

And we also have news from Michael Bloomberg, who did not -- has not made the debate stage, but is spending enormous amounts of money in the key states in November, and now promises that he's going to stay engaged even if he's not the nominee. So a force for Democrats even if he turns out not to win the presidential nomination.

HARLOW: What about the debate stage if Senator Cory Booker, for example, doesn't make it or some of the others who weren't on the debate stage last time either? I mean, what are you hearing, what is your reporting to expect from those campaigns? Do they stick it out?

PAGE: Well, Cory Booker has a particular problem, I think, because he didn't make the debate stage, that's unfortunate for him. And he's one of those five Democratic senators, running for president, who will have to come back for the impeachment trial, which we think could start as early as next week. That takes him away from the opportunity to meet voters, especially in Iowa. So I think this is -- this combination is very tough for him.

Also hard on Amy Klobuchar. You know, in these latest polls, she comes in --

HARLOW: Yes.

PAGE: -- a steady fifth. That's not great, but she's still in the mix. But she also will be called back to Washington for an impeachment trial.

So you see, all these big news -- all those big -- these big news developments that we see around the world, affecting what's going to happen in those Iowa caucuses.

SCIUTTO: Yes. One consistency -- this -- has been Joe Biden, the frontrunner virtually all the time. And the latest state-by-state polls, for instance in Iowa, show him with a stronger performance there than had been in previous weeks. Is he still the clear frontrunner as we get close to that moment when folks start to cast votes?

PAGE: You know, I think one of the many things on which the pundit class has been wrong was seeing Biden as a frail or fragile frontrunner, because he's proved to be a pretty durable one. He hasn't run a great campaign, he hasn't always been great on the stump. The questions about his age and some of his past actions have persisted.

But he has remained a formidable figure and I think it's fair to call him the frontrunner among the Democrats. And his calling card has been, he's the guy best able to defeat Donald Trump. That's been a pretty powerful argument that has resonated, clearly, with Democratic voters so far.

HARLOW: Susan, thank you. Have a nice weekend.

PAGE: Thank you. Yes, you too.

[10:37:54]

HARLOW: The CNN Democratic presidential debate, in partnership with the "Des Moines Register," it is live from Iowa, Tuesday evening, starting at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, only right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Welcome back. Minutes from now, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin will speak to reporters from the White House. There are a ton of questions for them about Iraq and Iran especially.

Right now, with me, Republican Congressman Austin Scott, he serves on the Armed Services Committee. Sir, it's so nice to have you with me. Thank you for taking the time.

REP. AUSTIN SCOTT (R-GA): Glad to be here. Thank you.

HARLOW: As we wait for the secretary of state and the Treasury secretary, let's talk about the War Powers Resolution. Yesterday, in the House, you voted against it. Three Republicans voted for it, including Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz.

Here's what he said. Quote, "I represent more troops than any other member in this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington. If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them." Your district in Georgia includes a major Air Force base, Robins Air Force Base. What is your message to the troops there about why you voted against this resolution?

SCOTT: So I've got two Air Force bases, actually. I've got Moody in the south end of the district. And somebody from my district is deployed constantly.

As I've said before, take the word "Iran" out, let's have an honest debate on the War Powers Act. I pressed back against the administration in committee the other day, I do not think that the AUMF gives us the authority to base in Syria. I do not think that the AUMF that President Obama used to engage in Libya against -- that led to the death of Muammar Gaddafi, I don't think that he had the authority to do that.

I absolutely think that we need to have an honest debate on the War Powers Act. But it does not need to be specific to one country, and it does not need to be done in the manner in which it was done. We need to have a War Powers Act, a discussion will actually go through the Foreign Affairs Committee and have a full vote on the floor of the House of Representatives when it's not seen as an attack against the president.

HARLOW: You believe, you've said in previous interviews in the past few days, you believe the president's strike on Qasem Soleimani was fully, fully warranted.

SCOTT: Absolutely.

HARLOW: Why do you -- why?

SCOTT: Fully warranted and legal. And legal because it occurred in Iraq. Now, if it had occurred in Iran, I would tell you, then there would be a question about the legality of it.

[10:45:00]

But what has -- what has changed in the calculation with Soleimani is not just what is happening with U.S. troops and U.S. allies around the world, but what the -- what he engaged in against his own people in simply the last couple of months.

And I know it's hard to get accurate reporting out of Iran, but I do hope, over the next couple of months, more will come out about what actually happened in November and December in Iran, where the IRG actually put down reports -- there are as many as 1,500 of their own people who were innocent and simply protesting higher gas prices in their country.

So this was a gentleman that had been named a terrorist under George Bush, that had been elevated under President Obama. I fully believe President Obama, given the same opportunity, would have taken the same action and taken out what he himself had designated as a terrorist.

HARLOW: We're waiting, again, for the secretary of state. I may have to jump in and interrupt you. But if I do --

SCOTT: Not a problem.

HARLOW: -- do come back and join us next week.

SCOTT: Yes, ma'am.

HARLOW: But about the questions. Because the president said, last night, they were going to blow up our embassy, that's why they went after Soleimani.

Pompeo, last night, said, quote, "a series of imminent attacks being plotted, we don't know when and where." So there's confusion there for the American people, from what the president says or the secretary of state says.

Do you support the president -- and this is a question that Jim asked Republican Senator Jim Risch yesterday that I think's a very good one -- do you support the president declassifying that intelligence, like he has done before with the so-called Nunes memo for example. Should he declassify it so the American people can know and have one straight answer?

SCOTT: Not immediately. I do believe that as time goes on, it will be declassified. But we have to be very careful about our sources of information and any time that the declassification leads to the potential exposure of a source where -- that we have very few of in certain countries, then no, I do not believe that that information should be declassified.

HARLOW: But didn't -- I hear you on the protecting sources and methods, so important. But, again, this is a president who has multiple times in the past declassified information, he did so in that Oval Office meeting in 2017 with the Russians; and didn't he essentially do it last night when he talked about multiple embassies being targeted, even outside of Baghdad, sir?

SCOTT: Not in a way that exposed any source.

HARLOW: I'm so sorry. We'll have you back, we'll finish this next week. Let's listen to the treasury secretary --

SCOTT: Yes, ma'am.

HARLOW: -- Steven Mnuchin.

SCOTT: Thank you, ma'am.

[10:47:29]

STEVEN MNUCHIN: -- saw that the Dow hit 29,000. The president's economic plans are clearly working. We're looking forward to the China signing USMCA and a very strong economy this year.

As previously announced by the president, we are announcing additional sanctions against the Iranian regime as a result of the attack on U.S. and allied troops...

First, the president is issuing an executive order authorizing the imposition of additional sanctions against any individual owning, operating, trading with or assisting sectors of the Iranian economy, including construction, manufacturing, textiles and mining.

And let me be clear: These will be both primary and secondary sanctions.

The E.O. also allows us to designate other sectors in the future, as Secretary Pompeo and me think is appropriate.

Second, we are announcing 17 specific sanctions against Iran's largest steel and iron manufacturers, three Seychelles-based entities and a vessel involved in the transfer of products.

As a result of these actions, we will cut off billions of dollars of support to the Iranian regime and we will continue our enforcement of other entities.

Third, we are taking action against eight senior Iranian officials who advance the regime's destabilizing activity and were involved in Tuesday's ballistic missile strike. Secretary Pompeo will comment more on this.

Today's sanctions are part of our commitment to stop the Iranian regime's global terrorist activities. The president has been very clear: We will continue to apply economic sanctions until Iran stops its terrorist activities and commit that it will never have nuclear weapons.

I will now turn it over to Secretary Pompeo.

POMPEO: Thank you, Steven.

Good morning, everyone.

Today President Trump is delivering on the pledge that he made the day after Iran attacked American forces in Iraq. There will be a series of new sanctions.

Secretary Mnuchin just mentioned eight senior Iranian officials that are responsible for the regime's violence both at home and abroad. We're striking at the heart of the Islamic Republic's inner security apparatus.

These sanction targets include the secretary of the Supreme National Council and the commander of the Basij forces. That's the regime's brute squad, which has, in the last few months, killed approximately 1,500 Iranians who were simply demanding freedom.

Our action also targets other senior leaders close to the ayatollah. They've carried out his terrorist plots and de-stabilizing campaigns across the Middle East and around the world. They've employed soldiers across the region's battlefields. They've trained militias in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the arts of domestic repression. Today they're accountable for murder and mayhem.

The goal of our campaign is to deny the regime the resources to conduct its destructive foreign policy. We want Iran to simply behave like a normal nation. We believe the sanctions that we impose today further that strategic objective.

Our campaign is composed of diplomatic, economic components that deprive the regime of billions in revenue the regime has used to fuel death and destruction across the Middle East and all across the world.

POMPEO: Sadly, the previous administration had opened up revenue streams for Iran. But under our administration, revenue -- oil revenues are down by 80 percent and Iran cannot access roughly 90 percent of its foreign currency reserves. And not even two weeks ago, President Rouhani of Iran admitted that our sanctions have cost Iran over $200 billion in lost foreign income and investment.

As long as Iran's outlaw ways continue, we will continue to impose sanctions.

Finally, I want to reiterate President Trump's concern for Americans and dual-national citizens detained inside of Iran. Iran knows they -- these individuals have committed no crime. They know the charges against them are fake. We will do all that we can to get each of them returned home safely to their families.

With that, we'll take just a few questions.

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am?

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the administration said this -- this strike was done based on an imminent threat. But this morning you said, "We didn't know precisely when and we didn't know precisely where." That's not the definition of imminent.

The president has also suggested that there was some sort of attack being planned against an embassy, perhaps several embassies.

Can you clarify? Did you have specific information about an imminent threat, and did it have anything to do with our embassies?

POMPEO: We had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threat streams included attacks on U.S. embassies. Period, full stop.

QUESTION: So you were -- you were mistaken when you said you didn't know precisely when and you didn't know precisely where?

POMPEO: Nope, completely true. Those are completely consistent thoughts.

I don't know exactly which minute. We don't know exactly which day it would have been executed. But it was very clear: Qasem Soleimani himself was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests, and those attacks were imminent. QUESTION: Against an embassy?

POMPEO: Against American facilities, including American embassies, military bases, American facilities throughout the region.

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: Yes, sir. John (ph)?

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, in the initial hours after the missile attacks on Al Asad and Erbil, it was -- it was believed that Iran may have taken steps to avoid U.S. casualties. But then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mark Milley, came out, the secretary of defense came out, other officials came out and said, "No, these missiles were intended to kill Americans."

If it was Iran's intent to kill Americans, does that not deserve some sort of response? I mean, if somebody takes a shot at you and they don't hit you simply because you duck, does that mean that they weren't trying to kill you?

POMPEO: So, look, I'll defer to the Department of Defense on the details.

But there's no doubt in my judgment as I observed the Iranian activity in the region that night, they had the full intention of carrying -- killing U.S. forces, whether that was our military folks or diplomatic folks who are in the region. And I am confident that the response the president's taken is appropriate.

The president said, "We don't want war. We want Iran to behave like a normal nation." The reason that the secretary of treasury and I are here this morning is to continue this campaign, our strategic effort to get Iran to behave in a way that doesn't continue their 40-year- long effort to terrorize the world.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Secretary Pompeo, do you believe that the Iranians shot down Ukrainian International Airways plane? And if the Iranians shot that plane down, will there be consequences?

POMPEO: We -- we do believe that it's likely that that plane was shot down by an Iranian missile. We are -- we're going to let the investigation play out before we make a final determination. It's important that we get to the bottom of it.

I've been on the phone. I was on the phone with President Zelensky just before I came here. I was on the phone with my Canadian counterpart. They are working to get their resources on the ground to conduct that thorough investigation.

We'll learn more about what happened to that aircraft, and when we get the results of that investigation, I am confident we -- we and the world will take appropriate actions in response.

[10:55:00]

MNUCHIN: Let -- let me just...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Will you allow the NTSB to -- to work with the Iranians?

MNUCHIN: Yeah, I -- I -- I was just going to comment on that.

The Treasury will issue waivers for anybody, whether it's Americans or others, that can help facilitate the investigation.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Last time -- last time that you both joined us in this room -- it was back in September -- you were announcing additional sanctions, including on the Quds Force. And Secretary Mnuchin, at that point you said, "I think we've done more sanctions on Iran than anybody, and it's absolutely working."

Since then, we've seen an escalation in violence from Iran, shooting down the drone, attacking the embassy, a contractor who was killed, U.S. troops that were wounded.

How are sanctions keeping the United States -- economic sanctions keeping the United States, the United States' interests more secure?

MNUCHIN: I think we have a hundred percent confidence and we are consistent in our view that the economic sanctions are working, that if we didn't have these sanctions in place, literally, Iran would have tens of billions of dollars. They would be using that for terrorist activities throughout the region, and to enable them to do more bad things. And there's no question, by cutting off the economics to the regime, we are having an impact.

And as the president has said, the fact that the Obama administration turned over $150 billion to the regime, we think we wouldn't be in this situation had that not been the case.

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: May I just -- may I just add? It's important to keep in mind what's taking place in Iran today. This country's never been in the place that it is today. Big, challenging problems. Their budget -- they're going to fail by tens of billions of dollars, achieving their revenue for this year.

They've got real challenges in figuring out how to make difficult decisions. Do you underwrite Hezbollah? Do you pick Hamas? Do you underwrite the Shia militias in Iraq? Or do you allow your people to have the opportunity to live the life they want and grow your economy? Those are the difficult choices that the regime is facing.

And you can see the protests, protests that we expect will continue, that will demand from the Iranian regime that they begin to treat the Iranian people in the way that they so richly deserve. And this administration will continue to support those efforts as well.

(CROSSTALK)

MNUCHIN (?): In the back.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

You mentioned secondary sanctions here. What is your message to our European allies who continue to do business with the Iranians? And specifically, if you can, will this impact the INSTEX barter mechanism that was set up by a number of European countries to avoid U.S. sanctions and continue to do business without using U.S. dollars?

MNUCHIN: Sure, thank you.

I think those are both very important questions. So let me first comment on INSTEX.

I don't believe there's been any INSTEX transactions. As we've made clear, we are working on a Swiss channel that we have approved for humanitarian transactions. We'll continue to allow humanitarian transactions.

We've warned INSTEX and others that they will most likely be subject to secondary sanctions, depending on how they use that. So that's absolutely the case.

As it relates to the Europeans, both the secretary and I have spoken to our counterparts in Europe several times over the last few days. We've emphasized the impact and the issue of Iran has announced that they are no longer part of the JCPOA. And we've had very direct conversations with our counterparts about that.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Secretary Pompeo, what is your definition of "imminent"?

POMPEO: This was going to happen. And American lives were at risk. And we would have been culpably negligent -- as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, we would have been culpably negligent had we not recommended to the president that he take this action on Qasem Soleimani. He made the right call, and America is safer as a result of that.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Secretary Pompeo -- Secretary Pompeo, why have there (ph) been these shifting (ph) definitions...

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: ... shifting explanations...

(CROSSTALK)

MNUCHIN: Go ahead. We're going to... QUESTION: ... intelligence...

MNUCHIN: We're going to try and do one question for everybody...

QUESTION: ... were they trying to hit Iranian -- was Iran trying to hit our troops or not...

MNUCHIN: ... just so that as many people can get questions, so I don't mean to cut you off, but we're trying to -- go ahead.

QUESTION: I mean, I'd normally defer to my colleague.

But, sir, six months ago, Secretary Pompeo, the president said that U.S. intelligence agencies had been running amok. He spent most of the past three years he's been in office denigrating and attacking the intelligence community and disputing findings, whether it's on Russia or North Korea or really any area that contradicts things that he has said directly (ph).

Why, then, should Americans suddenly believe your assertions that you had good intelligence on this when the head of the executive branch has been casting aspersions on the intelligence community for most of his time in office?

POMPEO: Look, I served as the CIA director for the first year and a half of this administration. I watched the president rely on the work that the intelligence community did for the entire time I served as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. I watched him rely on the capable men and women who are delivering exquisite information --

[11:00:00]