Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pompeo Claims Congress Briefed On Soleimani Threat Despite Lawmakers Claiming Otherwise; Pelosi Plans To Send Impeachment Articles To Senate Next Week; Dow Setting A New Record Today. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired January 10, 2020 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN HOST: Highly specific details about Soleimani's threats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Soleimani was actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies and not just the embassy in Baghdad. But we stopped him and we stopped him quickly and we stopped in cold.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Hours later, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration did not know precisely when or precisely where Soleimani's target would be.

But in a last minute briefing today, Secretary Pompeo suddenly parroted the President's remarks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We had specific information on an imminent threat and that threat stream included attacks on U.S. embassies. Period. Full stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: But several lawmakers who were briefed on the targeted killing of Soleimani tell CNN that they were never told about specific threats to U.S. Embassy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump claimed that Soleimani was actively planning new attacks and looking at attacking U.S. Embassies, not just in Baghdad. Did you see Intelligence saying that?

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): No. So this is an example of the President embellishing as he goes. I have no idea where he got that from.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BALDWIN: Let's go straight to CNN White House correspondent, Kaitlan

Collins. You were in the briefing. You asked a great question of the Secretary to define imminent. How is the administration explaining all the confusion around this?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, there have been a lot of questions, Brooke, and there's only more being prompted by their answers in recent days, just about the Intelligence surrounding this ranging from differing answers we heard from administration officials on whether or not Iranians were trying to hit U.S. troops about these bomb plots that the President revealed yesterday, that new information we had not heard from his top National Security aides and of course, one of the ultimate ones. How imminent was this threat that they say justified the killing of this top Iranian commander.

Democrats have been saying that they want more specific evidence showing them about this threat, and they say essentially behind closed doors, they're not getting that.

And the question about how imminent this was came after last night, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave an interview, and he was asked about the threat and he said they didn't know precisely where or when, but they knew that it was real, which of course, if you're saying you don't know when it's going to happen, it raises questions about just how imminent it could be.

Now, when we asked him today to define the word imminent in his view, here's how he answered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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 the President that he take this action against Qasem Soleimani, he made the right call, and America safer as a result of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: So he paused there before he shared that definition. But you've heard him say what we've heard from the administration since they announced that, yes, the United States was behind the killing of Soleimani.

And of course, the question is going to be whether it satisfies Democrats on Capitol Hill and other lawmakers who have been raising questions about this. But so far, they're standing by of course, this decision, but they are not offering a lot of new information, Brooke, on what was exactly behind it.

BALDWIN: Yes. Which is what so many lawmakers take issue with. Kaitlan, thank you for that. Hillary Leverett is a former U.S.-Iran negotiator. She worked in the administrations of President George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

She is also the co-author of "Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran." So Hillary, if we take, you know, lawmakers at their word, they weren't told about this. You heard Mazie Hirono a second ago.

Is this a case of officials trying to play catch up because Trump said something out loud? Or did the President speaking at that rally last night, sort of oops, and declassified something out loud.

HILLARY LEVERETT, FORMER U.S.-IRAN NEGOTIATOR: Well, we certainly have seen President Trump do a couple of oops and declassify things, satellite imagery, for example, over Iran in some prior instances.

But here, I think, it behooves us all to really question the Intelligence, question that case that the administration is making. I served in the George W. Bush administration on the eve of the Iraq War, and there were some of us in the administration asking, where are these weapons of mass destruction? Where are they around Iraq? It was a basic question.

And we were told over and over again, well, Saddam Hussein is such a bad guy. The Iraqi government is a terrorist government, and we just can't take the chance that they have nuclear weapons.

And here we are, more than 10 years later, having spent a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives lost and we have yet to have a government in Iraq that serves U.S. interests.

So the strategic question is critically important here and it rests a hundred percent on the Intelligence case, everyone needs to be asking exactly what the intelligence case is.

[14:05:01]

BALDWIN: On the Intelligence, you heard Kaitlan's question to Secretary Pompeo and you heard his response, right? Define imminent? And we're asking -- we're harping on this point, because we don't know -- you know, President Trump could be in office for a number of more years, and, you know, we want to fully understand if something like this would have to happen again, how this would play.

So what is the consequence if the Intelligence wasn't that it was an imminent threat?

LEVERETT: Then it has to be looked at what it is. It was an attack on the core leadership of a sovereign country, a country we don't like, but it was an attack on their core leadership, and that is an act of war.

That's something that the United States then needs to really figure out. It doesn't want to go to war against a country that is three times the size of Iraq, a population three times the size of Iraq, much more sophisticated, educated, with tremendous natural resources. Do we really want to go to that war? Or do we want to figure out how to deescalate and come to terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran? BALDWIN: On the point about the embassies. What if we take President

Trump and Secretary Pompeo at their word and that there was some threat towards U.S. Embassies. What would -- you know, Iran so well, would U.S. Embassies be under some level of threat all the time regarding Iran, no matter, you know, whether it's a Democratic President, Republican President, is that a through line here?

LEVERETT: Well, I think we all saw graphically that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was and probably remains under a clear threat. The Iraqis, not Iranians, but Iraqis were trying to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on December 31st, which, from what I understand from my sources, this is what really bothered President Trump and Secretary Pompeo is that they would be facing a situation like in 2012 in Benghazi, Libya, when angry Libyans stormed a U.S. diplomatic compound there and killed the U.S. Ambassador.

They were very spooked that the same thing could happen to them in an election year, no less. So yes, there is -- there was and there is a threat to U.S. Embassies, but it's not from direct Iranian military action. It's from the anger that we provoke among populations, knowingly or not, that leads to these kind of actions.

BALDWIN: Hillary, thank you again for your expertise this week. Appreciate it. We'll talk again.

LEVERETT: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Now to this, in just a matter of days, we could see the third impeachment trial ever of an American President that is because the impeachment impasse is expected to end next week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her regular letter to her caucus, what's known as her Dear Colleague letter, this is what she wrote today, quote, "I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit Articles of Impeachment to the Senate." End quote.

You know, the deal. For the last three weeks, the Speaker has been refusing to send over those Articles to the Senate, seeking assurances that the senators will hold a fair trial.

So to our congressional correspondent, Phil Mattingly we go and Phil, what was it? Was there one thing, you know, that happened that really convinced Speaker Pelosi, all right, now, I will hand these Articles over.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Reality? I think - I don't mean that in a condescending manner. I think it was a measure of where things actually were at this moment.

Look, if you go through the entire Dear Colleague letter that the speaker sent to her Democratic colleagues today, she lists in bullet points a series of developments that have occurred since the votes to impeach the President that they believe had bolstered their case in the United States Senate, the developments in news reports about e- mails about when the hold was locked-in shortly after the call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, about unredacted e-mails that have come out in the wake of the votes that show deeper involvement for certain players inside the White House to kind of provide more context to what was going on.

And probably most importantly, of course, former National Security adviser, John Bolton saying in a statement earlier this week, that if he is subpoenaed by the Senate, he would be willing to come in and testify.

So all of those things are tangible things that occurred that Democrats can point to and say, look, we have victories or we have things to point to as rationale for why we withheld for this period of time, but the things that they actually asked for from Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell they weren't able to get.

And you could make the argument that over the course of the last three weeks, McConnell had time to really kind of get his members, the 52 and himself in line behind rules of the road on a partisan basis that they will pass and put into play because they had three weeks to work on that.

There's a lot of frustration for Republican senators, including moderate Republican senators, Democrats hope will join them at some point in the trial about this process, about how this all played out.

So to some degree, it worked in McConnell's favor, but I think the reality of the moment was it was time, the time was now and the time will likely be sometime midweek next week -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: All right. All right. So midweek next week. Thank you for the answer to that. Quickly talk to me about why Republicans want this impeachment trial over by the President State of the Union, February 4th.

MATTINGLY: That's a hell of a format to tout an acquittal. Right? You know, if you want to head into a campaign, obviously a 2020 presidential campaign, if you want everybody watching to tout something that you believe benefits you, doing it at the State of the Union inside the House of Representatives with millions watching on TV is pretty solid.

[14:10:03]

BALDWIN: Yes.

MATTINGLY: So that's what they're aiming for. But one quick caveat here, that will only happen if they don't have votes to get witnesses, and that is still very much up in the air right now. So that's a timeline Republicans want, but it's far from guaranteed at this point -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: Got it. Phil, thank you very much, on the Hill for us. Now, once the Senate has the Articles, then what? We took a look at one of the more recent indicators, the first day of President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1989. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will all senators now stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God.

The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment. The Chaplain will offer a prayer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We ask you for a special measure of wisdom for the women and men of this Senate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment by the Senate of the United States that is sitting for the trial of the Articles of Impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Someone who covered that trial, CNN Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, and she wrote the book, "The Chief, The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts." So Joan, you know, whenever these Articles are handed over, when everyone is ultimately sworn in on the Senate side. What happens next?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes, that's a good question. And I love the flashback to the formality and you'll see Brooke, the House Managers will physically walk the Articles over when they do that. So that's another formal, very scripted step.

So then after everyone's, you know, have received the Articles, taken their own, things will have to have a pause, because that's when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will lay out what will happen, because he is the one who controls so much of this.

As you can see from Chief Justice Rehnquist there, he is the presiding officer and he said, Brooke, something very important, the Senate is now sitting as a court of impeachment here. It's not sitting as a legislative body and it's not even sitting like a standard criminal or civil court.

This is a special body, and the majority of the Senate will control the rules about things that for example, Phil raised about evidence and witnesses. And what happened with the Bill Clinton one is, you know, once they were all sworn in, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott then in control said, okay, we've got votes to start.

We don't have the vote yet to say, you know, how many witnesses we might hear from, but we're going to take it one day at a time. And first of all, Mitch McConnell will probably wield a stronger hand here, but it will still be one day at a time. BALDWIN: Yes, we'll all be watching to see how this next trial really

compares to what we saw in '99. Still so many questions unanswered, but we will be glued as I know you will. Joan Biskupic, thank you.

Also today, Secretary Mike Pompeo says Iran likely shot down that Ukrainian passenger jet that crashed in Tehran this week killing everyone on board. Iran denies it, even inviting U.S. investigators to take a look at the wreckage or asking what happens now.

And taking a look at the big board, stocks hitting a major milestone, the Dow today passing the 29,000 mark for the first time ever and now, it's just below right now. It comes on the heels of a pretty mixed jobs report. We'll talk economy.

And former Secretary of State John Kerry slamming President Trump's deadly strike on a top Iranian general. He is also pushing back against critics who blame the Iran Nuclear Deal for the current crisis.

Secretary Kerry joins me live. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:18:25]

BALDWIN: We're back. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Another historic day in the financial markets, the Dow setting a new record today, for a moment, reaching 29,000 points for the first time ever. Of course, the Dow has dropped below that mark as we approach the closing bell. This comes as the new jobs report showed the U.S. economy added 145,000 jobs in December. The number was a bit shy of expectations.

CNN Business correspondent, Alison Kosik is with me to talk about these numbers, but as we look to the big board, it's just below 29.

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Watching it go farther and farther away. You know, part of that reason is because Boeing shares are falling and they're heavily weighted in the Dow Index overall.

But listen, let's mark that milestone because it's something that investors do look out for confidence. But it has been interesting to watch the market over the past several weeks and seeing the market just kind of shake everything off, shaking off the geopolitical tensions between Iran and the U.S., shaking off the tensions between the U.S. and China -- the trade deal.

Part of that is because we are going to see hopefully, Phase 1 of a trade deal being signed on Wednesday. Also helping to boost the market earlier today is that jobs report showing 145,000 jobs added to the economy in December. It's becoming a little soft, but it was strong enough, missing expectations though of 160,000.

Unemployment remaining steady at three and a half percent. That's a 50-year low, and here's the thing with that unemployment rate. Usually when you see an unemployment rate that low, you would think with employers trying to chase potential employees, you would see fatter paychecks. We're not seeing that. In fact, we're seeing wages fall below three percent for the first time since July of 2018.

[14:20:00]

KOSIK: So a lot of people are wondering, well, where am I seeing it in my wages? I'm not feeling like I'm part of this recovery because my paycheck isn't reflecting.

BALDWIN: What would you say to them?

KOSIK: And that, I would say, you know, we don't know. It's really a head scratcher for a lot of economists. They really don't know why.

BALDWIN: Got it. Got it. Alison, thank you very much.

KOSIK: You've got it.

BALDWIN: Alison Kosik. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo joining the growing chorus of officials pointing the finger at Iran for shooting down that passenger jet and killing every single person on board.

Iran denies it. It is even inviting U.S. investigators to come take a look for themselves. But they've already gathered so much of the wreckage. We'll talk about that.

And the former Secretary of State, John Kerry will join me live to respond to critics who are blaming the Iran Nuclear Deal for the Trump administration's current crisis with Iran. Don't miss that. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:24]

BALDWIN: The investigation into what happened to that Ukrainian jet over Iran is just beginning. Every single person on board was killed. The U.S. and other allies impacted by the crash believe the jet was accidentally shot down by Iran, but Iran is doubling down saying that's not what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

ALI ABEDZADEH, HEAD OF IRAN'S CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION (through translator): What is obvious for us, and I can say with confidence is that no missile had hit the plane. As I said last night, the plane was on fire for more than a minute and a half while flying.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BALDWIN: Let me show you some video. CNN has obtained this video

purportedly showing a missile fired into the sky and hitting an object. Investigators are now ready to examine the black boxes and the N.T.S.B. will now take part in the investigation which is key.

But these images also obtained by CNN show a virtually empty debris field at the crash site. Large pieces of the wreckage have been removed by Iranian officials.

Greg Feith, former senior N.T.S.B. investigator is with me and Greg, here's my first question on all of this. The Iranians are the ones who are accused of accidentally shooting this plane down and now the Iranians are also the ones taking fragments of the plane off sites reconstruct it for investigative purposes. Is that not a conflict of interest?

GREG FEITH, FORMER SENIOR N.T.S.B. INVESTIGATOR: I think it is from the standpoint that they started this investigation. They technically opened it up to the international community. But now they've disturbed all the wreckage. And that wreckage is going to be key evidence.

As we've seen in the past, and we've talked about over the last couple of days, that wreckage has marks on it - that is puncture marks from shrapnel from the missile. That's key for investigators as one part of the evidence chain, if you will.

Now they've destroyed it or tampered with it by removing it, and that's going to be an issue. There will still be some evidence, but it is an issue that they've contaminated that accident site.

BALDWIN: Not only that, but CNN talked to an eyewitness at the crash site and reported that looters and garbage men, air quotes, you know, we're wandering around picking up debris, grabbing maybe valuable aluminum. What can the N.T.S.B. do about that?

FEITH: Well, the N.T.S.B. has no authority over there. The Iranians will investigate the accident. They will be the lead. They invite the N.T.S.B. and others in as technical assistance, you know, under the treaty or under Annex 13 of ICAO's -- the International Civil Aviation Organization Annex.

But the fact of the matter is, is that we've seen this in the past. We've had accident sites where wreckage has been pilfered, bodies have been pilfered. And in this particular instance, there was no security.

I saw one report where there was a reporter standing in the middle of the debris field. That would never happen here in the United States or elsewhere.

So that's a real issue, especially if you're trying to have a transparent investigation.

BALDWIN: Yes.

FEITH: And now all the wreckage has disappeared. How are you going to do that? BALDWIN: Well, what about the black boxes? Because Iran says their

timeframe is that it'll take two months to extract data from the black boxes. Does that sound right to you?

FEITH: Well, it does, but again, you have to take that with some, you know, caution. If they're trying to read those boxes out and they don't have the real technology necessary to read those boxes out, they could actually destroy the data.

Now, the question is, they've gotten rid of the wreckage, if they destroy the data on the flight data recorder and/or the cockpit voice recorder. Now, it's really your word against my word and with Iran pushing back saying it wasn't a missile, all of a sudden now, there becomes a different narrative.

The fact with the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder is, it's going to demonstrate how instantaneous that airplane came apart. It really turned into a ball of flaming wreckage. It wasn't flying anymore after that missile struck.

It was a flaming ball of wreckage that still had an energy state that just fell out of the sky. And you can tell from the debris pattern. It's a very large debris pattern. There is no main impact crater. This airplane was in pieces coming down.

So that doesn't happen in a normal engine failure or even with an engine fire as they have alluded to.

BALDWIN: These families, everyone on board -- 176 people were killed. Greg Feith, thank you so much.

[14:30:09]