Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Senate Dems Oppose Gorsuch; U.S. and Egypt to Fight Terrorism; Trump Touts Spying Reports. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 03, 2017 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:04] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Straight to the White House here.

Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King.

I believe we have some tape of Egypt's military leader arriving at the White House this hour. We don't have that tape yet?

There we go. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the White House. Let's watch President Trump. This is moments ago heading into the White House. High stakes conversation. The beginning of a very high stakes diplomatic week for the president. He faces risky decisions about ISIS, North Korea and more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Oh, no, China has to cooperate. This is now down to, do we want to continue to see these ballistic missile attacks from North Korea or does China want to do something about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Other big news, right now the Senate Judiciary Committee is deciding whether to push Judge Neil Gorsuch one big step closer to the Supreme Court. And if that step comes, it will set up a fierce partisan fight over the final step to confirmation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Based on his record, I have concerns about his views and concerns whether he'd bring a partisan agenda to the court. Judge Gorsuch did nothing to allay those fears. In fact, I can say he solidified them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Back to that fight in a minute.

And talk about mixed signals. The president launches tweet wars against House conservatives who defied him on the Obamacare repeal plan, but then invite their Senate soulmate for a round of golf.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R), FREEDOM CAUCUS: Tweets and statements and blame don't change facts. Let start over. Let's get this thing done right and let's keep our promises with the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: With us to share their reporting and their insights this Monday, Karen Tumulty of "The Washington Post," CNN's Manu Raju. Jenna Johnson of "The Washington Post." And CNN's Dana Bash.

A live look right here on Capitol Hill. A big moment of truth just ahead. And this big event, the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court now appears destined to trigger a defining change in Senate rules. As committee members began speaking this morning, two senior Democrats on that committee made their intentions clear. Pat Leahy of Vermont and Dianne Feinstein of California said they will oppose Judge Gorsuch and join a Democratic effort to deny him the 60 votes required under the current rules to advance a Supreme Court pick to a final confirmation vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY CMTE.: Our job is to assess whether the nominee will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all Americans and whether the nominee recognizes the humanity and justice required when evaluating the cases before him. Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch's record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate, and his written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Now, follow along here. The math can be a bit confusing. Democratic Senator Mark Warner also announced his no vote today. Three Democrats have said they will vote yes. Both on the procedural vote and on the final confirmation vote.

Here's where it gets a little confusing. One Democrat, Michael Bennett of Colorado, says he will vote yes on the procedural vote. Still undetermined how he will vote at the end.

Now, assuming all Republicans vote yes, that means there are now 56 votes to close debate on Gorsuch. And there are only three Democrats and one independent left who have not declared their intention on that first vote. A culture vote as they call it in the Senate. In other words, Judge Gorsuch needs all the remaining votes to get to 60. That's high drama. And as Democrats voice confidence Gorsuch will not get to 60, the Senate majority leader says he is prepared to invoke what in Washington they call the nuclear option. A vote to change Senate rules, to allow confirmation by a simple majority.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MAJORITY LEADER: What I'm telling you is that Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. The way in which that occurs is in the hands of the Democratic minority. And I think during the course of the week we'll find out exactly how this will end. But it will end with his confirmation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: You're shaking your head listening to Leader McConnell there. You've covered The Hill for a long time. And there are two big - two huge stories here. Number one is, does Donald Trump get a legacy pick. A very young judge on the Supreme Court. And, number two, to get that legacy pick, does Leader McConnell decide, I'm going to change the rules? And it looks like Democrats have the votes to force him. We still have a few to come in. But Leader Schumer, on the Democratic side, sure sounds confident that they're going to have to - as they say in Washington, people out there in America are probably saying huh - but go nuclear.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean that's precisely what Mitch McConnell was saying, and Mitch McConnell/Senate speak that one way or another, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed and he will be on the Supreme Court.

OK, so what does that mean? That means as you set up, that if Democrats are successful in their filibuster, Mitch McConnell will change the rules. And once you change the rules on a filibuster for the Supreme Court, it's already been changed for other executive nominations thanks to Harry Reid when he was a Democratic leader several years ago, and other - and lower courts as well. But this is obviously kind of the mother of all fights. And so, so important when you're talking about the Supreme Court.

[12:05:14] So, OK, let's just talk short term. What does it mean? It means that they can - that they fought a fight, the Democrats, and that Republicans are going to get their nominee. But to me it is - it is the Democratic leadership and these senators who are voting no, listen the their very angry base, understandable because of what happened with Judge Garland, but not taking the long view and thinking, OK, this is not a swing seat on the Supreme Court. The next one that Donald Trump will likely have will be a swing seat and the Democrats are effectively - not effectively, they are, by doing this, denying themselves the ability to stop the next person that Donald Trump puts up who will, if he has a free pass, will be somebody who they think is even more conservative than Gorsuch.

KING: Right, depending on who retires at that point or if somebody leaves the court -

BASH: Right, but -

KING: The ideological balance.

BASH: Absolutely.

KING: Right now you're getting Gorsuch for Scalia, which most people view as about essentially an equal trade. The next Supreme Court pick, it depends. Is it Anthony Kennedy? That would be a swing voter if he decides to retire. Others - the older justices, the Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the like, we'll see what happens there.

But when you get to this option, if we can bring the graphic back up of the four senators. So right now to get to 60, Neil Gorsuch essentially has to draw to an inside straight. He has to get Chris Coons, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez and the independent from Maine, Angus King.

Chuck Schumer, Manu, has been out there publicly saying he's not going to get to 60. He must know. I mean the leaders - if - if he's - this is his - one of his first tests. Health care was number one. This is number two, his test as leader. But we assume he can do the math.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yes, they're not going to get to 60. Everyone is expecting the nuclear option to happen. What was - to Dana's point, which is really instructive over the weekend, is we saw two red state Democratic senators who are up for reelection announced their plans to filibuster the nomination. That's Claire McCaskill of Missouri, John Tester of Montana. And interestingly so, they chose their base, which wants to fight this war brutally, go as far as possible, even though they know they're going to lose over more moderate voters in their conservative states because they don't want to face the wrath of their base. They don't want to worry about potentially losing money from donors, not - to depressing their base in their election. But the larger impact is, what will happen to the filibuster, not just on - the nominees are all gone. Now there's going to be - you can confirm anybody on any position after this is changed on executive level. What about on legislation where the 60 vote threshold still exists? The concern is that it creates a slippery slope and then all of a sudden that rule is gone and then the majority can do whatever it wants in the Senate. That's the real danger. What Harry Reid started in 2013 and what Mitch McConnell is going to do this week.

KING: Right. And the Democrats who have said they would vote yes, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Donald Trump carried all of those states. Some of those states by huge margins. And then you have these, you say, you have the other Democrats who are up in 2018 who are saying, I'm going to stay with the base. They're making a bet, right? It's, how strong will Donald Trump be? How strong will this energy be in my state not today and tomorrow but next September and November?

KAREN TUMULTY, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I do think this is the culmination of a trend that has been going on for decades - I mean you can argue going back to the defeat of Robert Bork during the '80s - that these Supreme Court nominations have got increasingly partisan, increasingly political. Last year during the presidential campaign, both party nominees were saying they had litmus tests for their nominees. That is something that presidential candidates would never have said in the past. I mean essentially these - these decisions on the part of the Senate, which are really supposed to be made with a historical lens looking at decades out ahead of you have, as with everything else in Washington, become a product of the passions of the moment.

BASH: Totally. KING: A product of the passion of the moment. But after the health

care debacle, there's been a lot of talk about, you know, we're not tired of winning yet. It looks like - yes, it's bloody. Yes, we don't know the hangover effect in the United States Senate going forward could be long, but it does look like, by the close of the week, the president's going to get a win, and a pretty big one.

JENNA JOHNSON, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Exactly. And I think a great kind of a key study of the thought process that went into this for some Democrats is Claire McCaskill of Missouri at a fundraiser kind of warned liberals around her about what this could mean in the future. And pointing to this list of other nominees that the president has put forward. Gorsuch was kind of seen as one of the better picks off of that list and worries of what could come later down the line, there was a huge backlash once those comments got out and you see her doing a medium post to explain why she will not be going with it.

KING: Right.

BASH: And could you guys - just beyond the nomination, I think what people at home who are watching and listening to culture and filibusters and nuclear options, I think what they need to -

[12:10:00] KING: After a week of reconciliation and other -

BASH: Right. Exactly. What they need to understand is that what this is going to do is make Washington, if you can imagine it, even more partisan. And what you said, Manu, was so important, that the only ability to filibuster now will be on - on legislation. And who know - it's a slippery slope - if that goes away. So what that means, if you only need 51 votes in the Senate, it has absolutely - it does away with the notion of needing to compromise across the aisle and it will look like the partisan house (ph).

KING: Right. And this is a double whammy for the Democratic base. You were out in San Francisco recently and saw - you weren't surprised, I'm sure, by what Feinstein said today.

BASH: Right.

KING: What you saw in San Francisco. But, number one, they think that, you know, Trump one. It's a Trump pick. They don't like Trump. So if Trump says it's a nice sun rise, the Democratic base says no it isn't. And also the stolen seat in the Democratic view, that President Obama had 11 months for Judge Garland to sit there on the vine (ph).

Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, just said this during this hearing. He said, this is a bit rich to us coming from the party who not only denied Garland, perhaps the most qualified judge ever nominated so much as a hearing, but from the party who is the flagrant beneficiary of all these partisan decisions. I feel like I'm watching "Casablanca" where the inspector says he's shocked to find gambling's going on here as he's handed his winnings.

Again, bad blood from the Democrats who, when you talk to them privately, most of them say Gorsuch is a nice guy. He's really a brilliant legal mind. Sure, he's a little more conservative of me (ph), but he's highly qualified. And, you know what, he's actually said when you ask him about apportion rights and other things, that I respect precedent.

TUMULTY: And most of them have voted in the past to put him on the bench.

BASH: Right.

RAJU: And he's not going to tilt the ideological balance on the court -

KING: Right.

RAJU: Which is one of the reasons why that some wanted to hold this fight into the next time when if Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps aside, what happens when Kennedy steps aside and they move the more conservative direction. And let's train our fire that time - at that point. But Democrats who are pushing this hard line position now are saying, well, the Republicans are going to change the rule then, so we might as well fight it now.

KING: Right. Fight it now. Fight it now. All right, we'll keep an eye on that.

Again, the Senate Judiciary Committee still in session. We'll keep track of the vote, dip in there if there's any lively debate.

Up next, though, the new president today welcoming a strong man at the White House and laying a marker down ahead of a big meeting with the Chinese president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:39] KING: Welcome back to INSIDE POLITICS. Straight to the White House. Just moments ago the president meeting with the president of Egypt in the Oval Office. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's great to be with the president of Egypt. And I will tell you, President El-Sisi has been somebody that's been very close to me from the first time I met him. I met during the campaign.

ABDEL FATTAH EL-SISI, EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT: Yes.

TRUMP: And at that point there were two of us and we both met and hopefully you liked me a lot more. But - but it was a very long - it was supposed to be just a quick, brief meeting, and we were with each other for a long period of time. We agree on so many things. I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President El-Sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt. And the United States has, believe me, back in and we have strong backing. We are very much, and as you and I will be soon talking, we are building up our military to a level that will be the highest - probably the highest that we've ever had, plane orders, ship orders, aircraft carrier orders. We are rejuvenating our military to the highest level.

I think in these times, probably more than ever before, or certainly almost more than ever before, that's what we need. And I just want to say to you, Mr. President, that you have a great friend and ally in the United States and in me.

EL-SISI: (INAUDIBLE).

TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

EL-SISI (through translator): Your excellency, allow me to extend my thanks and appreciation for your kind invitation for me to visit the United States. Actually, this is my first state visit to the United States since my inauguration (ph) in office. And as a matter of fact, this is the first visit in eight years from an Egyptian president to the United States.

TRUMP: Great.

EL-SISI: Your excellency, since we met last September, I've had a deep appreciation and admiration of your unique personality, especially as you are standing very strong in the counter (INAUDIBLE) field to counter this evil ideology that is claiming innocent lives, that is bringing devastation to communities and nations, and that is terrorizing the innocent people. Your excellency, very strongly and very openly you will find Egypt and myself always beside you in this - in bringing about an effective strategy in the counter terrorism.

The second point, your excellency, that you will find me supporting you very strongly and very earnestly in finding solution to problem of the century. I am quite confident that you will - you'll be able to bring a solution to this issue.

[12:20:04] TRUMP: We will. That I tell you, we will.

EL-SISI: Yes. Thank you.

TRUMP: We will do that together. We will fight terrorism and other things and we're going to be friends for a long, long period of time. We have a great bond with the people of Egypt. And I look forward to working with the president. And we have some interesting conversations going to start effectively immediately and then we're going into the cabinet room and we're going to meet with your representatives.

So, again, thank you very much for coming. And I look forward to a very long and strong relationship.

EL-SISI: Thank you, Mr. President.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, press. Thank you, press.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Just the fact that that happened there, a handshake in the Oval Office, part of the news today. The Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office just moments ago. Both leaders promising to cooperate against terrorism. President Trump at the top saying we agree on so many things. Says President El- Sisi is doing a fantastic job.

And it's interesting to note because President Obama would not let him into the White House. Number one, he took power in a military coup. Let's be honest, at the time, the United States didn't complain all that much because the previously democratically elected president was from the Muslim Brotherhood and there were a whole lot of problems with that. So let's - you know, the Obama administration said it was a bad thing. They didn't scream so loudly about it. But he would not get the invitation to the White House. Human rights groups say President El-Sisi jails his political opponents, tortures his political opponents, has cracked down violently against free speech in Egypt. The president of the United States sitting next to him in the Oval Office says he's doing a fantastic job.

BASH: I mean that's also one of his standard lines when he wants to, you know, play nice. That's, you know, that's the classic Trumpism diplomatically and otherwise. Look, it is true that - that since the coup happened during the Obama years, they were walking a fine line. It's also true that it's not just President Trump that sees El-Sisi as an important partner in the Middle East.

KING: Right.

BASH: It's also countries in the Middle East that you wouldn't necessarily think would. I mean the Israelis, for example, I think that they understand that Egypt - not as much as a country like Jordan, but Egypt is an important linchpin to try to figure things out if it's the - at all possible with the Palestinians and even - and even more broadly. So it is a fine line. No question, human rights groups wanted to, and rightly so, you know, are demanding that President Trump be more aggressive. Let's see if there's a readout and they say that he did so in private. We've seen that before.

KING: Right. And to your point about the Israelis, that's one of the points that U.S. officials say privately, they say we have long time - and the Israelis for a long time have had a military to military relationship and so at least -

BASH: Right.

KING: Maybe you're not moving the ball forward, but there's more trust and communication between the militaries. And that's where the United States would say they have had cooperation from El-Sisi.

BASH: Right.

KING: That it was the idea of just giving the symbolic platform of the Oval Office to a president. That's this president's choice. And we've seen this, them publicly acknowledging - again, the Obama administration privately sort of conceded the point that Assad is in Syria, whether or not he can - they're not going to get rid of Assad in the short term. But President Trump publicly saying kind things and in this case inviting into the Oval Office someone that human rights groups would say is a abhorrent (ph).

TUMULTY: But El-Sisi also has a very specific and concrete thing - concern that he is bringing to the Oval Office as well, which is that this administration has talked about turning a lot of military aid, including a lot of aid that Egypt gets, into loans rather than - rather than outright aid. So it will also be interesting to see, beyond this sort of downplaying of human rights, you know, where things go when it comes down to really talking about very specific concerns.

RAJU: Yes, and foreign aid especially expected to get a pretty significant whack in the Trump budget in light of the significant cuts they're talking about from the State Department and U.S. aid at this point. It will be interesting to see on the human rights front the extent to which Trump does push El-Sisi privately and if he - what he does to Xi Jinping, when the Chinese president comes in, meets with Trump later this week. Will this - the White House is putting out word this is not going to be at the top of the agenda, but will they even talk about this privately? Will - how much will he focus on that or will he worry about the other things on the agenda? That is something that certainly will be a difficult thing for Trump to (INAUDIBLE).

KING: And if you go back to his president's inaugural address, he made clear, he doesn't think it's his view to lecture other leaders. So more of the America first. We shall see as the week goes on.

Everybody stay put. We're continuing to track the Senate Judiciary Committee still in session, about to vote on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

And a little health care politics. The president trashes some of his critics, takes another one golfing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:28:32] KING: Welcome back.

This is day 74 of the Trump presidency. And if you've been keeping close watch, you know the president's morning routine is pretty set. He gets up very early, checks in with his echo chamber, and launches a few pre-breakfast tweets. Here's one from this morning. "Such amazing reporting on unmasking in the crooked scheme against us by @foxandfriends." The president declared at 6:15 this morning, "spied on before nomination. The real story."

For the record, back here in the real world, there are some questions about what intelligence professionals call unmasking. There are legitimate questions about that. But there is no evidence, as the president of the United States alleges, of a crooked scheme or improper spying. Back to that in a moment.

But by real story the president means he thinks you should pay no attention to the FBI or congressional investigations into Russian election meddling and the question of whether the president's own associates were in touch with the Kremlin as it released hacked e- mails damaging to Hillary Clinton. Coverage of those issues, the president says, it's all fake news.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), RANKING MEMBER, INTELLIGENCE CMTE.: It certainly is an attempt to distract and to hide the origin of the materials, to hide the White House hand. The question is, of course, why? I would tell people whenever they see the president use the word "fake," it ought to set off alarm bells. And I think that's really what's gone on here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[12:29:47] KING: This is a conversation, and an issue that has consumed Washington, cast a giant cloud over the new administration, and it is incredibly confusing. We were talking a bit during the break about conversations I've had with Trump voters in recent days and, you know, what is relevant to the Russia investigation, what does the president mean by unmasking. You've spent a lot of time in chasing in hall - every hallway known, subterranean in the Capitol complex, Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee chairman. Now he's caused a lot of controversy. Democrats say he's in the pocket of