Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

CBO: GOP Bill Leaves 23 Million More Uninsured by 2026; U.S. Official: Manchester Bomber Likely Has ISIS Training; W.P.: Comey, FBI Duped by Dubious Russia Intel Document; DOJ: A.G. Did Not Disclose Russia Meetings; Sources: White House Solidifies "War Room" Staff. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired May 25, 2017 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: -- to the health care proposal. Twenty percent approve, 50 percent disapprove. The senators will digest these numbers as they get about their business and here's a very telling quote from the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in an interview with Reuters yesterday. Quote, I don't know how we get to 50 votes at the moment but that's the goal. And exactly what the composition of that bill is, I'm not going to speculate about because it serves no purpose.

Now if you've been around long and enough to be able to translate Mitch McConnell, that means, I got nothing. I got a mess trying to negotiate from the Rand Pauls and the Mike Lees to the Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowskis. I have no idea where this is going. Stay tuned, strap in. It's going to be a while.

MOLLY BALL, THE ATLANTIC: Right, it's a big bucket of ice water. And -- but, you know, Senator Cassidy was selling the truth that the Senate was planning to start over from the beginning. They were never going to take up the House bill and probably not anything like it. Unfortunately Senator Cassidy is a medical doctor who does have a different proposal for health care that has -- that the Senate is also not considering and he's not even part of the working group that is looking at this now in the Senate.

But, you know, I talked to a Republican staffer in the House a few days ago who said, look, we know we just voted to send a blank piece of paper to the Senate. That is the process where even if something does happen it's going to be the Senate writing a whole new bill.

KAREN TUMULTY, THE WASHINGTON POST: But we do know what -- we may not know precisely how a bill, if the Senate can get a bill though would be composed. We do know the general direction would be which is that it would be significantly more moderate and less far reaching than what the House passed. And that is just by the makeup of the Senate, the fact that a lot of these senators come from states that have expanded their Medicaid programs and they don't want to be going back to their state and taking away health coverage from people.

KING: Well, that's the hard part, it's taking away. Listen to the House Speaker Paul Ryan again just before we came on the air. Yes, he knows the CBO numbers for the most part are bad for Republicans. So the point he's trying to make is, look, ObamaCare is a mess, we have to do something.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Under ObamaCare, average premiums have gone up by nearly $3,000. This law did not drop premiums by $2,500 as promised. Between premiums surging up and choices going away, ObamaCare on is an unsustainable path.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: He makes a valid point in the sense you look at Blue Cross pulling out now in Kansas and Missouri after we saw (inaudible) out here. Blue Cross pulled out there, united pull out there. The costs are not going down like President Obama promised.

Republicans can make that case. However, you have a Republican president, a Republican House and a Republican Senate. They have the burden of doing something and at the moment they can't get their act together.

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Right and they know that. It's so striking too that Paul Ryan like he did the last time the unflattering CBO score came out said, you know, I think the score is great news because it shows that premiums will go down for some people. Deficits will -- you know, it will cut the deficit. Of course we have the White House as you said insulting the CBO and basically saying it's fake and we can't trust any of their estimates. And the fact that they're not on the same page about that message just underlines how far they are from any kind of consensus even among Republicans about what this should look like.

And to Karen's point, the Senate version is going to have to come much more to the center. They do not want these huge Medicaid cuts in their bill. They know that they can't sell that. But then, how are you going to get it back to the House? And Paul Ryan knows that too.

KING: And even, can you get a Senate bill to the Senate? The lifeline for Republicans in the CBO report, most of the numbers are pretty hard to sell politically even if you think you're right in the policy, it still hard to sell politically. The life line is the deficit reduction because in Washington speaks, sorry America, that means you get to do it through reconciliation. They get to run it through the Senate through an easier process.

However, to Julie's point, if you cut -- you know you need a more centrist bill, can Mitch McConnell get to 50 when Rand Paul says if it doesn't fully repeal ObamaCare, I'm not there. Mike Lee of Utah, at least publicly so far has been in that position. Well, that's two. That means he's got nothing left to spare.

CARL HULSE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I mean, Mitch McConnell himself said yesterday, I might not get to 50. And eventually as he said very revealing. He doesn't usually tip his hand like that, he (inaudible) while we're working on it. This was a signal, this was a statement. We're in real trouble here you guys over there in the House. Don't expect anything and not to beat up on the House republicans again though I will. I mean, this has puts them in a terrible position because a lot of them defended their vote on that bill, the first bill as well, we want to move the process along. You know, we know this is coming back differently. If it doesn't come back differently, hey, that's your proposal.

KING: If they don't get a second vote. That's the campaign and again, (inaudible) I want everybody stand by because I have to get to some breaking news.

Just in to CNN, a U.S. official telling us the suicide bomber behind the Manchester attack likely had ISIS training. Now CNN's Barbara Starr at the Pentagon has this breaking news. Barbara, what else have you learned?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: John, what a U.S. official is telling me now is at the latest intelligence, they are working off of in cooperation with the British is that Salman Abedi, the 22-year- old Manchester bomber did travel to Syria. They believe he went to Syria in the months before the attack and that he most likely received training and support there from ISIS.

[12:35:05] This is the intelligence they're working off of at this hour. Are they trying to get it all perfectly nailed down? Yes. But that is what the working assumption is now based on the intelligence they have. That in the months before the Manchester attack, he traveled to Syria.

This is going to raise serious questions why the British, why the U.S. did not notice? Why his travel movements were not caught by international authorities because there's been a lot of effort to shut that border down moving in and out of Syria. And this came before his most recent trip to Libya.

We know now that he traveled to Libya for three weeks. Returning to Manchester just a couple of days before the attack. The belief now, the overall belief now in the intelligence is that he indeed was inspired by ISIS to carry out this attack and that he had some help doing it. John?

KING: Barbara Starr with the breaking news for us at the Pentagon. Barbara, thank you. And you're dead right, it would might answer some questions about the complexity of the device, did he received training. But wow, it sure adds a lot of questions about why wasn't he caught going back and forth. Why wasn't he an alarm source?

Up next for us here back to politics, just when you thought you'd heard it all, another twist in the spy novel in Washington. Did the FBI director fall for dubious Russian intelligence? It's confusing but fascinating. That story after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:40:31] KING: Welcome back. The spy novel that is the Russia election meddling investigation serves up yet another stranger than fiction twist. The headline come in courtesy of the Washington Post last night. "How a dubious Russian document influenced the FBI's handling of the Clinton probe." The story, and I need your patience here. I'm sorry but I need your patience here.

A secret piece of intelligence intercepted from the Russians spurs the FBI director to deliver one of the most dramatic moments of the 2016 election. That damming press conference that ended with word there would be no charges against democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. You remember that. Well, what was the supposed piece of intelligence?

According to sources who spoke to the Post, the Russian document cited an e-mail exchange between then Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Leonard Bernardo who works for a group founded by billionaire George Soros, a big Democratic donor. Remember, the U.S. intelligence community had assessed that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee during the campaign. The Post says this piece of intelligence claimed Wasserman Schultz told Bernardo in an e-mail that then Attorney General Loreta Lynch promised a Clinton campaign staffer that the FBI investigation into Clinton would not go too far.

Now, such an e-mail if it existed would be proof of what Republicans and others in the darker corners of the internet suspected, a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration to protect Clinton. Now sources say that would help explain the context to why Director Comey did not give Lynch a heads up of his plans to hold that now infamous press conference. He believed, sources close to him say that it was critical to reassure Americans of the FBI's independence.

The problem? The FBI suspects the documents may have been bad intelligence. Potentially even a fake, meant to confuse the FBI. Sources tell the Post the FBI did surprisingly little to verify the authenticity of the document.

The Russian intelligence intercept did not include the alleged e-mail sent from Wasserman Schultz to Bernardo. And the critical players mentioned in the documents, that's Wasserman Schultz, Bernardo, and the Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria. The alleged intelligence document says Lynch made her promise to go easy to Renteria. Wasserman Schultz follow along then allegedly pass it along to Bernardo.

But, and this is a pretty big but, tough to follow, right, Renteria says she doesn't know the former attorney general and has never communicated with her. Wasserman Schultz and Bernardo say they don't know each other and have never communicated. And this is the mind boggling part if not (inaudible), Bernardo, Renteria, and Wasserman Schultz all say the FBI never called to interview them to test the veracity of the suspect document. Help me.

TUMULTY: I think the largest point of all of this, the most significant part of it is that when we have been talking to date about Russian efforts to influence the last election, we talked about efforts to influence public opinion, whether it's with fake news stories or by dumping hacked e-mail into the public discourse. This suggests that the Russians were also trying to influence the decision making within an FBI investigation. One that really did have the potential to change the outcome of the election. So whether this is, you know, another opportunity to go back and look at James Comey and his fitness for the post in which he held, I think the larger point is the one that people need to stay focussed on here.

KING: It's an interesting point because we did see in late in the French election, the leaks of documents, some of the e-mails were authentic. Macron e-mails about the budget, about spending decisions, about priorities but some of them were doctored and they were fakes and they looked exactly the same. So to the point if the Russians somehow injected a fake document on purpose to influence the FBI, that would be huge.

BALL: Well, it also doesn't say very good things about the FBI if they did as little checking as the article asserts. It basically says that the FBI fell for fake news. That there was a concocted hoax and rather than check it out, it's as if the FBI, you know, got an e-mail forward from grandma and decided it must be true because it sounded about right. You know, this is -- it sounds like something that you would find on a fake conspiracy site. Oh, George Soros called Debbie Wasserman Schultz basically to make sure that they would go easy on the Clinton. It doesn't sound believable and they didn't even check.

KING: Yes, it was more info worst than Washington Post when you start to read through this. I mean the general headline but then you think about the depth of it, it is pretty stunning. As we go through this, I just want to bring in (inaudible) conversation part of the questions has been who will be the new FBI director because Mr. Comey is gone. You know, this was going to happen anyway.

[12:45:02] So in Washington we roll our eyes at this but Joe Lieberman, the former senator has just released a letter who withdraws himself from consideration. You withdraw yourself from consideration usually after you've been told you're no longer being considered.

HUSLE: Democrats are not going to go for that. But I think Senator McCain had already kind of gone public blaming the Democrats for making it too hard for his amigo Joe Lieberman to get in. As for the Russian intrigue there -- I mean, you have to credit the person who kind of set and cooked that up in some ways because it was bizarre. But if that -- it's another problem for Comey. If that influenced his decision making -- I mean, he's going to appear probably the week after Memorial Day up here, I've got to presume that's going to be a big part of the questioning. You know, was he moved by this document that they failed to even check out at the basic level?

KING: Another story first reported by CNN last night and now by other organizations is the attorney general of the United States when getting his security clearance did not list on the form where it asks if you've ever met with foreign entities, did not list that he had a campaign year meeting he says in his capacity as a senator with the Russian ambassador. And remember he didn't disclose that to Congress either and Congress was mad about that. Now, the Department of Justice says this is their explanation, "In filling out the SF-86 form, that's the security clearance form, the attorney general's staff consulted with those familiar with the process, as well as the FBI investigator handling the background check, and was instructed not to list meetings with foreign dignitaries and their staff connected with his Senate activities."

So they're throwing the FBI under the bus here and blaming somebody else. Forgive me, but he's the nation's top law enforcement officer. He's coming out of a campaign going into an administration where he knows these Russia questions are paramount in front and center. Are we supposed to believe that like Michael Flynn he just forgot?

DAVIS: I mean, I think it speaks to a general approach that -- and I don't want to let the attorney general off the hook for what seems like a really bad omission here. But there was a general approach among the entire Trump transition team of sloppy vetting, of if there was a question in somebody's mind whether they needed to do something or not they would err on the side of they didn't want to do it. We know that the Office of Government Ethics communicated with the now White House counsel saying, you know, you need to be taking ethics briefings from us, you need to be interacting with us so you can figure out what exact disclosures you need to make and what you don't. And that wasn't happening on a routine basis.

So I think this is just another example. And it may be the most damaging one yet since he's still in the administration of somebody just opting not to disclose information that later is going to come out and make them look -- even if there's nothing -- no inappropriate, you know, interaction there, it's going to raise suspicions. And it should.

KING: And when do we see him back before Congress? Because let's just play the exchange Senator Sessions had with Senator Al Franken early on in the process here that led to even more questions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D), MINNESOTA: If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That's the last part there. I did not have communications with the Russians. He could have easily said, as a senator I had a very innocent quick routine meeting with the Russian ambassador, had nothing to do with anything important. You know, he yelled at me and I yelled at him, it was over. But he said -- and again, I did not have communications with the Russians. He did have communications with the Russians.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BALL: Well, and if the statement today or yesterday I guess is true that he was acting on the advice that was given to him that foreign dignitaries were considered part of Senate procedure and didn't count on this list, if that is true, he's gotten a tremendously bad wrap. But why wasn't that the explanation we got last time there were these instances of failing to disclose contacts? In that instance, this explanation was never offered. It was instead that he didn't think he had to. So there's a lot of questions.

KING: A lot of questions and we're going to continue. Up next, more on the Russian intrigue but as we go to break, the former Secretary of State John Kerry offering tongue in cheek advice to the next generation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I used to say either run for office or get a degree from the Harvard Kennedy school. With this White House, I'd say buy Rosetta Stone and learn Russian.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:53:42] KING: Welcome back. We already know the president of the United States is seeking a private legal team to help him now that there's a special counsel investigating the Russia election meddling. There's now also word from CNN's Jim Acosta that the White House might be setting up a war room believing it has not been quick enough in rapid response to the fast developing stories about all of this. Among those considered for the war room, White House hands already in place, Steve Bannon, the chief strategist, Reince Priebus, the chief of staff. But this word that Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie, two pugnacious former Trump campaign aides might also be coming in to this.

Now, the president hasn't signed off any of this so it could go away. But Corey Lewandowski for example we know was at the White House the other day. What do we make of this that they think -- these stories come out every day. And they think they have not done a good enough job of pushing back, fighting back, putting their side of the story on the record. Is that why you need a war room?

DAVIS: Donald Trump definitely has been angry about this behind the scenes. He doesn't think people are going out to defend him enough and in a wholesome enough way. And we re starting -- we have been starting to see over the last few weeks they're starting to send sort of opposition research type RNC type e-mails out to the White House press core saying look at this good headline, look at this bad headline but the president wants much more than that.

[12:55:03] He wants a group of people whose sole job it is to make him look good every moment of every day. And the irony here is that most of the episodes that he's been upset about have been of his own making. It's not about surrogates not willing to go out there and he speaks to the cameras about, you know, defending him. It's about him undermining the narrative that that White House is putting out. So you have to wonder whether they're wondering it's going to solve that.

TUMULTY: So I think it speaks to something different because he -- these are not sort of smooth P.R. professionals he's bringing in here. He wants the people who are with him at the beginning to be back near him again.

David Bossie introduces -- helps set up his hiring of Corey Lewandowski. David Bossie introduced him to Steve Bannon. Corey Lewandowski was with him when there were only five people working on the campaign. I think it's Donald Trump's comfort level too that is at issue here.

KING: So to comfort himself.

BALL: This seems to me a very bad sign for the White House because it is an acknowledgment that they are in a state of permanent crisis. They have decided they have institutionalized crisis response 24/7. That's not a good look especially less than six months into your administration and as Julie was saying, this is not a communication's problem. But Trump still think to put communication problem.

KING: It's a problem. We don't need to agitate there. Thanks everybody for coming in. That does it for "Inside Politics." The news continues after a quick break with my colleague Wolf Blitzer.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1 p.m. here in Washington, 7 p.m. in Brussels. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.