Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

TV Anchor Claims Threat; Trump Says Patience is over with North Korea; Calls for North Korean Sanctions. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 30, 2017 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Ask states for voter files. And a number of those states telling the White House to take a hike.

Plus, a big shift from the president on health care. He embraces a conservative idea that could complicate already delicate negotiations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BEN SASSE (R), NEBRASKA: Let's do as much repeal as we can and then let's have the president ask us to cancel our August state work period and stay here and then work on replace separate. We made - we made promises to the American people and we should fulfill them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We begin, though, with more backlash over a sexist Trump tweet storm, including a new allegation that the Trump White House used the president's relationship with "The National Enquirer" to threaten journalists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC ANCHOR: We got a call that, hey, "The National Enquirer" is going to run a negative story against you guys and they said, if you call the president up and you apologize for your coverage, then he will pick up the phone and basically spike this story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: With us to share their reporting and their insights, Laura Meckler of "The Wall Street Journal," Jackie Kucinich of "The Daily Beast," Karoun Demirjian of "The Washington Post," and Margaret Talev of "Bloomberg."

If you - if you check right now, the fallout from this tweet storm, as we told you, is escalating. I want to show you "The Daily News of New York," their cover today, they call it a sexist rant at MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski a humiliation for the president and for the country. And a long list of Republicans, who would like to pass a policy agenda, are denouncing their Republican president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a tweet that's not even becoming of a city councilman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not going to defend his tweet. It was ugly. And I personally do hold the president of the United States to a higher standard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is maddening. It's maddeningly frustrating because this is beneath the dignity of a president of the United States, or at least it should be. And it's a distraction. And it really ultimately starts to undermine the president's ability to get his agenda done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And now a tabloid twist, of course. "The National Enquirer" is involved, denying it was part of any effort to blackmail Brzezinski and co-host Joe Scarborough. It was Scarborough you just heard who alleged that today, saying he was told "The Enquirer" was working on a story but the anchors but that that story would be killed if he called the president and apologized for the morning show's harsh coverage. Trump, on Twitter, called that allegation fake news and said Scarborough called him to ask for help with "The Enquirer."

Ah, welcome to Friday, heading into a holiday weekend. I - it's hard to believe we're having this conversation. But, yes, there's a tabloid involved and, yes, you know, OK, so we're talking about "The National Enquirer," which makes you think, what are we doing here? However, at its core, this is a serious allegation by Joe Scarborough, that the president of the United States, or other people in the White House, were essentially threatening them and saying that there would be a negative tabloid story about them if he didn't back off his coverage. The president says it's not true. "The Enquirer" says, if there were those conversations, they had no part in it. But at the core of this is a question of potentially threats and abuse of power.

JACKIE KUCINICH, "THE DAILY BEAST": Well, one of the things that thedailybeast.com actually just - we are reporting right now, that Jared Kushner was one of the people that Joe Scarborough spoke to. (INAUDIBLE) just had that story up right now.

But it wasn't that the aides that spoke to them told them that, it wasn't necessarily a threat. They were just discussing this story because Joe Scarborough was concerned about it, for obvious reasons. Now, we'll see what bears out as the day goes on. But certainly if they felt threatened by this and it went up to the president, that's - that is - that's a new level here.

LAURA MECKLER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": I mean, and just to take a step back here. We're talking about the president of the United States basically in a, you know, pissing match with the host of a cable TV news show. I mean how does this serve his agenda, how does this, other than, you know, perhaps it's cathartic for him to kind of lash back out when they are critical of him. But it's just kind of through the looking glass that we're even having this conversation, or that somebody in the White House would have been involved with dealing with "The National Enquirer" on any level. KING: Right. And so - it's a key point. Number one, they are harshly

critical of the president. Number two, when this started to break yesterday, I went back and looked at some of the more recent things they've said about the president and I can understand why he would be mad about some of the things they have said about him. The question is, he's the president of the United States. He has people on his payroll who can go out and fight back. And if he wants to fight back, you can punch back without launching a sexist tirade against the woman involved, talking about her appearance, talking about blood again. So there's that part of it, thin skinned, sexist rant and now this question - question, it's a he said/he said at the moment, of a potential abuse of power. I'm not sure what the question is.

MARGARET TALEV, "BLOOMBERG POLITICS": Well, so there's the media story.

KING: Right. Set that aside for a minute. There are two other tracks on which this story exists. One is whether or not it in any way influences the special counsel's investigation now into the president on a character level. I'm not suggesting there are an connections to Russia. But on the questions of credibility, on the questions of being forthright about what he's doing or what he's saying or the back story.

[12:05:03] And then the secondary one, which actually might be more important is, whether this has additional implications for his relationship with members of Congress. Primarily Republican members of Congress who may be uncomfortable about this, may not be willing to walk the line for him or may want to distance themselves, may be willing to publicly criticize him, which has long-term implications. And then, on a secondary level, for his relationship with all Democrats if they get to a point on health care where what they need is a bipartisan bill.

KING: And you - you would laugh or roll your eyes about a lot of this, except we did see in the campaign, we know, the president has a good relationship with the man who runs "The National Enquirer." We know they are friends. We know the president, as a private businessman, had a relationship with "The National Enquirer" that he used to his advantage. You can figure that one out at home by using the Internet. So that relationship exists. So when Joe Scarborough says that's how it played out, it does make you curious and, to some, suspicious.

KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, "THE WASHINGTON POST": it's plausible, right? I mean that's the whole thing is it - we'll see if it actually happens as people start to report on this more.

But, the - it's interesting that the president - I mean the whole thing basically is just such a strange situation. When the president is marshalling his resources, his resources at "The National Enquirer," to try to take a hit at what are two fairly popular, fairly well-watched anchors on a cable news show. And the fact that we've gotten to this point. It seems that, you know, "The National Enquirer" is a thing that it could be abuse of power, but why wield that weapon and then why wield the weapon of Twitter and then why keep wielding these weapons that keep backfiring on the president? It's not very sensible. If he's -

KUCINICH: Yes, it's like a strange -

DEMIRJIAN: Yes.

KUCINICH: TMZ version of America (INAUDIBLE).

DEMIRJIAN: Right. Exactly.

KING: Right.

DEMIRJIAN: But going up against what's fairly mainstream media, fairly more established, already has - I mean I know that there are people that look at "The National Enquirer" covers in the supermarket checkout line. I know they did the John Edwards thing.

KING: Right.

DEMIRJIAN: However, I think probably more people fundamentally trust the other parts of the media than "The National Enquirer." So this is all just kind of - there's a bizarre level on top of the troubling level too.

KING: That the - that "The National Enquirer" is somehow a character witness on behalf of the Trump White House in a debate about fake news.

OK. Yes. OK. But to the point - to the point about, you know, this is not just - this is not just a tabloid story. This is - if it's for Donald Trump, the businessman, playing in the New York tabloids, using tabloids stories against your enemies and the like, that's one question. He's the president of the United States. We'll figure out exactly what happened here.

But the tweet itself was a sexist rant. It shows he's thin-skinned. It shows he's defensive. And it shows his attitudes, frankly, about women. To your point you made earlier about what does this impact in town? I mean look already at the president's relationship with the American people. This is polls for the NBC/"Wall Street Journal" poll before this happened, before he launched the sexist tweet. But look at this poll right here. Does he have the right temperament to be president of the United States? Sixty-two percent give the president a poor answer on temperament. Only 22 percent do good. I'm not going to show them to you, but on honest and trustworthy, on, is he competent to be president, the numbers in the NBC/"Wall Street Journal" poll are pretty much the same.

The American people have made a character and competence judgment about this president early on and it's a damning one. Before you jump in, Laura, Peter Hart, who helps - he's the Democratic. There's a Democrat and Republican pollster. It's the gold standard of polling, the NBC/"Wall Street Journal" poll. Here's Peter Hart's take on this. he says, "49 percent of American voters rate him negatively on all three elements of trust, temperament and knowledge, while only 18 percent rate him positively on all three qualities. With these numbers, he will be severely challenged to ever fully lead the nation in good times or bad times. This goes beyond the usual partisanship and polarization. This goes to the core of Donald Trump's credibility as president."

Again, this was before the sexist tweet rant which I suspect only made the ditch deeper.

MECKLER: I think that the question that we still don't know the answer to here is, you know, what - what impact does this have on voters long term? Because a lot of the same sort of things came up during the campaign. There were similar types of poll numbers about his temperament during the campaign and (INAUDIBLE), as he'll be the first one to tell you, he won. So I think that when - when I've been out there talking to voters and his supporters, they tend to just sort of explain away a lot of this stuff. Now, I haven't talked to anybody since this most recent thing, but - so I do think that it does have a cumulative effect and it can just have a way of bearing his agenda and ultimately like overtaking anything good that is happened. But I don't think we know that yet. I don't think we know yet whether - because, I mean, I think a lot - a lot of American people knew what they were getting when they elected him because of the -

KUCINICH: Right. The "Access Hollywood," for example.

MECKLER: Yes, the "Access Hollywood" tape that's worse than the tweets (INAUDIBLE).

KING: Yes. Yes. The drop - they - they were willing to accept the drama of Trump -

KUCINICH: Right.

KING: Because they thought he would shake up and change Washington, or bring a businessman's skills to Washington and put the economy and put jobs first and make this town - disrupt this town, which they wanted, against a candidate who they thought did not have a compelling economic message and was part of the status quo.

DEMIRJIAN: But that's why the cumulative effect depends on where he deploys it, OK? Right now - I mean clearly his M.O. is that when he's feeling pressure or under attack to go in for a character assassination.

KING: Right.

DEMIRJIAN: Whether that's little Marco or lyin' Ted or it's, you know, Megyn Kelly and now it's -

KING: But there -- just want to interrupt for one second, the point that he's childish about some of that -

DEMIRJIAN: Yes.

KING: Or that's his way of doing it, about the men.

DEMIRJIAN: Well, I'm not saying it's the men (ph).

KING: But it's different - but it's different when it comes - when it comes to women, it's much more personal -

DEMIRJIAN: Yes, it's more vicious. It's more vicious.

[12:10:04] KING: And it's usually about their appearance.

DEMIRJIAN: Yes, it's more -

KING: Yes.

DEMIRJIAN: It's going to their gender.

KING: Right.

DEMIRJIAN: You're going for what's the lowest hanging fruit, basically, and doing something that we thought we were above and more adult than for sure. But I guess, you know, the point at which it becomes - is he going to use this in other forums, is my question. He's been using this in things like for - for people that are on the campaign dais (ph) with him, for people that are on TV, for things that are already in the public sphere where everybody kind of - who's watching may be more inclined to say, oh, that's just the president being the president. Does he get challenged by some other head of state and star to go for a character assassination that's more damning than what he did with London? Does he start to go after members of Congress? I mean, you know, he's - the PAC that supports him went after Dean Heller and after Heller said, please, don't do that, it went away. But does he start to get more in it this way with different senators where people don't have as much patience and it's not necessarily like, well, you're a public figure, too, you should be able to take the heat.

KING: Right. Right. Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, tweeting out yesterday that, don't think for a minute this doesn't affect the leadership of the United States on the world stage. Other leaders look at this and they wonder if he's erratic, they wonder if he - they can accept his word, they wonder if they can do business with him. And to your point, they wonder if you try - if you cross him, is he going to come after you?

TALEV: Yes, I - it's interesting because in many ways this is a different story in the Washington to New York corridor than it is in the rest of the country. If the president had treated a schoolgirl this way or the teacher of the year who he disagreed with on policy or a nun somewhere or whatever, like a female factory worker, it would - there would be, I think, a lot more outrage in the middle of the country, or maybe even in Trump country.

KING: Right.

KUCINICH: Yes.

TALEV: And what you have here is kind of uniquely the inverse. You've got someone who certainly she's a media celebrity, she has thick skin, she can - she can take it. But you have many lawmakers from both parties who, on some level, are rushing to her defense because of the optics of a woman. And on some level are rushing to her defense because they're on that show and they like being on that show.

KING: Right. Yes, but - that's part of it. And there's no question, especially Trump supporters love it when he beats up the media. I would hope that they would look at the specifics here. There's a way to beat us up, if that's what he wants to do as a political strategy, there's a way to do it without crossing the line into sexist rants.

TALEV: Yes.

KUCINICH: Well, and -

KING: Just say - say their liberal, say they're bias, challenge their facts. You have people on your payroll to do that for you. But -

TALEV: I - I think this (INAUDIBLE) the question, right?

KING: But it crosses a line. So part of - you know, so that's part of it. But part of it also is, let's just throw the Republican, Democrat labels aside for a minute. A lot of the criticism is that people watch this and they say, he's president. The president.

KUCINICH: Right.

KING: Any president of the United States cannot, should not do this stuff.

MECKLER: Well, it is absolutely - I mean several Republicans said it was beneath the office, and I don't know anybody who disagrees with that, although I think that the - the degree to which they criticized him was - did vary quite a bit.

I actually was thinking earlier this week something that kind of went - has - we've all forgotten about, perhaps, is these - the flip side of what he did. He complimented this Irish TV reporter's looks when she was in the Oval Office. Pulled her aside said, you're so - I forget the exact words. You know, you're beautiful. You - you're -

KING: Nice smile.

KUCINICH: Great smile.

MECKLER: You're - great smile. Your prime minister must talk to you a lot. So it was sort of another way of viewing women through the way they look. The flip side. In that case it was positive. But I think in a lot of ways, you know, just as un-presidential.

KING: Well, the "Access Hollywood" tape and the Imus archives can tell you a lot about what he thinks about things like that.

KUCINICH: A lot of times we are kind of quick to dismiss like what D.C. and Washington - I'm sorry, what D.C. and New York think about things and - because we're not seeing the Mika Brzezinski reverberate in the states like we do here.

That said, these are the people he has to work with. He has to work with people in particularly D.C. We mentioned senators. We mentioned, you know, other people in this town that the president needs to work with to get his agenda through, to get things done. And that's where this matters. And that's where his temperament and how he deals with people to people. Because we've seen him with his female subordinates back when he was a real estate mogul. He wasn't exactly the nicest to them. And he said nasty things to them. So this isn't out of character and it's not changing while he's president. So they either have to work around it or his staff has to get ahold of him.

KING: And we'll see where the reporting goes on the specific allegation, which would be border on if not cross the line of abuse of power. We'll continue the reporting there.

Just before we go to break, I just want to say, even Trump supporters wish he would put down the phone and stop tweeting. Among all Americans, 61 percent, in a Quinnipiac University poll recently said the president should stop using his personal Twitter account. Forty- nine percent of Republicans said that, too. Forty-three percent saying he should keep it up.

Up next, you just saw the president of the United States trying to do his day job, be president of the United States. In the Rose Garden with the president of South Korea, talking tough about North Korea and trade. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:18:53] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The United States calls on other regional powers and all responsible nations to join us in implementing sanctions and demanding that the North Korean regime choose a better path and do it quickly, and different future for its long-suffering people. Our goal is peace, stability and prosperity for the region, but the United States will defend itself - always will defend itself, always - and we will always defend our allies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Tough words there last hour from the president of the United States standing in the Rose Garden. Alongside President Trump was President Moon, the newly elected leader of South Korea. He has called for dialogue with the North. He has called for a softer approach than the president of the United States. Some very strong words from the president there, who also said the era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed and, frankly, that patience is over.

The question is, what next? And if you're the United States president, whatever your views are, even if you're President Trump, you obviously need to work in concert with South Korea and with Japan. How significant is it that at a time this administration has been more and more muscular. The national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, acknowledging on the record this past week they've put together military options for the president. But President Moon wants to try dialogue first.

[12:20: 22] TALEV: Yes. DEMIRJIAN: Yes.

TALEV: And President Moon is right next to North Korea, so -

DEMIRJIAN: That's right, yes.

TALEV: So he's in much more immediate peril.

Look, it's important for both countries to try to emphasize publicly to the world and to the North Korean regime there is - in which they are together and that they both share the same goal of making sure that - to halt North Korea's nuclear program. But they have different ideas about going about it. A briefing about this ahead of the visit, the national security council officials saying the president wants to hear about all of Moon's ideas for dialogue, such as like a joint Olympic team and all this sort of stuff.

But they really are talking in two completely different directions. And you see some of the president's - China's the third piece of this, right? And what we saw yesterday, importantly, was both the sanctions on the Chinese banks and shipping related entities as they relate to North Korea and also the reports about the plans for Taiwan arms sales. So that's signaling to China, he's trying to do both at the same time, bring South Korea closer into the fold. And it was important to hear the South Korea president express his regrets or his condolences to Otto Warmbier's family.

KING: Right.

TALEV: He's also looking for areas in which to show diplomacy. But the Trump administration signaling now that they want to ratchet up - very much ratchet up sanctions and that sort of tough diplomacy with their allies around the world.

DEMIRJIAN: And tough diplomacy is one - one kind of middle ground in this versus the military or the - or the strategic patience, which, you know, you could argue that both of them are fairly extreme, that may not work as well as everybody did - hopes that they - (INAUDIBLE) planed.

KING: Right.

DEMIRJIAN: But it's also important to note that, you know, this is - to what degree this is an existential issue or each country. We talk about North Korea being a really existential threat here but we don't think about it that way in the heartland of America.

KING: Right.

DEMIRJIAN: We're not living every day wondering what the consequences are going to be if we decide to step up measures against North Korea the same what that the South Koreans are.

KING: Absolutely.

DEMIRJIAN: So the president of South Korea actually has to keep in mind that his people are listening to what he's saying. They've got a pretty vibrant democracy there too where they, you know, demonstrate against the president when they're frustrated. So that is - that is a consideration there that he's got to balance between - between that and wanting to remain in lockstep with the United States, which is why you're hearing him say the things he's saying but not completely pivot off his policy.

KUCINICH: But they did vote for someone who is taking a new direction. The last leader, (INAUDIBLE), had a much harder line stance towards North Korea. So perhaps his people are listening to him and liking the fact that he's maybe a little off from the Trump administration, because he does represent a different path for that country at this point.

MECKLER: And I think it's important to like think about what Trump is talking about. Military options are on the table. Well, you know, that's much easier said than done.

KING: Right.

MECKLER: So, I mean, he clearly wants to project this sort of strength, you know, took a military consequence to what happened to the gassing in Syria. He's talking about threatening that again if it happens again there. Now he's talking about military options in Korea. Well, this is - are we going to end up in, you know, in another foreign entanglement? Are we going to have U.S. troops involved? I mean what exactly are we talking about here? I just think that it - other presidents have learned this the hard way, that when you make threats, you have to, you know, follow through on them. If that - or if you don't, then you lose a lot of leverage. So I just wonder if they've really thought about this, what happens to this chess game, you know, several pieces in?

KING: Right. It -

DEMIRJIAN: It's not even just - sorry.

KING: Sure.

DEMIRJIAN: It's not even just the following through, though. I mean, yes, you can say there's no credible diplomacy without some sort of force behind it, right? Sure, that's a reason to say military option. That's a reason to bring up the stuff about Syria this week which caught everybody by surprise, where did that come from. But you cannot do that -

KUCINICH: Including in the government.

DEMIRJIAN: Right. But you cannot do that every time. You know, this is the problem, it's like the stick becomes less - there's less smack in the stick if you keep waving it around when it's not being backed up by, you know, your entire intelligence community or everything else that's happening too. So you have to choose kind of when you do it. And certainly it works to an extent. But the question is, you know, not only does he follow through, but how often does he raise this as a way of looking tough if he's not actually, you know, planning on going (INAUDIBLE).

KING: And we have the newly elected South Korean president saying, yes, we're in a firm commitment, yes, he appreciates the president's close alliance on the North Korean question, appreciates the president listening to him. Then the president's talking about a reckless, brutal regime, you know, using much tougher language. It's hard to - their rhetoric is very different. The question is, can they, behind the scenes, if the tough talk from the president is designed to get North Korea to the table, that's one thing. To your point, if North Korea doesn't then come to the table, then you options are pretty bleak when it comes to the military.

Margaret brought up another very important connected point, though, which is the China relationship. When you go back to Mar-a-Lago early in the administration, President Trump, President Xi both emerged from those meetings thinking, hey, we're going to get along. We're going to do some business. Tough, economic stuff on the table. We'll see. There's still - the two governments are still working through some trade issues.

[12:25:06] But in the past few days, sanctioning the Chinese bank yesterday. The Chinese government didn't like that. Authorizing the $1.4 billion arms sales to Taiwan, which is consistent with prior administrations, just the Chinese don't like it. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman saying, "we hope to see thee United States government correct its mistakes, return China-U.S. relations to the path of healthy and stable development and avoid affecting bilateral cooperation in important areas." So clearly a relationship that had started off as a productive partnership and that President Trump was bragging about it quite a bit about how he thought he could do business here, has at least, for the moment, taken a significant turn for the worse.

MECKLER: And you get the sense listening to President Trump talk about the - his relationships with foreign leaders, that what it's all about is, how well did we get along. He's a great guy. We - we're going to - everything's going to be great. You know, we clicked. We did well. This rapport. He talked about that with President Xi. He talked about that again yesterday with President Moon.

So - but these relationships are way more complicated than that. I mean if you think about China back just, you know, mere months ago in the Obama administration, it was all about positioning ourselves as a counterweight to China. I mean we did not view them as somebody who were like great, strategic partners. We viewed that as somebody who needed - we needed to be setting up road blocks for. So now the idea that we're now sort of, that he thought he could just change everything with a good conversation, a bonding dinner, I just don't think it's realistic.

KING: Right, it's transactional. He did not get what he had hoped for, was Chinese pressure that worked on North Korea. He - the president didn't get that so he's mad the transaction didn't go the way he wanted.

TALEV: And he's been willing - but I have to say, like, we've seen a little bit of substance now about, so, what are the consequences?

KING: Right.

TALEV: And his willingness to follow-up. There is, I think probably to a smaller degrees in terms of impact, but a similar calculous going on with South Korea, which is, of course there are overarching concerns, the national security concern to the world and to South Korea, to the U.S., but there is an economic relationship as well. And you heard a little bit of discussion about this in the public statements and probably a lot more behind the scenes. There's, of course, the free trade agreement. You know, the president's concerns over steel dumping, over the auto industry, over the entire free trade relationship and over the idea of trade imbalance, which is, you know, his major concern throughout Asia. I'm not sure - I think it's, again, easier to isolate than it is to fix.

KING: Also a core - it's a core Trump campaign issue. He complete -

TALEV: Yes, absolutely.

KING: He said right - since - he said since the Korea-U.S. trade agreement was enacted, and he pointed out it was signed by Obama, supported by Hillary Clinton, he remembers those things, that the trade deficit has gone up $11 billion. So he said that has to change. That will be a subject of negotiations.

When we come back, back to the Trump agenda. The president tweets this morning on health care. It's a shift for him. Will it help or hurt the Senate negotiations?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)