Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Sharp Contrast in Clinton & Trump Responses to Orlando Attack; Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff; Is Trump Suggesting Obama Has Ulterior Motives On Terror?; Orlando Attack Reignites Gun Control Debate. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired June 14, 2016 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump offering a sharp contrast in their response to the Orlando terror attacks. Trump expanding his call for a Muslim ban and Clinton calling again for stricter gun laws.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked. And yes, if you're too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESUMPTIVE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE: It will be lifted, this ban, when and as a nation we're in a position to properly and perfectly screen these people coming into our country. They're pouring in and we don't know what we're doing. We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Joining us now is Sam Clovis. He is the co-chairman and policy adviser for the Trump campaign. Good morning, Sam.

SAM CLOVIS, CO-CHAIRMAN AND POLICY ADVISER, TRUMP NATIONAL CAMPAIGN: Good morning, Alisyn. How are you?

CAMEROTA: I'm doing well. Sam, should this gunman have been allowed to purchase guns?

CLOVIS: Well, I think the interesting part of this is if he was under scrutiny twice by the FBI, and I think that there is certainly some validity to the point where if you're under investigation -- criminal investigation -- there are many laws in many states that prohibit people who are under investigation from being able to purchase guns.

And so, I really don't have too much of a problem here if you're under criminal investigation, for a hold being put on that. That makes sense to me, so I'm not sure because we already have those laws in existence in a lot of states. CAMEROTA: So, Mr. Trump is comfortable if someone is suspected of having radical ties and they are under criminal investigation, with them not be able to purchase guns?

CLOVIS: I think if a person is under criminal investigation and we have plenty of precedent out there for this at the state level -- that if you're under criminal investigation you probably shouldn't be allowed to go into a gun (sic) because that should show up in a background check. I mean, those are the kinds of things that the background check should be there for.

If you're on a watch list, if you're under investigation, those things can be tagged and tabbed and I think that those are exactly the way the states are doing it across the country, and we don't seem to see much outcry there.

In fact, in the state of Iowa we've gone through this process a couple of times on different issues. That's where I'm from and that's why I reference that, is because it makes sense to keep people from buying guns that might have a violent streak in them or identified as violent.

CAMEROTA: Yes, I mean, because you know that there actually is pushback on this. The NRA isn't comfortable with it and one of the arguments against doing this is that there are people on the watch listerroneously, so you --

CLOVIS: Oh, that's --

CAMEROTA: -- someone be violating their Second Amendment rights. So in order to issue a blanket statement of saying hey, if you're on an FBI watch list, if you're being investigated by the FBI, you don't get to purchase a gun. That is different than some of the gun wisdom out there.

CLOVIS: Well, they also -- I would say that there's the other side of this, too, Alisyn, that we haven't talked about and that is the civil liberties side because there are a lot of people whoget identified and put on watch lists. And there's a difference between being put on a watch list and being under criminal investigation.

Criminal investigation could be easily tabbed in a background check and there's quite a difference. And oftentimes, people get put on watch lists very -- we have a lot of famous people. You know, I think Ted Kennedy was on a watch list at one time.

CAMEROTA: Right.

CLOVIS: And so -- and I'm not sure the late senator from Massachusetts probably deserved to be there, so there are some abuses that take place.

CAMEROTA: Right.

CLOVIS: And this is the other side of it. You have to be very careful about protecting civil liberties, as well. CAMEROTA: Yes, OK. Sam, when Mr. Trump said that President Obama gets what happened here better than anyone understands, what did he mean?

[07:35:00] CLOVIS: Well, I'm exactly sure. I think for a lot of us, and again, I think for a lot of people in this country it is incomprehensible that this president cannot get his head around, or cannot seem to get his around the notion that we are at war with a political ideology, and that political ideology is radical Islam.

And we have people, whether they be lone wolf or whether they be organized or in groups or cells, or whether they be a full-blown militia or army, that we have a hard time getting our heads around the fact that this president cannot comprehend and will not state what the problem is. Any 12-step program that anybody's ever involved in says you have to be able to identify and recognize the problem before you can cure it. And it doesn't seem this president has that ability.

CAMEROTA: Yes. And what was Mr. Trump saying is the reason that he thinks that Mr. Obama won't say that?

CLOVIS: I'm not exactly sure what the reasons are and I'm not sure Mr. Trump knows what the reasons are. I think that there are questions and you run the whole spectrum of thought on this is to say that either this -- maybe the president is indifferent to this, or maybe the president is in some form of denial and not willing to accept oracknowledge these issues.

Or, he considers this as it was back in the 1990's before the Clinton administration came in, and I was there when we saw this dramatic shift, from treating all terrorist acts as crimes to starting to treat them as acts of war, then we start to see this shift. And I'm not sure that the president has caught up with that.

CAMEROTA: OK, because just to be clear, when Mr. Trump said either he's not smart, which I don't think many people have said about President Obama, or he's got something else in mind, it sounded to some ears as though Mr. Trump was suggesting that there was something behind it. There was an ulterior motive. There was something more sinister.

CLOVIS: I'm not sure that that's the implication. I think people hear what they want to hear and I think sometimes they way people say things that -- we have a very unconventional candidate who has done extremely well in a very difficult endeavor. And I think sometimes that people hear things and try to interpret those things, and oftentimes make mistakes. We never have any trouble understanding Mr. Trump. I don't know why everybody else does, so --

CAMEROTA: She said just to be clear, Sam. There was in no way -- in no way does Mr. Trump believe that President Obama is somehow sympathetic to the cause of radical Islam?

CLOVIS: I don't think that it is fair to say that he is sympathetic to the cause of radical Islam because we've lost thousands and thousands of American lives to -- and actually tens of thousands of lives around the world to radical Islam.

I think that there is a problem with the president, a leader of the largest and freest nation in the world. There is a problem if he cannot acknowledge is, and there has to be some reason behind that that he simply will not acknowledge what is going on and what has been going on for the past 25 years.

CAMEROTA: Sam Clovis, from the Trump campaign, thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

CLOVIS: Alisyn, you guys are doing a great job down there. I really appreciate your work.

CAMEROTA: Thanks so much, Sam.

Well, Donald Trump slamming Hillary Clinton's call to reinstate a ban on assault weapons. We will talk about exactly what she wants with a congressman who has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

[07:38:40]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:42:10] CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Donald Trump sees what happened in Orlando as a new reason to call for a Muslim travel ban to the United States. Hillary Clinton sees it as a new reason to call for a ban on tactical weapons.

Let's discuss with ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and Clinton supporter, Congressman Adam Schiff of California. It's good to have you, Congressman, as always. Tell me why you believe Orlando makes the case that we are a law or some laws away from this never happening again.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, look, I think in the wake of Orlando, as we have with every terrorist attack, we try and figure out what more can we do to prevent this? Do we need to make a new investment in intelligence? Do we need to intensify the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria? What steps can we take?

But there is one step that has been considered off limits, and that is how do we prevent these terrorists, these homegrown radicals, from getting access to weapons where they can kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

And I think, increasingly, Americans are asking why is it possible to keep someone from flying if they're considered a terrorism risk, but not to prevent them from getting weapons that can kill just as many people?

CUOMO: Right.

SCHIFF: And that's why I think there's so much attention right now on the legislation that we have tried to pass to have a No Buy List, as well as a No Fly List. CUOMO: Right, OK. We've been putting a lot of concentration on this but it's a little bit of a tricky issue to articulate. I don't think what Orlando shows is as simple as a, hey, we need new gun laws, more gun laws. I think this is more about the investigative discretion of the FBI. They're getting a lot of stink put on them, and wrongly here. They did nothing wrong. They are legally not allowed to reach out and flag this type of gun purchase by somebody just because of prior contact.

As you point out, Congressman, they can do that with a No Fly List, but there are reasons for this. People who fight for civil liberties, as you do, have put certain restrictions on what the FBI can do in overextending themselves. Second Amendment proponents have handcuffed the FBI here by not allowing a non-conviction, non-adjudication of mental health to be a basis for flagging a gun purchase. So how do we address those issues?

SCHIFF: Chris, you're absolutely right and I think we put an incredible onus on the FBI because they're doing these investigations in all 50 states. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of suspects. And it's simply the case that with many of these cases, probably in most of these cases, there's not enough evidence to make an arrest. They can't show that the person has provided material support for terrorism, and there may not be a current legal basis to preclude them from getting a weapon, so their hands are often tied.

[07:45:00] And I think it's, as you point out, unfair to lay this at the feet of the FBI. But I do think that doesn't mean that we're powerless to make changes. And when there is sufficient evidence to put someone on a watch list, or somebody has been watch listed in the past, then certainly when they go to buy an assault weapon --

When there's evidence that the intentions that they may have expressed, the statements they may have made, are turning into action, certainly the FBI ought to be alerted so they can resume their investigation, if not a prohibition if someone is on a No Fly List that they get that weapon. But you're right. That's not something that the FBI can do on their own.

CUOMO: And this guy doesn't check any of those boxes. This guy here in Orlando was not under investigation, wasn't on a watch list, he's not somebody who's identified as being an open sympathizer. He didn't even make that level for them because his claims were so bizarre and inconsistent. So it winds up being a little bit more of a dicey proposition.

Right now it's crystal to everybody because we're so angry about what happened. But tomorrow, when the FBI gets back to work, even today, the civil liberties people are saying whoa, whoa, if you can't make a case you have to let these people live his or her life. And then you have the Second Amendment proponents saying whoa, don't get between me and my gun unless you have a conviction.

So, it almost sounds like, you know -- when I heard Sec. Clinton, in our interview yesterday, that there's a false enthusiasm for change here. I don't see what's going to change in the wake of this unless that's addressed.

SCHIFF: Well, there are due process issues, you're absolutely right, that do need to be addressed. For my part, I think if somebody has been watch listed, even if they're ultimately removed from the watch list, and they go to purchase an assault weapon, that ought to be enough to trigger the FBI to taking another look.

Have the sentiments that they express, the interest in an attack that didn't motivate into action previously for which the FBI had to close their case, do they now have reason to reopen that case? I think that's something that the FBI ought to know and be able to use its discretion.

When you can make a sufficient showing, though, that someone is a threat -- if it's sufficient, for example, and you have enough due process to keep them off a plane --

CUOMO: Right.

SCHIFF: -- because they may interested in killing the people on that plane, that should also rise the level, I think, of preventing them from getting an assault weapon where they can kill the same number of people.

CUOMO: Another political point is language here. Secretary Clinton said look, I have no problem calling this extreme Islamism. That's a word we don't hear that often but the experts recommend it as the most precise analysis of what this perversion of the faith is.

She said, I'll say it. The reason I don't say is not because I'm afraid, the way Donald Trump is suggesting. It's because that's what ISIS wants us to say. They want this to be a holy war. That's what their marketing is. I'm not going to give them that. Do you agree with that?

SCHIFF: I do agree with the comments the secretary has made. We don't want to calonize (ph) the entire Muslim population of the world. We don't want to stigmatize Muslims here at home. That's exactly what ISIS would like us to do. It plays into their narrative that we are at war. A clash of civilizations.

That's enormously destructive, particularly when we need the help of Muslim communities in the United States to identify people who are at risk of radicalization. And we need the help of Muslim allies in the fight in Iraq and Syria, so I think it's enormously counterproductive.

I'll make one other point, Chris, and that is this. Those that have this fixation on the language ought to be able to say why, if we use the term that they like, that calls for some kind of a different policy? And they've never made that step forward.

In other words, they can take the semantic argument but they don't say if you call it what we think you should call it, it leads to a different strategy or a different approach because, basically, they have no different approach to offer. CUOMO: Interesting. Congressman, thank you very much for having the conversation today. This will continue because no change happens quickly, if at all.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: Thank you, sir.

There's no question that the situation in Orlando is going to have a bearing on the election, and it should. I mean, this is a chance for you to look at these two candidates and see what their approach is.

Donald Trump went very strong after the president yesterday, saying not only is his approach to terrorism wrong, but he may be personally compromised. What is he implying about our commander in chief -- next.

[07:48:15]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:53:00] CAMEROTA: The political rhetoric surrounding the terror attack here in Orlando is getting divisive. Donald Trump questioning whether President Obama may had had some ulterior interest in this attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands. It's one or the other. And either one is unacceptable. We're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind.

And the something else in mind -- you know, people can't believe it. People cannot -- they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the world's radical Islamic terrorism. There's something going on. It's inconceivable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right, here to discuss this and more, CNN political commentator and "New York Times" Op-Ed columnist, Charles Blow. Charles, great to see you. Thanks so much for being here with us on the scene. So, how do you interpret what Donald Trump said?

CHARLES BLOW, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, OP-ED COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, see, I can only interpret it in the context in what he has said over his entire presidential political career beginning soon after the president began to run and was elected.

In that context, he has always questioned the president's identity, his religion, his kind of fealty to this country. If you put it into that sort of context it is very clear that he means to question his loyalty, his patriotism, whether or not he has some sort of intimate knowledge of Islamic terror, and that is outrageous. I can't even process how a person could come to that conclusion. CUOMO: Was it satisfying to the haters? It's the same rationale for why he harps on the words.

BLOW: Right, right.

CUOMO: Why won't he say radical Islamic terror? And the president's people and pretty much any academic in this faith will tell you the same two things. One, because it's inaccurate. And two, because it exposes an entire faith to the evil of a small portion of it.

BLOW: Right, right.

CUOMO: But that's unsatisfying. I don't want to hear that as an American person who is so angry that these people keep doing this. That's why Trump's angle is what it is.

BLOW: Right, but if you said that appeals to hatred, right, then you have to analyze --

CUOMO: To haters -- people who hate the terrorists.

[07:55:00] BLOW: To haters, you've then got to analyze then what is his constituency, and then they have to analyze themselves and say if this is a person who I have thrown my lot in with, and this is the standard bearer for the party that I support or I am even a member of, then what does that say about me?

And I cannot -- sitting idly by and saying I do not see -- I don't agree with everything he says is not sufficient. This is a zero sum game. Either you fight against hatred or you advance it.

CAMEROTA: Well --

BLOW: And there are no -- there's no in between in that argument.

CAMEROTA: I mean, not so fast, because we just had Sam Clovis from his campaign -- one of his policy advisers -- as well as Ben Ferguson, whom you know, a conservative pundit, who said that what they hear is just the abhorrence of political correctness. They think that President Obama should call this radical Islamic terror, and the fact that he won't is political correctness, and that that's what Donald Trump is referring to.

BLOW: Right. Listen, is it correct just to say that there are people who are exploiting a particular religion, Islam, the Muslim faith? Absolutely. Is it correct to say that there is a strand in the faith of people exploiting it to turn people into weapons? Absolutely. And I think that people are saying that.

What we don't want to do is get to the point where this man, this animal, this coward was probably, what, 15-16 years old on 9/11. We remember what happened after 9/11. Incredible surge in hate crimes against Muslim-Americans in this country. He was born right here. He's living that experience, right?

And what we don't want to do is to have the next 15-16-year-old boy who is weak of mind, susceptible to being turned to ISIS, experiencing hatred again and saying this country doesn't love me. I need to go look for something else. I need to go look for a reason to hurt the innocent people in this country. What we don't want to do is to facilitate this sort of behavior.

CAMEROTA: So you don't see it as political correctness, you see it as not lighting at match under someone who may be overly sensitive.

BLOW: Your biggest adversary in the fight against ISIS and people who are perverting Islam is the people who are of that faith. Those are the people -- number one, those are the people who are getting killed the most. If you look at worldwide most of the people who get killed by these terrorists are, in fact, Muslim.

They have a vested interest, an intimate interest in stopping it. They're your closest source. They are in the mosques, they are in the neighborhoods, they know these people. If they are willing to come forward and say I see something that I know is not right. I want to protect my family, I want to protect my neighborhood, I want to protect my faith, that is your biggest allies and you don't want to turn those people off.

CUOMO: What do you hear another language issue we have here now? We have been, I thought because of common sense -- we've been very focused on it. This is the first time we've ever seen gays targeted like this --

BLOW: Right.

CUOMO: -- by anyone under the guise -- the countenance of terror. I don't know that this man makes that definition yet. That's for the investigators to figure out. But it seems like that word isn't getting the traction that we kind of felt it would, just by dent of the facts. We have never seen gays be attacked like this. And I know a lot of people in there were not gay. They just loved hanging out with these gay people who were in the club, and they got killed.

BLOW: Right, right.

CUOMO: Are you seeing that? That the word gay is not getting said as much?

BLOW: Right, right, it is very curious. From some of the same quarters where you are saying the president is not saying Islamic terror, there are some people who are not saying LGBT people who were attacked, right?

CUOMO: Right.

BLOW: And that's a curious -- that's a question.

CUOMO: Well, why would they --

CAMEROTA: Basically, on my theory, it's identity politics. Conservatives don't like playing identity. They see them as Americans. They see them as Americans. Forty-nine Americans -- innocent Americans -- were killed. Why distinguish? Gay, straight, whatever.

BLOW: See, you have to say the rest of the Muslim population as Americans, right? You cannot have it both ways. This man targeted a specific group of people, LGBT people. He targeted on a specific night, even.

CUOMO: Right.

BLOW: Right? The Latino community and that night. But the "L.A. Times" even has a story that suggests that he had been to LGBT clubs before.

CUOMO: Right.

BLOW: That he had profiles on apps where men go to meet other men. This is a part -- a facet of this story. We cannot downplay the idea that -- of homophobia being linked to other phobias, and other hatreds, and other isms, that all of these things are connected.

That once you allow yourself to hate one person -- once you allow that into your spirit, once you allow that to become part of you -- normalize in you -- it allows you to hate anyone, to hate everyone, to be able to hurt anyone.

CUOMO: Maya Angelou -- hatred has caused many problems in this world, but has never solved one. It is a layering affect.

CAMEROTA: Charles Blow, thank you.

BLOW: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Nice to get your perspective, always. We have much more coverage of the Orlando terror attack ahead, including a survivor who was inside that nightclub, speaking out, so let's get right to it.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.