Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

James Clapper On Intelligence Leaks; U.S. Standing On The World Stage Under Trump; Inspectors Examine Waterslide After Boy Is Thrown Off; Early Voting Begins Today In Key Georgia Election. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired May 30, 2017 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00] JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: That's not to say that --

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Now, clarify that point, Mr. Clapper.

CLAPPER: That's not to say there wasn't any, but I just didn't see evidence of it before I left.

CUOMO: Clarify that becausepeople use you and those words as an example of this premise, which is there is nothing there. My understanding was that you were saying that you weren't aware of what evidence there was on that issue because you weren't running that part of the investigation, so give us a clear statement on it. What do you mean when you say you didn't see anything?

CLAPPER: First, I need to explain the very unique position that the Federal Bureau of Investigation occupies, in that they straddle -- the FBI straddles both intelligence and law enforcement. And it was always my practice during the six and one-half years that I was the DNI that I deferred to the judgment of the director of the FBI, either Director Mueller or Director Comey, as to when -- or whether, when, and what to tell me about a counterintelligence investigation potentially involving U.S. persons.

We're all very sensitive and deferential to U.S. persons and protections of civil liberties and privacy, and just given the inherent sensitivity and security of counterintelligence investigations, I wouldn't necessarily have known about that. But to say that my statement that was a flat denial of any collusion, that's not correct. The correct statement is I wasn't aware of that. That's not to say there might not have been or that there wasn't evidence of it, but I couldn't say that at the time I left the government on the 20th of January.

CUOMO: So, to those who say look, there'd be proof out there -- it would be out there by now -- everything's leaking. If there was something there to know that was at all meaningful, let alone criminal, we would have an indication of that by now.

CLAPPER: Well, I think there's enough doubt that has been cast on this that it's very important that the investigations, either in the Congress and especially that of special counsel Bob Mueller, play out and to clear this up for once and for all. CUOMO: If the President of the United States had come to you and said, "Mr. Clapper, I don't think there's anything to this investigation that's going on, do me a favor and get out there and let people know there's nothing to worry about it," how would you have responded to that request?

CLAPPER: I probably would have said that I couldn't do that. Just as I was asked to go out publicly and completely rebut the contents of the dossier -- the infamous dossier -- I could not do that and I would not have done that in this case had I been asked.

CUOMO: When you say you couldn't rebut the dossier, why not? So much of it was dismissed as propaganda or falsehoods. What was your reckoning of the value of the dossier?

CLAPPER: I -- the importance of it at the time and the reason that we wanted the president -- at the time, President-elect Trump to know about was just to let him know it was out there without commenting on the veracity of it or parts of it. And the challenge we had at the time was corroborating some of the second and third order assets that were used to compile that dossier.

CUOMO: Is it a fair --

CLAPPER: That's why we did not include it as a -- as a formal part of the Intelligence Community assessment.

CUOMO: Do you believe that the dossier had any value?

CLAPPER: Well, the principal importance of it was that it was out there and I really can't comment on its value.

CUOMO: Right, but, you know, when people hear that -- that it's out there -- that just sounds like its existence was something that was noteworthy but it doesn't mean that there was less --necessarily any reason to believe anything that was involved or contained in it.

CLAPPER: Well, there are all kinds of possibilities here, one of which is given the Russian proclivity for what they call "kompromat," which -- comprising material which they can either -- which is either valid or contrived, and at the time that we dealt with this and before I left, we didn't sort any of that out.

CUOMO: Now, another raging debate going on about how intelligence was handled and how Russia was handled by the current administration goes to this point. People try to do it differently with Russia. We saw that with the Russian reset. We saw that with President Obama early on in his tenure, saying he'd have more flexibility with Medvedev after the election, and that's what was happening here. They were trying to have some backchannel communications to do it differently, be more discreet, have it work better than the current situation. What is your concern about backchannel communications?

[07:35:05] CLAPPER: Well, backchannel communications, that is a longstanding practices -- practice of sitting administrations and I think the concern that I had and others had was whether or not the time-honored principle of one president at a time in this country was being adhered to. I think that was the principal concern.

CUOMO: Why should people care about that? If it's just done to hey, we're getting in there, this is a fait accompli, we're next, Obama's on the way out, let's get an early start, what's the concern?

CLAPPER: Well, I think it's, again, legitimate to establish contacts to meet and greet people and all that, but I think if it steps over the line of undermining the policies of the current administration that's a different matter.

CUOMO: So, it depends on the content of the conversations, not necessarily --

CLAPPER: Exactly.

CUOMO: -- establishing them. And to your knowledge, does the Intelligence Community have any evidence of the content of communications? Anything to work off of in an investigation?

CLAPPER: Well, I guess the general answer is yes but I'm certainly not going to comment any further than that, but there was a basis for an investigation and I think that came out in John Brennan's hearing before the House Select Committee on Intelligence on the 23rd.

CUOMO: That's why I'm asking it in a general fashion. I know you don't want to get into particulars but that is a big question. So that isn't just -- and to your thinking, this investigation isn't just about the fact that communications were established, but it's about the content of those communications as well.

CLAPPER: Of course, absolutely.

CUOMO: So, to the American citizen who says I just don't buy it, you know. Yes, there's a lot of smoke. OK, there are a lot of people around Trump who were talking to Russians but it seemed to be fairly innocent. They're not politicians, they're not experienced. Maybe they were getting played by the Russians and didn't even know it, but there was no intent to do anything wrong. There's nothing criminal in this. This is a waste of time. What do you say?

CLAPPER: Well, that could well be true and I think that is what needs to come out in the course of an independent, objective investigation, and -- which I think the country badly needs so we can clear the air. This could have been innocent. It could have been out of naivete or hubris, as Mike Hayden has suggested. I don't know, but I think that both the intent and the content of any of these engagements is -- it's crucial to the country to know what this was about.

CUOMO: Quickly, how long you think it takes?

CLAPPER: I have no idea. I hope it takes -- I hope it's sooner than later.

CUOMO: Mr. Clapper, this was very helpful. Thank you very much for joining us on NEW DAY. You're always welcome here to discuss what matters. CLAPPER: Thanks, Chris, for having me.

CUOMO: All right -- Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: All right, Chris. Joining us now is former NATO supreme allied commander, now the senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center, General Wesley Clark. And, CNN political commentator Jack Kingston. He's the former senior adviser to the Trump campaign and former congressman from Georgia. Great to have both of you here. I want you to respond to what you just heard Director Clapper say. What was your takeaway, General?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, SENIOR FELLOW, UCLA BURKLE CENTER: Well, I think the investigation is needed. I think we need greater transparency. And from a NATO perspective, my concern is that the latest trip and the president's visit to NATO which should have been a really strong reaffirmation of the principles of NATO turned into a lecture for NATO members and it was slightly off base in the way it was --

CAMEROTA: How is that because I know you think that that's connected somehow --

CLARK: Well, I think --

CAMEROTA: -- to the Russian investigation.

CLARK: I think what people in Europe are asking themselves is what is it -- why is it about this administration that they're trying to make Putin so happy because when he sees the disunity in NATO and the concerns of countries like Germany that the United States is no longer a reliable ally, this has to make people in the Kremlin kind of happy. This has been their goal for a long time.

CAMEROTA: Congressman, what's the answer to that? Why does the Trump administration seem to be trying to make Vladimir Putin happier than some of our allies?

JACK KINGSTON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA: Well, I don't agree with it at all and I don't agree with the 'Never-Trumpers' who say that this was a disastrous trip. When you have only five out of 28 countries paying their share of their own set guidelines for contribution -- including Germany, by the way, which pays 1.2 percent and yet Greece, which is a poorer country, one that Germany thrusts austerity on, pays over two percent which is the NATO own set guidelines. Again, I think American taxpayers deserve more than what the NATO partners are contributing. I think the other thing, though, that Europe is worried --

[07:40:13] CAMEROTA:So, Congressman -- hold on, hold on. Hold on, Congressman, one second. I just want to dive in there. So you think that that is what's paramount? That the idea of making sure that they're not nickel-and-diming us somehow is more important than reiterating the collective defense and the relationship that the U.S. and Germany and France have had together for all these decades. KINGSTON: No, I don't think there's any dispute about America's standing with NATO in terms of Russian aggression. I don't think that was ever up for discussion at all. I think the American left has tried to make that an issue because Trump didn't play it up more than he should have in their own opinion. But I don't -- I think Trump's basic premise was, of course, we're there. Of course, we stand behind NATO. You should have your fair share, however. And also, we should look at expanding the mission beyond Russia to look at terrorism because the E.U. really has approached the crisis in Syria in the Middle East as what do we do about refugees rather than what do we do to stop Russian aggression or Iran. And --

CAMEROTA: OK.

KINGSTON: -- as you know, the Trump administration is the only one who has bombed the Russian interests in Syria right now.

CAMEROTA: OK, General, is that how you heard it? The way that Congressman Kingston is describing it, did you hear President Trump say that to NATO? Of course, we stand with NATO and somehow Angela Merkel is misinterpreting?

CLARK: No, I didn't hear that, actually. I mean, I heard Rex Tillerson say it and, of course, Jim Mattis would say it, but it needs to come from the President of the United States. He needs to reaffirm the basic foundation of NATO. That an attack on one is viewed as an attack on all.

CAMEROTA: And he was not explicit.

CLARK: He didn't -- he wasn't explicit on that and he was very explicit about the need of these countries to pay more for their defense. We all agree with that. Every NATO commander and every president has said that since Dwight Eisenhower in 1951. There's nothing new. The alliance has worked on terrorism since the -- we considered a threat starting in 1999 at the NATO summit so it's not that we haven't look at this for a long time. They helped us in Afghanistan -- NATO did -- so that's part of the counterterrorism, anti-terrorism mission so there's nothing new on that.

But what's important is that with Russia pushing in Ukraine, building up its forces against Estonia, cutting off the electricity supply through cyber, and dozens of other actions that never make the headlines back here but that are well understood in Europe, there's always the need to reaffirm the fundamental foundation of NATO.

CAMEROTA: Congressman, you hear the General here and you hear what Angela Merkel, as well as Germany's foreign minister, say. They do not -- they did not think it was implied the way that you did -- that the U.S. will always have, you know, Germany and Europe's backs, so why are -- how are they getting it wrong?

KINGSTON: Well, I think number one, Angela Merkel has her own issues. The E.U. is weak with Brexit. Germany becomes the predominant economic player and she could not even persuade the world community for the TTIP, the European Trade Agreement. And she's -- and France had a major debate with Le Pen's candidacy about pulling out of the E.U., so I think that's part of her concern.

You know, in terms of the Middle East, though, the General knows and as somebody who served on the Defense Committee, I know that their contribution on terrorism in the Middle East was, in fact, weak because it is not part of their mission. But we have moved troops in a presence in the Baltic states because we wanted to make a statement that America stands firm on that. America is paying its fair share.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

KINGSTON: So I don't think there's any debate about us standing with NATO and their issue -- and their original mission, but I think the idea of expanding it and making them more relevant in the fight of terrorism beyond refugees is a good discussion.

CAMEROTA: But Congressman, on a larger point, are you comfortable with what seems to be President Trump's cozier relationship with Saudi Arabia and chillier relationship with France and Germany?

KINGSTON: I am comfortable because I don't think it's that chilly. But if you look at what the E.U. has become, the E.U. is to the left of Bernie Sanders. I know -- I work with a company -- in fact, I work with one of Gen. Clark's good friends, David Dunn, and we're in Paris and we're in Brussels and we know that --

CAMEROTA: Yes.

KINGSTON: -- the E.U. is extremely liberal. Donald Tusk, the president of the European Union --

CAMEROTA: Yes.

KINGSTON: -- said that Trump was a bigger disaster than China and Russia. That's irresponsible discussion for any great country who's an ally.

CAMEROTA: OK, we've got 10 seconds. Last word, General.

CLARK: This is a time, right now, for the president to come out and clarify what he meant on the trip to Europe and reaffirm the fundamental commitment to NATO. This is the time. Perfect time to do it. He's just back. Give a reprise to the American people, summarize what he believes came out of the trip --

[07:45:03] CAMEROTA: You got it.

CLARK: -- and say it.

CAMEROTA: General, Congressman, thank you very much for the debate -- Chris.

KINGSTON: Thank you, Alisyn.

CUOMO: All right, we have some video you need to see. (Video playing) This boy was thrown from a waterslide. Look, this is the time of year, we're all bringing our kids there. Why did this happen? Look, they say he's OK but is he really? We're going to take you through this, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: (Video playing) Some breaking news in North Carolina. At least 14 people injured after a severe thunderstorm ripped through the city of Clinton. This is the scene here this morning. You're looking live at the aftermath. You can see scattered debris, some homes ripped to shreds. The National Weather Service is trying to determine if the damage was actually caused by a tornado.

CUOMO: Portland, Oregon's mayor is asking the Feds to stop what he describes as two upcoming alt-right rallies. The city is mourning the stabbing deaths of two men who intervened in an alleged hate crime. Police say the men were killed defending two girls being harassed by a suspect yelling anti-Muslim slurs. The mayor is Ted Wheeler and he's hoping the Feds will revoke permits for Sunday's "Trump Free Speech Rally Portland" which does not consider itself associated with the alt-right, by the way. And, there's also next week's "March Against Sharia."The suspect in the stabbing is named Jeremy Christian. He's expected to make his first court appearance today.

[07:50:02] CAMEROTA: OK. So, safety inspectors and the maker of a waterpark slide in California are looking into why a 10-year-old boy was launched off the waterslide. Before we show you the video we want you to know the boy was scratched up but he seems to be OK. He did manage to walk away. So here it is. (Video playing) Park officials say riders are supposed to cross their arms and legs as they go down the "Emerald Plunge" slide. As you can see in the video, the boy's legs are not crossed. It's very hard when you're whipping down a waterslide to remember those rules, as I can attest. Safety officials are now looking into adding a weight minimum. That's probably the problem, he was -- he was too light.

CUOMO: I think the problem is going to be one with these things, you don't have a lot of oversight. People think that they must be regulated --

CAMEROTA: Yes.

CUOMO: -- you know, to some -- they're not. Now, you see that white rush of water at the bottom?

CAMEROTA: Yes.

CUOMO: The issue is going to be was there so much water at the bottom of that slide that the kid was able to hydroplane and leave the surface. That's what the issue's going to be. So then that gets into well, who regulates how much water is coming down, and where it pools, and how it works? How are these tested? You are not going to like the answers to those questions, I promise you that.

CAMEROTA: Those are always scary and that's part of the thrill of going down those waterslides.

CUOMO: That's true, but parents want the illusion of thrill --

CAMEROTA: That's right.

CUOMO: -- not real thrill.

CAMEROTA: Yes, good point.

CUOMO: All right. So, it has become the most expensive congressional race in history. You know about this one, right? Remember this guy? He's finally getting married. Will all the money bring a shift to Washington? Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate in Georgia's sixth district, an important race. Tom Price held this, the HHS secretary. Are Republicans supposed to win it? Will the Democrats come from behind with this man?

CAMEROTA: Are you going to ask him about his proposal?

CUOMO: Of course. That's all we're going to talk about --

CAMEROTA: Very good, very good.

CUOMO: -- the nuptials.

CAMEROTA: Very good.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:55:15] CUOMO: Early voting begins today in the most expensive congressional race in history. Democrats are hoping to flip Georgia's sixth district, a deep red district once held by Health Secretary Tom Price and Newt Gingrich before him. So let's bring in Democratic candidate for Georgia's sixth district, Democrat Jon Ossoff. How are you, sir?

JON OSSOFF, (D), GEORGIA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, RUNNING FOR TOM PRICE'S HOUSE SEAT: Morning, Chris. How are you doing?

CUOMO: Why so much money?

OSSOFF: Well, there's a lot of enthusiasm here in Georgia to make a statement about the need for greater accountability, about the need for fresh leadership that can work across the aisle to get things done. More than 10,000 volunteers here in Georgia who are knocking on tens of thousands of doors per week. Early voting, of course, opens today and I hope you won't mind me plugging the site. If folks want to find out their early voting site, it's electjon.com/vote.

CUOMO: Plug away, that's why we have politicians on this show, most of the time. Let me ask you this. The money matters, right, because there is a perception -- I get what it's being used for. I get that it's part of the process but the process is what really bothers people, right? That it's all about money now. Do you have any concerns that if you win this race they'll be a cloud -- that boy, politics is all about money these days. You had to buy the race, essentially.

OSSOFF: Well, there's far too much money in politics and that's why I'm committed to campaign finance reform. It's also why I'm proud of the fact that my campaign is powered by small-dollar contributions. The average contribution to my campaign, Chris, is less than $50, in stark contrast to my opponent's campaign which is being bailed out by anonymously-funded super PACs from Washington.

CUOMO: Right, but you are -- you're getting big money also, right? It's just about whether it's directed to the campaign or just used for a race, right?

OSSOFF: This is truly grassroots fundraising, Chris. Like I said, the average contribution is less than $50 and that kind of fundraising gives candidates a measure of independence that's unprecedented because I'm accountable to people who have dug deep for $30, $40, $50, who have the same concerns as ordinary folks across the country, rather than special interests who are shelling out PAC checks from D.C.

CUOMO: When you think about who you're running against are you just running against Handle or do you see this as a referendum on the president?

OSSOFF: Well, Iprefer to think about what I'm running for, and what I'm running for is greater accountability in Washington. The ability to work across the aisle to get things done that will develop Metro Atlanta's regional economy so we can become an economic powerhouse. I think we have too much running against things in this country. We need to be finding common ground, finding areas to work together. I think that's the kind of fresh approach and fresh leadership that's exciting people -- Republicans, Independents, and Democrats here in Georgia.

CUOMO: You're in the race. What do you think's working best for you right now with the voters there?

OSSOFF: Well, there's nothing more effective than neighbors knocking on neighbor's doors and, Chris, there are more than 11,000 people who are volunteering on the campaign. We're knocking on tens of thousands of doors per week. Of course, you've got to run a complete campaign, you've got to be up on the airwaves, but there's no substitute for a strong ground game and the volunteers who are out every day talking to their neighbors are going to make the difference.

CUOMO: The idea of a Democrat taking over a Republican district -- now, you got hit with some stink early on because you don't actually live in there, you live up the road with your now-fiance, so why are you the best choice for the people down there?

OSSOFF: Well, I've got five years of experience as a congressional aide working on defense and national security issues and serving Georgia. I'm a small business owner. I run a company that specializes in exposing organized crime and political corruption, and I bring a fresh perspective. I'm approaching voters across the district of all backgrounds and persuasions with humility and respect, making the case that we need some fresh leadership in Washington. And if we're going to move forward in this country against this backdrop of disarray, and partisanship, and gridlock in Washington, we need some fresh, independent voices who can do that. CUOMO: Now I know you're saying that this is a grassroots campaign but is it true that 95 percent of your donors, through March 29, came from outside the state of Georgia?

OSSOFF: Well, vastly more folks in Georgia have contributed to my campaign than have contributed to my opponent's campaign. But when you've got these super PACs coming in from Washington with anonymously-raised special interest money, running endless attack ads, it's necessary to raise significant resources to fight back, and my campaign has raised those resources via grassroots fundraising and average contributions of less than $50.

CUOMO: All right, I appreciate you being on the show. I know that you have a busy day ahead of you. Early voting starts today, as you said. Good luck going forward.

OSSOFF: Thank you so much, Chris. Great to be here.

CUOMO: All right. We are following a lot of news, including exclusive CNN reporting on the Russian investigation. Let's get after it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)