Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Pentagon: U.S. Troops Waited an Hour to Call for Help; Dunford: U.S. Troops Ambushed by 50 Islamic Militants; Trump Heads to Capitol Hill to Sell Tax Plan. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired October 24, 2017 - 07:00   ET

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

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Troops first requested air support a full hour after initial contact with approximately 50 ISIS-affiliated fighters.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Americans should know what kind of operations we're engaged in.

GEN. JOSEPH DUNFORD, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS: We owe you more information. More importantly, we owe the families of the fallen more information.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: We need to find out what happened. The families will tell you, they don't want a political football.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anytime that we touch this tax code, we need to simplify it. We need to make it more fair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we want to do is provide tax relief focused on the middle class.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans have to get a tax plan passed. They're probably going to need John McCain's vote.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. We have some revealing new details about the ambush in Niger that claimed the lives of four U.S. soldiers nearly three weeks ago. America's top general says the U.S. Special Forces did not call for air support until an hour after the firefight began with Islamic terrorists.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Many questions remain. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Joseph Dunford, says the Pentagon owes families of the victims answers.

Meanwhile, President Trump can't seem to let go of this condolence controversy with a Gold Star widow. The president disputing the widow's account of his condolence call, which she says left her in tears. We have it all covered. Let's begin with CNN's Michelle Kosinski,

live in Washington -- Michelle.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN SENIOR DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT: This is remarkable, to believe see the chairman of the joint chiefs feel though -- as though he had to get out and answer these dozens of questions, repeatedly saying that the public is owed more information.

But there's still many basic questions that he can't answer yet. Things like where exactly were these troops when they came under attack? Were they wearing body armor? How many U.S. troops searched for Sergeant La David Johnson?

And we are now three weeks after it happened.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KOSINSKI (voice-over): America's top general providing some answers, but not many, detailing a revised timeline of the ambush in Niger that killed four American troops.

DUNFORD: We owe you more information. More importantly, we owe the families that have fallen more information.

KOSINSKI: October 3, 12 members of a U.S. Special Operations task force leave the capital of Niger with 30 Nigerian troops. Their goal: a reconnaissance mission in a village about 53 miles north.

DUNFORD: The assessment by our leaders on the ground at that time was that contact with the enemy was unlikely.

KOSINSKI: But the next day, on their way back to the capital, mid- morning, they came under fire by around 50 local fighters with ties to ISIS, carrying small arms, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades.

NBC reports U.S. officials are looking into whether the militants were tipped off by someone in the village.

The Special Forces team engaged in a firefight for about an hour before requesting help. Within minutes, a U.S. drone was overhead. French jets were scrambled but took another hour to arrive to the remote location.

DUNFORD: I don't know that they thought they needed support prior to that time. I don't know how this attack unfolded. I don't know what their initial assessment was of what they were confronted with.

KOSINSKI: The French did not drop bombs. U.S. officials said Friday the pilots had the authority but could not readily identify enemy forces and did not want to risk hitting U.S. or Nigerian allies.

It was evening by the time the French could evacuate the injured and bodies of the dead Americans.

But it remains unclear how Sergeant La David Johnson became separated from the group and why it took two days to locate his body about a mile away.

DUNFORD: Did the mission of U.S. forces change during the operation? Did our forces have adequate intelligence, equipment, and training? Was there a pre-mission assessment of the threat in the area accurate?

KOSINSKI: This as a White House official confirms to CNN that the administration expedited condolence letters to families of fallen soldiers, after President Trump made this remark last week.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've written them personal letters. They have been sent or they're going out tonight, but they were during the weekend.

KOSINSKI: The following day, the president going a step further, making this false claim.

TRUMP: I have called, I believe, everybody, but certainly, I'll use the word virtually everybody, where during the last nine months, something's happened to a soldier. I've called virtually everybody.

KOSINSKI: An e-mail exchange between the White House and the Pentagon, first reported by "Roll Call," shows that the president's aides knew these remarks were not true. The aides rushing to learn the identities and contact information from the Defense Department.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOSINSKI: Among those who have been calling for more information and concerned about the lack of it is Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Now we know the Pentagon will give his committee a classified briefing this Thursday -- Chris and Alisyn.

CUOMO: All right, Michelle, thank you very much.

Joining us now are CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times," Maggie Haberman, and her alone. She has so many sources, we speak about her--

CAMEROTA: In the plural.

[07:05:06] CUOMO: -- in the collective. You are a panel in and of yourself. That's what it said. That's what you are.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I'll put my glasses on. and I'll run to that side.

CUOMO: An apple is an apple. You are a panel.

CAMEROTA: Wow.

CUOMO: All right. So let me ask you this question, this beguiling question that only you can answer. This is a situation where the president could have instant high ground and say, what just happened in Niger, we're going to find out what happened and then you in Congress, you better own your duty and start debating what's happening militarily. I'm not a big fan of getting involved all over the world. That's what

I campaigned on. We've got people all over the place, advise and assist missions, where they can die like this. Do your duty.

Instead, he won't let go of the feud with Wilson. Why? What is the calculation?

HABERMAN: I think that we have asked that -- a version of that question every three weeks or so for the last two years. And the answer is, this is who he is.

He has consistently, since taking office -- and we saw this during the campaign. There was an open question of, is this going to change when he becomes president? But it hasn't.

He confuses himself with the institutions that he serves repeatedly. And you are seeing that now. He is taking the criticisms of how he handled this phone call with this military widow very -- I understand why he's taking it personally, because the criticism from the congresswoman was personal.

However, most politicians, most presidents would say, "This is not a fight I'm going to engage in."

It is not just the president, however. And you talked about this earlier on the show. It is also his chief of staff, John Kelly, who has engaged pretty wholeheartedly in this fight. So the president is not backing down, because he is getting some sense of support from his own staff.

I think it's really important to remember, when you look at how this White House functions, that you have a lot of people who are working there who all feel under siege. And they basically go to work every day not feeling entirely safe, because they never know exactly what version of the presidency they're going to be dealing with. And because of that, they tend to view attacks, however legitimate, however legitimate the criticism, as attacks on all of them.

And I think that you have a White House that is a little split on this. There -- there is more sympathy for the president internally than you might imagine.

CAMEROTA: And so on the larger issue of Niger, not just the back and forth with the congresswoman and Sergeant Johnson's widow, are they focused on this at the White House? Do they think that what happened in Niger is a big problem?

HABERMAN: I mean, there's no collective "they," again, as we know. It's a bunch of different fiefdoms. They do recognize that this is a huge issue and something that they need to contend with. It's also a separate issue from the question of the president calling relatives of those who died in the line of fire. That is what this issue has morphed into publicly.

There is a separate and really significant questions, equally significant, if not more, as to what exactly happened, how quickly answers can be gleaned, and we're seeing -- and is not uncommon with an incident like this, not that quickly.

CUOMO: Well, it must be said the president created that first issue about condolences.

HABERMAN: Sure.

CUOMO: That did not exist.

HABERMAN: That's right.

CUOMO: The timing existed. And the president's -- I don't know if this is conscious, but his not mentioning ISIS as who did this--

HABERMAN: That, I think, is conscious.

CUOMO: It is conscious. Why?

HABERMAN: Because, look, for the same reason -- and this comes up repeatedly, where we wonder and many people have wondered why it is that the president doesn't do more to acknowledge those who have died in military service during the course of his tenure, because I think that he sees it as, A, an elevation of an enemy. And I think that there is -- you can have a longer argument about that or conversation about that. But I think that he also sees it as some acknowledgement of weakness or failure on his part.

CUOMO: So you don't think he's saying, "ISIS did this," not because they don't believe that, in fact -- because everybody seems to agree that these are ISIS affiliates -- but that there's a perception of weakness in that -- in the president's mind?

HABERMAN: I think that there is a danger in acknowledging this. And again, I think that depending on who you talk to in that White House, you will get different answer as to why it is that he is not saying it, but I think that is certainly a component.

CAMEROTA: So that moment, where General John Kelly, chief of staff, went to the podium and talked about his son, as well as talked about -- I mean, sort of ginned up, frankly, the continuing back and forth with Congresswoman Wilson, was he -- John Avlon was on earlier, and he was saying, you know, how unfortunate it was that John Kelly was pushed out. Was he pushed out?

HABERMAN: I heard you disagree with him. No, I don't think he was pushed out.

And I think, to be clear, what John Kelly gave up in service of the country is enormous. His pain is unfathomable. It is impossible for me as a parent to imagine losing a child. So I cannot imagine what he went through. And I think that all of us found, or many of us found his description of what families go through to be very moving.

But I think -- but that's separate from what he said about the congresswoman, which included some things that were not accurate about something she had said in 2015, for instance. My understanding, from what happened, is he was frustrated and

surprised by the president for invoking his son. I think the president -- look, John Kelly is the one who has prepped the president, right? So the president is, as we know, he used to be called on the campaign a parrot. He's not always a tremendously skillful parrot. So sometimes he will repeat half of something.

[07:10:12] CAMEROTA: That's what we found. The words--

HABERMAN: Correct.

CAMEROTA: -- that John Kelly shared were the words that he told the president.

HABERMAN: Right. And you know what? And again, to be fair to the president, in a different context, I could hear other presidents saying, "Look, he knew -- he knew -- he knew what this job demands. Essentially, that's what he was saying. It's just that it just sort of spiraled out of control in this case. But I don't think that John Kelly was doing -- was acting against his will at all.

CUOMO: Well, I think we see ample proof of that. The -- look, the intrigue about what he knew about whether his son was going to be used or not, there is almost no percentage in analysis of that, because it's just pain. And he has 100 percent right to deal with that any way he wants personally.

HABERMAN: Correct. I completely agree.

CUOMO: What he doesn't get the same cover on is what he did in that press conference. Which was create alternative facts about the nature of Wilson's presence on the call, which this was demonstrably false. We know it, because the widow says it, and she cannot be questioned about whether or not Wilson was allowed to be on the call.

And the "empty barrel" stuff--

HABERMAN: That's right.

CUOMO: -- was factually inaccurate in terms of how it had happened and revealed an animus of his own towards Wilson that doesn't need any architecture by the president of pushing by the president. That was all Kelly.

HABERMAN: I think there is -- I would say two things about that. I think, No. 1, in terms of what he said about Wilson listening in on the call, he was listening in on the call, too. If he wanted to criticize her about talking about the call, not making clear whether or not the family was aware she was talking about it, that's a different issue. Because the second that somebody who has been in the partisan fray does start talking about this, it does give it a different patina.

CAMEROTA: And by the way, and that would have been a fair criticism. Because she did talk about a private call.

HABERMAN: And so that's -- that's a different criticism. That's not what he said, No. 1.

The second issue is in terms of him going after her. You know, we heard Sarah Sanders say from the podium, I think the next day, "If you want to challenge a four-star general, that's up to you." You know, this is -- that is not what this country is about. You know, the generals fight for the right of citizens in this country to question their military.

And when John Kelly went out, he was acting as a chief of staff. So what I would say to the second point is that there is a desire, I think, on the part of critics of the president to act as if everybody who does -- who works for him or who does something in the service of this White House, is doing it, essentially, at gunpoint.

John Kelly is a lot more conservative than I think a lot of people realize. He was very supportive of the president's immigration policies when he was at DHS. I think there are aspects of this presidency that he supports. And I think that life is complicated.

So I think everybody turns these things into a binary. They're really not.

CAMEROTA: Well, I appreciate that. And there was another bit of nuance there that I'm just interested if you have any perspective on. When he said, "I used to believe that some things were held sacred. Women in this country used to be sacred. Look where we are now."

And then he said, "Gold Star families used to be sacred, but then look at what happened at the convention." Was he -- was that a -- was he--

HABERMAN: No, I do not--

CAMEROTA: -- taking a jab at the president or was he overlooking what the president has done on those two fronts?

I think John Kelly has a choice every day which is essentially, "How do I figure out how to contain Donald Trump's tweets?" for a lack of a better way of putting it. And I think he went out and said things that the president himself feels, because the president often does not, you know, cast an internal eye at things that he has done, and he looks at what other people have done. I do not believe that that was some kind of a subtle message to the president. I think that was entirely about the Democrats.

And look, there has been a fair amount of criticism for the way that Democrats used Khizr Khan as, essentially, a surrogate going into the fall. We have heard that before.

The bit about women, I wasn't really sure what that was referring to, but I don't think that that was trying to jab the president.

CAMEROTA: That's helpful. Maggie, thank you.

CUOMO: The big concern coming out of it, as we'll discuss more today, is what they were wrong about. Especially if you're going to go at the widow of a service member who just died in service-- CAMEROTA: Get your facts right.

CUOMO: -- you better be right.

Maggie, thank you very much. You are a great panel.

HABERMAN: Thank you. Thank you.

CUOMO: President Trump is heading to Capitol Hill today. He's trying to sell his tax plan. But more importantly, he's trying to get on the same page with GOP senators and remind them, they're supposed to be on the same team. Can he get it done?

CNN's Joe Johns live at the White House with more -- Joe.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Chris.

The president headed to Capitol Hill to participate in the traditional Senate Tuesday policy luncheons. He has a clear message for Republicans in the Senate, as well as the house, pass a tax bill or go down to likely defeat in next year's midterm elections.

He's also indicated he wants to fast track the bill and get it on his desk by Thanksgiving, which would be an extremely heavy lift, in part because all of the ways to pay for at least part of this bill seem to keep coming off of the table.

The president has indicated he wants to protect 401(k) plans. He said that in a tweet just about 24 hours ago. Here's the tweet: "There will be no change to your 401(k). This has always been a great and popular middle-class tax break that works, and it stays."

[07:15:24] Now, there had been talk around the Hill of reducing the pre-tax amount of money workers can save in their 401(k)s as a way to pay for this bill, as required by Senate rules. But it doesn't seem the case, at least according to the president.

There's also heartburn on Capitol Hill about getting rid of other deductions, including the mortgage interest deduction, which is so popular around the country.

Alisyn, back to you.

CAMEROTA: OK, Joe, thank you very much.

So members of Congress say they want answers about what went wrong in Niger, but what did they know about the mission? We'll ask two of them, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff providing new details and an updated timeline on the ambush that killed four U.S. soldiers in Niger. New revelations raise a lot of new questions and lawmakers want answers. So joining us now is Congressman Will Hurd of Texas. He's a member of the Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees. He also worked as an undercover officer for the CIA.

[07:20:10] Congressman, thanks so much for being here.

REP. WILL HURD (R), TEXAS: Hey, Alisyn. It's always a pleasure to be on.

CAMEROTA: Because you were undercover in the CIA for, I think, ten years, you obviously bring a very unique perspective. Did you know what was happening in Niger? Did you feel that you knew what the mission was and you had enough information?

HURD: I didn't know what happened beforehand, but I shouldn't have. I'm not an operational or a tactical planner. And I think this focus -- individual members of Congress shouldn't know about individual, you know, activities. There's -- there's probably thousands of individual movements that the military is involved in every single day. And if Congress thinks that we should be part of the operational planning, I disagree with that.

Now, our role is in the oversight function is to make sure everybody had the right training, you know, tools, were they getting the right intelligence before the activity. And I think General Dunford, yesterday, outlined a number of the questions that the military still has and is looking into this -- this case.

And I think this is a perfect example of how thousands of our citizens, our men and women, are putting themselves in harm's way every single day to keep us safe. And the world is a dangerous place.

CAMEROTA: And are you comfortable with that? I mean, some of what this Niger episode has revealed is that Americans are in places that most Americans don't know they are and wouldn't be able to identify the mission. Are you comfortable with what was happening in Niger and the fact that we now know that 800 troops were there?

HURD: I'm comfortable that our military planners on the ground have the troop strengths around the world that they need. I want to make sure that, you know -- this is one reason I supported a recent budget to increase the amount of money going to our men and women in the military, to make sure that they have all the tools in their -- in their tool kit that they have robust intelligence.

And I think, you know, a review of this type of operation, you know, what we find out, were some things lacking? And I don't know if there was or not. And can we make sure that we get the support to our men and women in the military?

The one thing I do know. There are a number of terrorist groups that have metastasized to all parts of Africa. While most of the media and the attention has been on ISIS over the last couple of years, al Qaeda is still a real threat. Al Shabaab is still a real threat. And so, we have to make sure that we're following these -- these organizations as they metastasize around the world, and that the military plays a key piece in that.

CAMEROTA: So Congressman, what about what we've been talking about on this show so much for the past few days? And that is the AUMF, the authorization for the use of military force. Is it time for Congress to really take responsibility for all of these different battles around the world, that we're now seeing our people fight?

HURD: Well, I would disagree with the premise of your statement. We have taken responsibility for this. Congress has acted on a number of occasions, and since I've been in Congress for 2 1/2 years, in funding the military at higher levels than in previous years. And, you know, I think we all recognize the threat and have given the right authority to the last administration, as well as this administration.

CAMEROTA: But help us understand that. I mean, so is -- are you equating funding with a reauthorization of the AUMF? Which hasn't been authorized, you know -- as you know, Congress hasn't fully taken responsibility for since 9/11?

HURD: Well, you know, an authorized use of military force is not, you know, is not the only way to take responsibility for activities overseas. Supporting our military with training and funding is one way to do that. Making sure administrations, past and present, have the tools they need in order to do their job. And, you know, if -- if changing a piece of paper that says, you know, terrorist groups in general all around the world, you know, yes, can this debate happen? And these debates are ongoing. This is something that is -- has been debated--

CAMEROTA: Yes.

HURD: -- for the 2 1/2 years that I've been in Congress.

CAMEROTA: But what's the holdup? Why not just reauthorize that?

HURD: Because, again, in my opinion, we're providing the support that the military needs and the administration needs in order to make sure that the threats -- that we cover the threats around the world.

You know, I was in -- I was in the CIA when 9/11 happened. On September 12, I was in the unit that prosecuted the war in Afghanistan. And then, if you would have told me that there would not be another attack on the -- major attack on the homeland for 16 years, I would have said you were crazy.

But the reason we have -- have seen that is because the men and women in our military, our intelligence services, our diplomatic core, and law enforcement, are still protecting our homeland. And they've gotten the support from Congress in order to do their job.

[07:25:11] CAMEROTA: Congressman, I've been -- on a separate topic, I've been reading your Twitter feed, and you seem to be very fired up about cybersecurity. Let me read for everybody what last week you said: "Who is the equivalent of the Navy SEALs when it comes to cyber protection? That's what I want to know."

So, what are you worried about?

HURD: Well, I'm worried about a number of things when it comes to cybersecurity. What is a digital act of war, and what is our response to that? We know what an act of war is. You know, the U.N. even says, if you manipulate the utility grid, that's an act of war.

But the Russians did that to the Ukrainians a number of years ago. What was the response? If that were to happen here in the United States, what would our response be?

The response doesn't always have to be a digital response. It could be a physical response. Two -- two summers ago, I was saying, when we were learning about Russian activity in our elections, I was saying back then, let's at a minimum kick the ambassador, the Russian ambassador out of our country. So we have some very basic questions on what our response is going to be.

And then also, does the federal government have the tools in order to -- and do they have the flexibility to integrate tools to defend our digital infrastructure and to protect American citizens' information? And that's why, as a chairman of the I.T. subcommittee, we're focused on a number of these issues.

CAMEROTA: See, because it feels like, when I read your tweets, it does feel like you're trying to sort of take us and shake us into waking up, about this threat. And so are you saying that Congress and the White House are not taking this seriously enough?

HURD: People understand the problem. I think OPM, the OPM breach of, I guess it was two years ago now, was something that everyone woke up. The fact that most Americans even know what OPM is, I think is an indication of that problem.

If you look at the most recent issue with the Equifax breach, the millions of Americans that were impacted by this, at no point did they ever opt in to give their information to Equifax.

So one of the problems that we have is when you create legislation, it takes some time and, in an increasingly evolving and technical world, it's been hard to keep up with this.

But I think -- I think this administration, the last administration, this Congress, has been focused on this. And I do believe that cybersecurity is one of the last issues that is truly bipartisan here -- here in Washington, D.C. And this is something that my ranking member, you know, that we work together very well on.

CAMEROTA: OK. Congressman Will Hurd, thank you very much for your perspective on all of this.

HURD: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Chris.

CUOMO: All right, so, a question here is whether the Niger ambush that killed four U.S. soldiers and injured others will push Congress to reauthorize military operations overseas. And it wouldn't be reauthorizing. It would be initially authorizing. They haven't done anything about this since 9/11. You just heard a Republican congressman say he doesn't think it's

really necessary. That they're already supporting troops the way they need to. We're going to ask another member, this time a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, what they think. Next.