Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

House Issues Subpoenas; Comey to Testify in Congress; Nunes Sends Subpoenas; Another Possible Russia Meeting. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 01, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in New York, 8:00 p.m. in Moscow. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We're following two major stories right now on the Russia investigation. We now know the date that the fired FBI director, James Comey, will testify publicly in front of Congress. That will be next Thursday, June 8th.

And investigators are also looking into another possible meeting between the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and the Russian ambassador to the United States during the presidential campaign.

CNN has obtained copies of letters from two U.S. senators calling for an investigation of Sessions.

Plus, President Trump will announce today whether the United States will put out -- pull out of the landmark Paris climate deal. Two senior U.S. officials say he's expected to withdraw from the agreement. We're going to have the latest on the potential impact both here in the United States and on the global stage.

We'll also have live coverage of the announcement. That's set for 3:00 p.m. Eastern, about two hours from now.

But we begin with the very latest developments in the Russia investigation. Our Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto is with us and our Congressional Correspondent Phil Mattingly is with us as well.

Jim, two senators, they're asking for an investigation of the attorney general, the current attorney general, about his Russia contacts during the presidential campaign. Tell us about the letters CNN has obtained from these senators.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: All right, Wolf, and I have the letters here. They come from Senators Patrick Leahy and Al Franken, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Three letters, one in March, April and May, all asking, first Director Comey of the FBI, and then the final letter in May, after Comey was fired, asking the FBI, the bureau itself, to investigate whether Sessions had been completely forthcoming even after he had to correct his initial testimony. You'll remember, in January during his confirmation hearing, he said

he had no meetings with the Russians. A month and a half later, when "The Washington Post" reported in fact there were two meetings, he had to correct -- retroactively correct his sworn testimony, admit to those two meetings and recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

Well, Senator Leahy and Franken went to the FBI again after that admission to say, wait a second, in effect. Has he been completely forthcoming about all the meetings? Are there more meetings to investigate? And that is their essential question.

I'm going to read from the letter here. We are concerned by Attorney General Sessions lack of candor to the committee and his failure thus far to accept responsibility for testimony that could be construed as perjury.

They go on to ask to see if there was a third undisclosed instance in which the attorney general may have had contact with the Russian ambassador.

So, that's their answer. And I should say that they released this -- these letters following our reporting last night on an ongoing Hill investigation.

BLITZER: Well, let's talk a little bit about that, Jim. Investigators, as you've been reporting, they've been trying to determine whether then Senator Jeff Sessions had an additional private meeting with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, during the campaign. What is the latest information you're getting?

SCIUTTO: Well, I'll tell you, myself, my colleagues, Jamie Gangel and Shimon Prokupecz, we've been told by both Democratic and Republican congressional sources, as well as intelligence sources, that the Hill has asked for more information from Attorney General Sessions. Because they're investigating whether at an event in April last year, here in Washington, D.C. at the Mayflower Hotel, when the president, or I should say the then candidate Donald Trump, was giving his first major foreign policy speech.

There was a larger gathering there that included Attorney General Sessions, then Senator Sessions, and the Russian ambassador. They were investigating whether, separate from that larger meeting, there was a smaller private undisclosed meeting between Sessions and the Russian ambassador.

This, of course, would pose problem problems because he didn't admit the first two meetings until after it was reported, then he corrected his testimony.

The open question now, which hasn't been established yet, is whether there was an additional private meeting there. It was after our story came out last night and then this morning that both Senators Leahy and Franken then released their letter, in effect, acknowledging that they've been looking into this for some time and had asked the FBI to look into this.

BLITZER: I want you to stand by.

Phil, on the House side, the Intelligence Committee has issued its first formal subpoenas. Now, fill us in on the details.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, seven subpoenas in total and there's a split in those subpoenas that really underscores some of the problems we've seen in the House Intelligence Committee and its Russia investigation, up to this point.

Now, there are four subpoenas that were bipartisan. They were released by the Republican leading the investigation, the top Democrat on the committee as well, in a joint statement.

These four subpoenas target Michael Cohen, the personal lawyer of Donald Trump, the former national security adviser Michael Flynn, plus business entities tied to the two of them.

Now, the rationale actually follows what the Senate Intelligence Committee was trying to do with Michael Flynn in their subpoenas. And that is, if you target business records, presumably that gets around the ability of any individual to plead the fifth or invoke the fifth amendment.

[13:05:08] Now, Wolf, there are also three other subpoenas. These subpoenas were not approved or even consulted with when it came to the minority staff on the committee. These subpoenas are related to unmasking. The idea that in classified intelligence reports, these supposed to be redacted names were unredacted and circulated.

This is something that Devin Nunes, the chairman of the committee, who had stepped aside from the Russia investigation, made a very big deal. Stated, basically, that he had a number of concerns about what he had seen, even traveled over to the White House in secret to look at some of these issues. It has also become a very big deal for a number of Republicans on the committee.

But, Wolf, it's worth noting here. Devin Nunes is no longer overseeing the Russia investigation. The Democrats did not have any insight into the fact that he was going to do this.

However, as chairman of the committee, he has unilateral power to issue the subpoenas. He has made very clear, these are issues he still cares very deeply about.

So, while he is not overseeing, technically, the Russia investigation, he is still working on these issues. He is still delving into these issues.

And do these issues target? These subpoenas go to three agencies, the NSA, the CIA and the FBI. And what they're specifically targeting are unmasking requests related to former CIA Director John Brennan, Samantha Powers, the former ambassador to the U.N., and Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor for President Obama.

Again, this is a very political issue. This is an issue that Republicans have raised a lot of concerns about, the White House has raised a lot of concerns about.

But I can't underscore enough, Wolf. There is a serious split here between the bipartisan effort going out on the Russia investigation, and what the chairman of the committee, Devin Nunes, is doing on the unmasking issue that is very separate from what that investigation is supposed to be directed at, at this point.

BLITZER: A serious split indeed.

Phil Mattingly, thanks very much. Jim Sciutto, thanks to you as well.

Let's get the very latest on the Russia investigation from the ranking Democrat of the House Intelligence Committee. California Congressman Adam Schiff is joining us now live from Los Angeles. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA, RANKING DEMOCRAT, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thanks, Wolf. Good to be with you.

BLITZER: All right. We have a lot to discuss. But first, let me get your reaction. We've been reporting, as you know, that investigators are looking into whether the attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, had another private meeting with the Russian ambassador during the campaign that had not been disclosed. Two U.S. senators have written letters asking for an investigation of Sessions and a possible perjury probe. What's your reaction to that?

SCHIFF: Well, my reaction is, you know, again, we have allegations, this time involving the attorney general, that there were undisclosed meetings with the Russians. If these allegations prove to be correct, they would be very serious. Because, after all, he failed to disclose his meetings with the Russian ambassador when he testified.

He then, when he was called on it, supplemented his testimony. If that supplemental testimony still wasn't accurate and there was additional meetings or an additional meeting, and, again, this a just an allegation, that would be very serious business. Because that would be indicating a very knowing desire to conceal information from the Senate and potentially provide false testimony.

So, that is an enormously serious charge that, if accurate, will need to be investigated.

BLITZER: Is your committee looking into that as well?

SCHIFF: You know, I can't comment on what our committee is looking into. I can't go into that level of specifics. All I can tell you is that if this allegation were to be accurate, it would be something that would be of profound concern to our committee as I'm sure it would be to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

BLITZER: What can you tell us, Congressman, about the subpoenas issued by your committee in the Russia probe? Have -- first of all, have you had any direct response yet?

SCHIFF: No, we have not had a direct response yet. Excuse me, Wolf. BLITZER: Go ahead. I don't if you have any water there. But if you have some water, you can have some water.

Tell us about the subpoenas. I know you're issuing them. But have they actually been delivered?

SCHIFF: You know, we sent out the subpoenas yesterday. I assume that they have already been received but we haven't gotten any response yet. And, you know, I expect it'll be a bit of time before we do, particularly from Michael Cohen. Mr. Flynn had already received like process from the Senate so I would expect that we're likely to hear back from him in shorter order than we will from Mr. Cohen.

BLITZER: So, you've got four subpoenas that you and your -- the Republican Congressman Conaway who are in charge of this Russia investigation. You put forward one for Michael Cohen, one for Michael Flynn. Who are the other two for?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, we sent out subpoenas both to the persons as well as their businesses. So, that constituted the four subpoenas pertinent to the Russia investigation.

As your reporters have already covered, the chairman, acting on his own initiative and without consultation with the minority, sent out subpoenas apparently to three of the intelligence agencies seeking documents. That is, obviously, a concern that that's being done without consultation with the minority.

[13:10:09] Apparently, the White House wishes to push away from the Russia investigation and direct attention in other places and unmasking is, apparently, where the White House wants that attention directed.

But I think Mr. Conway and I are going to make sure that we're not be distracted by this and we're going to keep our focus on getting the Russia investigation done right.

BLITZER: All right. So, let's talk a little bit about what the chairman, he's still the chairman of the committee, Devin Nunes, has done. The subpoenas issued by the chairman focus on what's called unmasking the identification of U.S. citizens picked up during the surveillance of foreign nationals.

As you know, President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice; the former CIA director, John Brennan; the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, they apparently are the focus of those three subpoenas that have been issued or are about to be issued by Devin Nunes.

Were they appropriate?

SCHIFF: Well, I don't know what the chairman has in mind here, again because we weren't consulted, or why the chairman is picking these three people, apart from the fact that they were a part of the Obama administration. Susan Rice has been a perennial target for the GOP for whatever reason. But, again, we have very little insight into what the chairman is doing here. And I think the only guidance we can get is that we hear coming out of the White House. And that's -- this is what the White House wants to see happen. They'd rather be talking about these issues.

Again, the intelligence agencies have been cooperating with us. We do oversight all the time of issues of unmasking and minimization, so I'm not sure why there was a necessity to an issue subpoenas to agencies that are already working with us, unless the goal was simply to get publicity or perhaps obscure the subpoenas that were going out in a bipartisan way that are focused on the Russia issues and the Russia investigation.

BLITZER: You may have seen the president's tweet earlier this morning. He tweeted that the big story is the unmasking and surveillance of people that took place during the Obama administration. Clearly, he and Devin Nunes are on the same page right now. And I thought Devin Nunes had removed himself from the Russia investigation. Is this part of the Russia investigation?

SCHIFF: Well, and, clearly, the president thinks it relates to the Russia investigation or at least a way to distract from the Russian investigation.

You know, there are a couple issues here. One is that the chairman is still insisting on having the final say in subpoenas that go out in the Russia investigation. That, to me, I think is a violation of his commitment to recuse or step aside from this probe.

The committee rules allow that authority to be delegated to Mr. Conaway in consultation with myself. That's what should happen here. I hope the speaker will intervene and make sure it does happen here.

But then, there's a second -- a separate question about the whole unmasking issue and whether this is simply being used as a way of distracting from the Russia probe.

Again, if there's a problem getting information from the agencies, I'm not aware of it. That problem hasn't been shared with us. The necessity of subpoenas hasn't been shared with us. And I just, I guess, have to conclude that this is part of the White House effort to direct attention in another -- in another direction.

BLITZER: Have you spoken to the speaker, Paul Ryan, about this?

SCHIFF: I've spoken to the speaker about the investigation. I certainly tried to make the case for why an independent commission would be desirable here. Obviously, I haven't been successful in that.

I know there are top level conversations going on between the Democratic leadership and the speaker about this. He's certainly aware of the problem. But this is now becoming a pattern within the Russia investigation. You have the same issue now with the attorney general and not referring to this potential additional meeting. But rather, the attorney general also committed to recuse himself from involvement in decisions affecting the Russia probe only to write a recommendation that the head cop, Jim Comey, be fired and replaced when he was conducting that investigation.

So, I think we're seeing a pattern here of people saying they're going to recuse themselves but not fully recuse themselves. We're seeing a pattern also of meetings potentially taking place that are not disclosed or are concealed. A lot of allegations in that category that really bear investigation.

BLITZER: You -- a spokesperson for the chairman, Devin Nunes, says he never formally recused himself. They're not using the word recuse. Do you buy that?

SCHIFF: You know, I don't buy that. And here's the thing, whether you call it recusal or a step aside, and I don't really understand what that difference is, the public was given the assurance he wouldn't be making decisions in the Russia investigation.

And the question is, is he making decisions in that investigation?

[13:15:00] And, plainly, if he is insisting on being the last word in whether a subpoena can be issued to compel documents or testimony on the Russia investigation, then he hasn't either fully stepped aside or recused themself from making decisions when we need to send out subpoenas in this investigation.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I know you've got to run, but very quickly, one final question. What do you hope to hear a week from today when the fired FBI director, James Comey, appears in public before the Senate Intelligence Committee?

SCHIFF: Well, I'm glad that he's testifying. I think it's very important and it's very important that this be done publicly. And, of course, we want to know, did the president attempt to curtail the Russia investigation in any way, shape or form with respect to his own conduct of it, with respect to the investigation involving Michael Flynn. Did he demand loyalty from the director, which would be completely inappropriate? Did he interfere or obstruct in any way? That's really what we need to know from the director of the FBI.

I think there is no legitimate claim of executive privilege here to (INAUDIBLE) there ever was one. The president has waived it by talking about the reasons that he fired Director Comey. And what's more, when there are allegations of potential wrongdoing, that's a privilege that is waived. So I fully expect that he'll be able to testify to all of these issues.

And I think the fact that Mr. Mueller doesn't object to that testimony really doesn't say as much necessarily about the contents of that testimony as it says about confidence that Director Comey will be able to testify accurately, whether it's in this proceeding or subsequent proceedings. There won't be inconsistencies and I think that that confidence is well placed here.

BLITZER: Congressman Adam Schiff, thanks so much for joining us.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Coming up, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, commenting today on his relationship with President Trump. And CNN's team in Moscow tracked down that Russian banker who met with President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, last year. What they said. We'll have details when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:22] BLITZER: Before the break I spoke with Congressman Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. I asked him about CNN's new reporting that senators had asked former FBI Director James Comey to investigate whether the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, committed perjury by failing to disclose a possible meeting with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Here's what he said.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: If these allegations prove to be correct, they would be very serious because, after all, he failed to disclose his meetings with the Russian ambassador when he testified. He then, when he was called on it, supplemented his testimony. If that supplemental testimony still wasn't accurate and there were additional meetings or an additional meeting - and, again, this is just an allegation - that would be a very serious business because that would indicate a very knowing desire to conceal information from the Senate and potentially provide false testimony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's talk about this with Gloria Borger, our chief political analyst, Dana Bash, our chief political correspondent, Nia-Malika Henderson, our CNN senior political reporter, and CNN crime and justice reporter Shimon Prokupecz.

Gloria, your takeaways from the interview I just conducted with Congressman Schiff?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I thought he was very strong, Wolf, particularly on Devin Nunes and what - and his behavior. I mean he believes that - clearly that you just shouldn't be talking about language here. That if you've recused yourself, you've recused yourself and that should be it. And it seems to me that he believes that - that they're making a great deal of progress and that - that he said this without saying this, but that he's kind of mucking things up over there for them and that he believe that Nunes is overstepping right now.

BLITZER: He basically said that Nunes - if he was going to recuse himself, should not be involved at all in this Russia investigation.

BORGER: Exactly.

BLITZER: Also the attorney general - if the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the Russia probe, why was he writing recommendations that the man leading that investigation, James Comey, be fired as the FBI director.

And, Nia, the president tweeted this morning, and I'll put that tweet back up on the screen, "the big story is the unmasking and surveillance of people who took place during the Obama administration. You heard Adam Schiff say, this is all an attempt to change the subject. That Devin Nunes is trying to do the same thing, simply to distract from the Russia investigation.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: That's right. And in some ways you've seen a president whose consistently gone down sort of this line of questioning in terms of Obama's behavior, in terms of Susan Rice's behavior. He, at one point, accused Susan Rice of a crime in terms of unmasking people. And, of course, he said that Obama alleged that he wiretapped Donald Trump, which, of course, none of this has been proven to be true. There's no evidence that any of those things happened.

But on this line of argument, that the real story is the unmasking, is the - is the - is surveillance as well, you have heard other Republicans pick up on this. It's almost - it's like their talking point to get away from this other issue of Russia, of possible collusion between people in Trump's circle and Russians. And so I think this is something we'll continue to hear.

It's not making the investigation itself go away. It's not making, you know, the big story, the surveillance, even though that's something that Trump clearly wants to do. It also, I think, allows him to be the victim, right, instead of talking about what might have happened in any sort of culpability people in his circle might have. It allows him to blame Obama, to blame people like Susan Rice and have a bad guy that he can blame.

[13:25:08] BLITZER: You know, Dana, you've covered The Hill - Capitol Hill for a long time. It's pretty extraordinary to see this rift, this disagreement develop between the chairman, Devin Nunes, the ranking Democrat and the Republican now who's been named to be in charge of this Russia probe, Congressman Conaway. It's pretty extraordinary to see this unfold.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is. And people who are listening to you say that might say, really, in Congress, it's extraordinary to have partisanship. But you are absolutely right, that on this particular committee, the House Intelligence Committee, intelligence committees on both sides of the Capitol, they tend historically to work more - in a more bipartisan way. That has not been the case since - really since Devin Nunes had that extraordinary press conference where he talked about unmasking, went to the White House, told the White House that he had to tell the president about this extraordinary thing that he had seen, only to find - for us to find out later that whatever he saw was initiated by somebody in the White House in the first place. So it was because of that completely bizarre situation that he stepped aside to begin with.

And at the end of the day, clearly what Adam Schiff is trying to do is to return the public pressure - return pressure to the public on the House leadership, on the speaker himself, to say, come on, you know, this is not what we're supposed to be doing here. This - Nunes stepped aside and stepping aside should mean that he should grant subpoena power to Congressman Conaway, who is sort of taking control of this.

That's what the hope is I know among Democrats, that now that this is public, that Nunes is still involved, that the Republican leadership will say this is not an OK thing. Because, remember, one of the big reasons why he stepped aside, Nunes, is because we learned of a House ethics investigation into his conduct here. So, again, this is not just, oh, I made a mistake. This is a real situation within the House process.

BLITZER: Yes, it certainly is.

Shimon, you've done a lot of reporting on this. What's your reaction to what we heard from Congressman Schiff on the possibility that might have been yet another undisclosed meeting between Jeff Sessions, when he was a senator, during the campaign, and Ambassador Kislyak of Russia?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, yes, Wolf, so, you know, I think it's interesting that they - everyone that we've sort of talked to on "The Hill," and continue to talk to. They keep stressing that these are just allegations. You know, Sessions people have denied this occurred. But I think in all, everyone is sort of waiting for the FBI to ultimately answer the question.

And it seems like they haven't done that yet. I don't know if it's that they're still working through whatever information may exist about this meeting or maybe that some of it is still classified and they can't really share with - share with some folks what that information is. But I think consistently what we keep hearing is, is that really no one understands what this was about. But something - some information exists out there that something happened at the Mayflower. There was a meeting. But we just don't know exactly, you know, what transpired. And, you know, Sessions' people continue to deny it.

BLITZER: You know, Gloria, sources tell us that the fired FBI director, Comey, when he testifies a week from today, he will testify that the president actually pushed him to end the entire FBI investigation into Trump campaign aides, their ties with Russia, if there are ties with Russia. If that happen - if that happens, what position does that put Republicans in if that's what we hear in open, sworn testimony from the former FBI director?

BORGER: Well, look, it puts Republicans in a very difficult position because they have to take Comey's word versus the president's word on this. I mean I talked to a source familiar with Comey's thinking on this and he told me to think about it this way, that these were an aggregate of conversations. There were multiple conversations between the FBI - the former FBI director and the president. Each one in and of itself might not have constituted something that was egregious, but they were all troubling. And taken in aggregate, taken in aggregate, and including the fact that Comey actually got fired, they may - they may come to something much more ominous and a more ominous conclusion here.

I think we have to hear what Comey says about these conversations, which he memorialized to himself because he was so concerned about them. What he says about each conversation and what conclusion perhaps that he draws on the aggregate here and what he believes really occurred in hindsight.

[13:30:01] BLITZER: Yes.

BORGER: But Republicans are going to have a tough time because they're going to listen to James Comey and then they're going to have to try and figure out what the president of the United States would say about that and maybe he'll tweet and tell us. Who knows.

BLITZER: Yes, let's