Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Trump Says No Collusion; Trump Russia Dossier; Firsthand Account of Niger Ambush. Gag Order Lift On Informant; Hillary Clinton And DNC. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 27, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in Niamey, Niger, 1:30 a.m. Saturday morning in Pyongyang, North Korea. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us

Under fire, President Trump asking the U.S. Justice Department to lift a gag order on undercover FBI informant. Now one top Democrat says the president may have gone too far and he's vowing an investigation

Speaking out, CNN getting answers directly from an eyewitness about what happened during the ambush of U.S. soldiers in Niger. You're going to what one soldier says he saw.

Also, cliffhanger. As the trump administration releases many of the secret JFK files, one sentence oddly, very oddly, cut short after a question about Lee Harvey Oswald's possible involvement with the CIA. Who's holding the answer?

All that coming up. But we start with questions being raised today. Serious questions about President Trump and the U.S. Justice Department. Those questions surround an FBI informant under a gag order and a Clinton-Obama-related congressional investigation.

Sources tell CNN that President Trump let it be known that he wanted the Justice Department to make that gag order disappear. Something confirmed today by the White House adviser, Kellyanne Conway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSEL: It is not unusual for a president to weigh in. This president, as you saw from everything from the JFK files to this particular ongoing investigation, Alisyn, is for transparency. And he believes, as many others do, frankly, that the FBI informant should be free to say what he knows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Kellyanne Conway interviewed on CNN's "NEW DAY" earlier today.

Our Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider is joining us now. Jessica, do we know -- did the president directly influence the Justice Department's decision? JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he did, Wolf. We

do know that from two sources, that President Trump directed his senior staff to get that gag order on that FBI informant lifted.

Now, this informant has spoken out through his attorney in the past week, saying he wants to share the details of what he's calling corruption, surrounding the approval of the uranium company's sale to Russia in 2010. Then secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was on the committee of nine agency heads who approved it.

Now, after President Trump gave this direction to lift the gag order on this informant, we know that White House counsel, Don McGahn, relayed the message to the Justice Department. And Wednesday night, the gag order was lifted.

But here's why Democrats are crying foul. The Justice Department has strict rules limiting any White House involvement in criminal law enforcement matters, especially when it involves the president's political opponents.

And as you'll remember, it was just earlier this week that the president talked about the uranium deal, calling it the Watergate of the modern age.

And, today, he even tweeted about it. He tweeted this. He said, it is now commonly agreed, after many months of costly looking, that there was no collusion between Russia and Trump. It was collusion with H.C., meaning Hillary Clinton.

But, of course, Wolf, as we know, there has not been a conclusion in all of those Russia investigations that are very much still ongoing on several fronts -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So, Jessica, what is the crux of the new call for this investigation?

SCHNEIDER: So, the Republican-led investigation in many different committees, it will be two-fold. So, first, they want to know, was Hillary Clinton or anyone on the committee of nine agencies that approved this uranium deal in 2010, aware that there was a simultaneous FBI investigation and subsequent guilty plea into the same Russian company that won approval. So, that's the investigation the informant played a role in.

And the second question is, Republicans are raising concerns about reports that the Russians channeled millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation at the same time this deal to benefit Russia was getting the OK. Of course raising questions of a pay-to-play scheme, perhaps.

So, now, several committees are looking into both questions. And, now, of course, they will be allowed to talk to the informant now that the gag order has been lifted -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Jessica Schneider reporting for us. Thank you very much. Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, says he may open an investigation into the possible meddling by the president of the United States. Schiff has the senior role on the House Intelligence Committee.

Here with us now to discuss this and more, our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger who broke the news of the president's push to get that order lifted. And Michael Zeldin, he's a CNN Legal Analyst, a former special assistant to Robert Mueller over at the Justice Department.

So, Gloria, Kellyanne Conway says the president weighed in because he wants transparency.

[13:05:00] GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.

BLITZER: What's your response?

BORGER: Well, and that's what -- that's what Evan Perez and I were told last night. That the White House wants to be transparent on this. And, of course, this has nothing to do with politics. Now, that T in Trump stands for transparency, I guess.

But the president did direct his senior staff to facilitate the Justice Department's full cooperation with this to get this lifted.

Now, I should say that the Justice Department has made it clear that they -- their decision was independent. They wouldn't comment any further. But if you put one and one together, you end up with two.

BLITZER: The Justice Department, Michael, put out a statement. Let me read it. Quote, "The Department of Justice is an agency in the Executive Branch and the president, like presidents before and after, is free to communicate with Executive Branch appointees."

So, what's your reaction? Is the president OK expressing his views directly to the Justice Department on a sensitive issue like this?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: It contravenes about 40 years of practice between the White House and the Justice Department, with respect to ongoing matters. And this is now a congressional ongoing matter. It would have been better left as a communication from Grassley to the Justice Department and let the Justice Department respond in due time.

When the trump administration says that they are seeking transparency, you have to view it in the context of the other aspects of what they've done with respect to the Justice Department communications which is the Comey loyalty and the Comey firing. The interview of the U.S. attorneys in the southern district and the eastern districts of New York and now this.

It does seem as if, when it suits them, they are willing to reach out to the Justice Department. When it doesn't suit them, then they -- then they back off.

BLITZER: But you're not suggesting there was anything criminal here? ZELDIN: No, no, no. No, nothing criminal.

BLITZER: The president can communicate with Executive Branch appointees.

ZELDIN: Sure. It's just a policy and practice to make sure there is no appearance of political interference in the criminal justice process. It's really an appearance matter as much as anything else. But the Justice Department and the White House have long honored that tradition to make sure that people feel confident.

BORGER: But in a way, it's probably more of a problem, from the Justice Department's point of view.

ZELDIN: Sure, yes.

BORGER: Because the Justice Department needs to show that it is independent. And, you know, the president -- presidents always say, I want this done faster. I want that done faster.

But when you direct your White House counsel then to speak with people at the Justice Department, and you see that it does happen pretty quickly, I think the Justice Department may have some questions that they need to answer about their independence.

ZELDIN: That's right. And, indeed, remember from Comey, when he leaves that Oval Office where he is allegedly told by the president to back off of this investigation, he goes right to Sessions and he says, please stop this. Please have the president stop reaching out to law enforcement.

That's not appropriate in this case. And Sessions either said yes or no or waved his hands. We don't know, really, what the answer to that is.

But that's exactly the pattern that I'm speaking to. That's the stuff they really need to avoid because they can't get away with this, saying, well, this is transparency. Because that's not, probably.

BLITZER: The president did tweet this morning, and I'll put it up on the screen if we have it. It is now commonly agreed, after many months of costly, costly, all in caps, costly looking that there was no collusion between Russia and Trump. Was collusion -- there was collusion -- he's suggesting, was collusion with H.C., Hillary Clinton.

So, he's already reached his final conclusion. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, clearly has not.

BORGER: So, Mueller is done. I mean, the collusion with Hillary Clinton, he's clearly talking about this Uranium One case that he wants the whistle blower to talk about. Hillary Clinton has said over and over again, she had nothing to do with it there.

You know, so, everybody is going back and forth on that, depending what side of the political spectrum you're on. But nobody has said, nobody has said, that there was not collusion. We haven't heard that from Mueller. We haven't heard that even from the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who said their investigation into collusion is not yet completed.

So, I don't know where he's getting that conclusion about collusion.

ZELDIN: Well, he's hoping it's so, I think, because the facts haven't brought us there, as you say. And, in fact, the issues that arose yesterday, with the reach out to WikiLeaks by the analytics firm, fits again, this pattern of Flynn, Flynn Jr., Don Jr., Kushner, all of them making reach-outs to the Russians. That can't be the end of the -- of the inquiry.

BLITZER: Yes, the president clearly feels it's over. But the investigators, including the special counsel, the House and Senate investigating, they are not done, by any means.

All right, guys, thanks very much.

Let's talk a little bit more about this, other political headlines. Joining us now, Wisconsin Republican Congressman Sean Duffy. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

[13:10:02] REP. SEAN DUFFY (R), WISCONSIN: It's good to be with you, Wolf. Thanks for having me on.

BLITZER: So, are you at all concerned about the president's staff telling the Justice Department about their interest in this case and lifting that gag order on that FBI informant?

DUFFY: Not at all. I've got to tell you, I'm shocked with some media reporting and from Democrats. We've had a year or 10 months of conversation about Russia colluding with American campaigns.

And here we have direct evidence, if we can lift this gag order, of someone who can talk to us about the collusion between a Russian company and, potentially, the Clinton foundation. And their drive to get 20 percent of American uranium which we use to make nuclear weapons.

So, I think, if we care about the Russians and the involvement in American society, we should all stand together and work to get this information out. And those who I don't think want to see this gag order lifted, they're there to protect Hillary Clinton from this scandal and --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: The gag order -- the gag order, clearly, has now been lifted and we'll see where that goes.

But you want the --

DUFFY: Right. BLITZER: -- special counsel, Robert Mueller, you want the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committees to continue their investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election last year which the U.S. intelligence community has concluded was clearly a threat to the U.S. democracy?

DUFFY: So, I've said, you don't roll this investigation back. But I have concerns because whether it was James Comey or James Clapper or Senator Feinstein, all Democrats who have said, listen, we've seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Though we have a special counsel anyway investigating it.

The only evidence that we've seen, thus far, on collusion is with the Clintons or the DNC. One with the dossier, that I know you've talked about, but also, then, with Uranium One.

So, it's a little bit frustrating that you have this --

BLITZER: What about that meeting at the end of the summer --

DUFFY: -- our own investigation. Go ahead.

BLITZER: What about that meeting between senior Trump campaign officials and Russians at Trump Tower in New York City after they received an e-mail from those Russians, saying you want to discuss Hillary Clinton dirt?

DUFFY: Yes. So, no information was transitioned there in that meeting. Very short in time. But if you look at the dossier -- if you look at the DNC and Hillary Clinton as through a Fusion GPS, actually paid Russian informants, high criminal officials, to provide dirt on our sitting president.

So, if you look at the weight and scope of a scandal, the Democrats and Hillary paid for information from the kremlin on Donald Trump, the sitting president, as opposed to, what, a 10-minute meeting in Trump Tower where nothing, really, transpired. If you look at the weight of that --

BLITZER: But you remember, of course, Congressman, the original contact --

DUFFY: -- (INAUDIBLE) was on Democrats.

BLITZER: -- the original contact with Fusion GPS was from -- with a Republican who asked for dirt about --

DUFFY: That's not been confirmed, Wolf.

BLITZER: Pardon?

DUFFY: No, that's not been confirmed.

BLITZER: Yes, it has.

DUFFY: So, there's no confirmation from Fusion GPS.

BLITZER: It was -- it was a Republican who --

(CROSSTALK)

DUFFY: (INAUDIBLE) records. No, no, no, that's not been confirmed.

BLITZER: Well, you didn't listen to the president? President Trump, himself, the other day, he said, yes, he thinks he knows who that Republican --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: -- the president says he thinks he knows who that Republican is. He's not releasing the name. He repeatedly says he thinks he knows. He's confirmed that the original contact with Fusion GPS was with a Republican later after the president got the nomination.

Yes, you're right. The Democrats took over and we only learned, the other day, that it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC that was -- were actually directly involved back in January.

DUFFY: So, this is --

BLITZER: Hold on a minute. We did report that Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton were involved in getting that information. But are you saying the president of the United States is wrong when he says a Republican initially made that contact?

DUFFY: No. He may be.

BLITZER: Why do you say the president is wrong?

DUFFY: Well, because the only -- because the only -- go ahead, I'm sorry, Wolf.

BLITZER: Tell us why you think the president is wrong.

DUFFY: Because the only person that has information about who that Republican client would be would be Fusion GPS. Now, they're the ones that said we had a -- we had a Republican client. When we asked for confirmation and the media asked for confirmation, none has been given.

So, I think you have this untrustworthy -- the Fusion GPS, this woman who takes salacious and scandalous material about our president paying Russian informants and put that out in a dossier. I don't think they have credibility. I have seen no independent verification of that outside of what Fusion GPS said.

Now, the president might have heard news reports and speculated on who that could be. But I'm going to wait and reserve judgment on whether there was a Republican there or not.

What I do know is you have the DNC and you had Hillary Clinton, who funded $9 million into this organization. And, by the way, it was used -- there is no media organizations, even CNN wouldn't report on this dossier, until the FBI went and briefed the president on the dossier and it was leaked to CNN, all of a sudden, giving credibility to a report that no one believed in.

So, my question also becomes, what's going on inside the FBI where they're briefing the president on this?

[13:15:04] But also, then leaking it to CNN at the top level.

BLITZER: Well, they wanted --

DUFFY: We have great concern about what's happening.

BLITZER: -- they wanted the president to know about this document because they thought even though that a lot of the information in there had not been confirmed, apparently some of the information in that document, congressman, had been confirmed.

DUFFY: What -- what -- what, that there was Russian informants maybe, yes, but the salacious material inside, none of that had been conformed. So my --

BLITZER: Not the salacious -- not the salacious -- the salacious material was by no means confirmed, but the contacts with Russians, some of that information, congressman, was confirmed and they decided, you know what, the president of the United States, the outgoing president, the incoming president, they should at least know about the existence of this document. I don't see anything wrong with that.

DUFFY: But, Wolf, and I'm sorry that I was talking over you there. My concern is this. And this is not the good people that work at the FBI. This is leadership in the FBI. That you -- the we have a Fusion GPS organization paying Kremlin officials for information. That's not the way intelligence works. This had red flags all over the map and that -- and that our FBI would go in and brief the president when even the media was discrediting the report when it put out, I think, by "Mother Jones" or by "Buzz Feed" is highly skeptical of what the motive was there.

And the fact that I think CNN, and great work on your part, but you had a tip off 30 minutes after the meeting and reporting it means to me that this was not about briefing the president. This was about giving credibility to a bogus report against our president, which gives me great concern. If we're going to stand together, Wolf, and you've done a great job --

BLITZER: Great concern -- hold on a minute, congressman --

DUFFY: Oh, go ahead.

BLITZER: Great concern -- great concern about the leadership of the FBI, is that what you're saying?

DUFFY: Yes. Absolutely. And those who are making decisions on this bogus report, leaking it out to CNN and also briefing the president. And, again, when you look at the tactics and techniques that were used, I think guys in the field in the FBI would shake their head and go, this is unacceptable stuff, that we're taking this in -- as credible material? We never do this in the FBI. And that's my concern.

And I think if you and I -- we stand together in saying, I want to know what Russia did. I what to know what involvement they had in our election. And I'll stand with CNN and MSNBC and Fox and every other organization to go, I want to know that.

But I think we've got to be fair too and say (INAUDIBLE) --

BLITZER: But I will -- I will point out --

DUFFY: Let's apply equal pressure to both of them so we know what Russia's involvement was. And sometimes I get frustrated because it seems like Democrats only want to focus on an investigation if it involves Donald Trump. But when it blows back in their fact and it might involve Hillary Clinton or the DNC, they want to stonewall it and they want nothing to do with an investigation into Russia because it might look bad for their party. Let's do what they first said, let's find out Russia's involvement.

BLITZER: Well, you know that -- you know FBI -- FBI and CIA officials, they all say that Christopher Steele, the former British MI6 spy who was directly involved in coming up with this opposition research -- it's what they call it -- was highly respected, well-known to the U.S. intelligence community, and that was one of the reasons why the FBI itself -- they didn't do it in the end, the FBI itself was thinking about paying for more of this information. You've seen those reports, right?

DUFFY: But, Wolf -- but, Wolf, no. So Michael Steele (ph), I don't know him, but I know that he was paying high level Kremlin officials for this information.

BLITZER: How do you know he was actually paying high level Kremlin officials for the information?

DUFFY: Because we were -- because we were told that. I think that was in "The Washington Post" story. Fusion GPS reported that, that this information was paid for. And so if you look at the flow of information of Fusion GPS, again, red flags are being raised. And when you're influencing elections, we have Kremlin officials who are passing information through Fusion GPS into the American media to discredit a president. This is the real scandal. This is the real collusion that concerns me and gives -- I want to --

BLITZER: So, bottom line -- bottom line, congressman, you want this -- all these investigations to continue to come up with final answers on the sensitive issues.

DUFFY: Absolutely. That's right.

BLITZER: You're raising the sensitive issues. The Democrats are raising. The president may say, as he tweeted this morning, and I'll read it to you once again, it is now commonly agreed, after many months of costly looking, that there was no collusion between Russia and Trump, was collusion with Hillary Clinton.

You want all these investigations to come up with answers so that the American public learns exactly what happened and tries to prevent the Russians from engaging in this kind of activity down the road, right?

DUFFY: I think America deserves to know. And my -- to make my first point again, it was -- I mean the Democrats have even said there is no evidence of any collusion that they've seen so far between Trump and Russia. We are seeing other evidence right now with again the dossier and Uranium One of collusion between the Clintons and Russia.

But with that said, we should apply equal pressure and equal force in this investigation to not look at Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or Republicans and the Democrats. Let's look at Russia and find out what they were trying to do in our elections and how they're trying to disseminate information in our country because I think, as Americans, we're all better off and you in the media and me as a congressman are better off knowing what they're try to do to undermine our democracy, Wolf. And we have to stay together on that front.

[13:20:15] BLITZER: That's why we -- yes, no, I think we all agree on that. We want answers to make sure we fully understand what the Russians were up to and to make sure it doesn't happen down the road, whether in 2018, midterms elections, 2020 in the next presidential election here in the United States or indeed elsewhere in other democracies around the world.

Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, thanks, once again, for joining us.

DUFFY: Yes, thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: So we have some truly extraordinary CNN reporting coming up. An eyewitness comes forward speaking about what he saw during the Niger ambush, including why the Americans were separated.

Plus, was JFK's assassin working for the CIA? A file released raising some eyebrows after it cuts off a sentence after that question is directly asked to a former CIA director. We'll discuss.

And, moments ago, Tiger Woods, once the world's greatest golfer, heading into court to make his plea in a DUI case. Stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:25:15] BLITZER: There are some crucial new developments unfolding in the deadly Niger ambush that killed four U.S. soldiers. In a CNN exclusive, a Nigerian soldier says the troops were, quote, unprepared for a potential battle, telling CNN he was surprised the green beret- led unit was even going out on the mission because they were wearing t-shirts and baseball caps.

Arwa Damon is joining us now live from Niamey, the capital of Niger.

Arwa, did this Nigerian soldier give an explanation as to why those U.S. troops went on that patrol that way, lightly armed? What else did he say that they were lacking?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it's important to note that that is pretty much the overall posture of U.S. forces in Niger, and that is what the military says is as a result of what their risk assessment was.

This particular soldier was expressing his surprise, not just because of what the American soldiers were wearing, but because he says they simply lacked the manpower and the firepower to be going out into this zone where the Nigerians themselves are attacked on a fairly regular basis. He said he himself, when he and his unit go out on patrol, they at least take with them a force of about 80 to 100 individuals.

Now, he was among the first to arrive on the scene along with his unit after this attack took place. And he was describing how when they got there they saw the Americans and the Nigerians, who had survived, back to back in defensive positions. He described how he saw two of the bodies of the U.S. soldiers who were killed in the back of one American vehicle. A third body not too far away. And then, of course, the fourth body that of La David -- Sergeant La David Johnson found about a day -- a day and a half later.

He also was describing how some of the landscape was still smoldering because villagers later told them the attackers set it on fire. That was how they made their escape. And he also managed to speak to some of the wounded Nigerians who told him that the ambush initially started out with about eight vehicles. And the assailants managed to separate the convoy. Two vehicles within the convoy, because of the hail of bullets that first was fired towards them, did become separated from the rest.

The attack itself then intensifying with the arrival of dozens more attackers that came on motorcycle. And that is when this Nigerian soldier says the heavy casualties began to take place.

He is also raising the question of America's approach to the war on terror, specifically what they're trying to accomplish here in Niger, saying that he believed that America needed to reevaluate it because he said they were not seeing sufficient or actual real results, Wolf.

BLITZER: Are they giving you numbers over there, Arwa? We're told there may be as many as 1,000 U.S. troops still in Niger right now. Maybe 6,000 around other parts of Africa right now. And it's clearly a very dangerous environment with ISIS affiliated terror groups gaining strength.

DAMON: Look, Wolf, as you know very well, the U.S. military does not necessarily disclose specific numbers of its soldiers. We were actually here in Niger over the summer. We were visiting the drone base that is here in Niamey, as well as the one outside of Agadez, that is currently under construction.

We do know that the U.S. force here numbers at least in the hundreds. And it is a force that has seen an increase in number because this drone base is under construction. One of the main reasons why the U.S. and AFRICOM are really focusing on Niger is because it is critical when it comes to the war on terror, especially in the region. These drones that America is flying, it uses to look at targets and a number of hot spots.

Niger is in the middle, Wolf, of what the U.S. military AFRICOM calls this ring of instability. You have ISIS' growing threat in Libya to the north. You have al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and these ISIS affiliates that have begun emerging in Mali and Algeria. And then, of course, you have the Boko Haram threat. But now, in the words of this soldier, America is going to have to look at the terror threat potentially that exists even here in Niger.

BLITZER: All right, Arwa, be careful over there. We'll stay in very close touch.

Arwa Damon is there for us in Niger right now.

Let's get some more analysis on all of this. Joining us, Gayle Tzemach Lemmon. She's a CNN national security analyst, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. And just back from Africa, what, yesterday you just got back.

So what are the big questions you think the -- that need to be answered, that need to be answered and the lessons we need to learn why these four American soldiers were killed?