Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Bombshell Book; West Wing Cell Phone Ban; Firm Behind Dossier; Interview with Adam Schiff. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 04, 2018 - 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 Washington. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

West wing drama. President Trump said to be furious over an explosive new book detailing the chaos inside the White House.

And, today, new revelations and new responses.

Plus, the president's lawyers telling his fired adviser Steve Bannon to stop talking and the publisher to stop production. This as the White House also bans staff and visitors from using personal cell phones. We'll discuss that. Get new information.

And fools, that's how President Trump is describing those criticizing his rhetoric against North Korea and now takes credit for North Korea and South Korea beginning to talk.

But we start with an unsettled White House angrily reacting to bombshells in a brand-new book, while also trying to get back to business. That includes setting the agenda with friendly senators, calling foreign leaders, and, yes, cracking down on cell phones in the west wing of the White House.

Our Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny is in the briefing room over at the White House. The briefing, Jeff, scheduled to start in about a half an hour or so. The president's attorneys, though, in the meantime, they are fighting back against the book and the author of the book and Steve Bannon.

Tell our viewers what they've done.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, they certainly are and this on the fourth day of the new year. We're seeing the president, President Trump, for the first time, trying to get back to business, trying to get back to his immigration agenda.

He was meeting with a handful of Republican senators just a short time ago in the Roosevelt room here at the White House. Of course, he was asked about Steve Bannon and those explosive bombshell comments that he made in this new book coming out this month.

Let's take a look, for a second here, at what the president said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did Steve Bannon betray you, Mr. President? Any word about Steve Bannon?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know, he called me a great man last night. So, you know, he obviously changed his tune pretty quick.

Thank you all very much.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE.)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you. I don't talk to him. I don't talk to him. I don't talk to him. That's just a misnomer. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, the president, there, saying he doesn't talk to his former chief strategist, Steve Bannon. But just yesterday, here in the White House briefing room, the press secretary, Sarah Sanders, said, in fact, the president does speak to Steve Bannon. The last time he spoke to him was early December.

But, Wolf, but that's all the president clearly wanted to say there about Steve Bannon. But behind the scenes, his lawyers are saying so much more. Again, sending a cease and desist letter to the publisher of that new book which is called "Fire and Fury Inside the Trump White House."

Let's take a look at part of that letter that the president's lawyer sent earlier today. It says this. Mr. Trump hereby demands that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication, release or dissemination of the book, the article or any excerpts of summaries of either of them to any person or entity. And that you issue a full and complete retraction and apology to my client as to all statements made about him in the book and article and that lack competent evidentiary support.

So, Wolf, clearly here, the president's lawyers trying to stop publication of this book. Most legal experts we have talked to said that's not likely. But they're also saying that Steve Bannon violated the confidentiality agreement that he signed during the campaign.

Now, that's a bit of a mixed message there. The White House is trying to discredit the book, saying the revelations aren't true. At the same time, though, the White House is saying that Steve Bannon violated a confidentiality agreement.

Wolf, it certainly seems that this will continue to consume this administration, even as it tries to get its footing back in 2018.

BLITZER: You're absolutely right.

There's another development unfolding where you are. You're in the west wing of the White House in the briefing room right now.

Take us through this new announcement that the White House is banning cell phone use in the west wing. Does it include you, the news media? Does it include the president's chief of staff? Who is being affected? How is this being enforced?

ZELENY: Wolf, this is a -- something that just was announced earlier this morning and the details of this are still to be worked out. But it is all being done, we are told, to try and crack down on leakers, to try and bring some discipline and order over this west wing. The White House chief of staff John Kelly first suggested this last year. It was never implemented.

But we are told it is going to be implemented the beginning of next week. That all advisers, all staffers here in the west wing cannot have their personal cell phones. They can only government-issued cell phones.

We do not believe the ban would apply to reporters or other visitors to the west wing. And like those Republican senators who were here in the west wing earlier today. But, of course, it's an open question how this would be enforced.

Behind the scenes, many west wing staffers are not reacting very favorably to this. And they say, look, they work long hours, sometimes 12, 14 hours a day or longer. Personal cell phones are one way to stay in touch with their family.

But it, clearly, Wolf, is a sign that this White House is trying to crack down on leaks. Many of those leaks, of course, go back to a new, explosive book by Michael Wolff.

[13:05:06] BLITZER: So, it's not merely being done as a result of national security concerns. If you go to the CIA, for example, or you go into the White House situation room, you can't have a cell phone.

But this is being done because they're afraid that cell phones, you can -- they can record, take pictures, video. They're afraid of leaks. Is that what I'm hearing?

ZELENY: Wolf, that is our understanding of this. Of course, that is normal practice. If you go into a secure facility, even spots here at the White House, you would have to set your cell phone aside. That happens in buildings across Washington.

But this takes it a step further. Even if staffers were working in just normal offices, under this new policy, apparently, they will not be able to have their personal cell phones with them.

So, the idea here, again, to instill some discipline here. It's coming at the same time as this new book is coming out. The White House has not said there's a connection, Wolf, but it certainly seems like there may be.

BLITZER: All right. Jeff Zeleny at the White House. Thanks very much. We'll stand by for that briefing. That's coming up later this hour.

Joining us now to talk about all of this and a lot more, including the president's state of mind, the agenda, the Russia investigation, California Congressman Adam Schiff. He's the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Congressman, thanks so much for coming in.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: You bet.

BLITZER: Your committee has asked Steve Bannon to testify. Is that right? You want him to come before the House Intelligence Committee?

SCHIFF: We do want him to come before the committee. There are a number of reasons. We think he could shed light on a number of key meetings that took place as well as potential communication. And plainly from his comments in the book, there is a lot he could tell us.

BLITZER: And the Republican -- your Republican colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, are they on board?

SCHIFF: I think they are. I certainly so. And I hope that these revelations of what Mr. Bannon has said will not discourage them from falling through in making sure that he comes before our committee.

BLITZER: You've expressed concern, in recent weeks, about Republicans, some Republicans, trying to shut down the House Intelligence Committee investigation. You're concerned about that.

At one point, you suggested that Steve Bannon was actually behind the push. Do you still believe that?

SCHIFF: I do believe that. You know, certainly, the push comes from the White House. We know quite overtly, they worked on Republican senators to try to bring their investigation to a premature conclusion.

Unfortunately, a lot of that work, on behalf of the White House, is being done in our committee. The efforts to go after the FBI. The efforts to go after the Department of Justice. To go after Bob Mueller. Rather than focus on the Russia investigation.

So, we see a lot of efforts to distract and deflect in the service of the White House.

Nonetheless, we have done important investigative work. But there are dozens of witnesses we need to bring in on the core issue we're investigating, and this is Russian interference in our election. Not unmasking, not the FBI. But Russia's involvement in our election.

BLITZER: Do you believe that the chairman of the committee, Devin Nunes, is leading that effort to not deal with what you want to deal with and move onto other issues to distract? SCHIFF: Well, you know, we certainly led the unmasking effort that

was an investigation into a dead end. We produced no evidence of wrong-doing on the Obama administration. That was designed to somehow provide cover for the president's tweet that he was being illegally surveilled by the Obama administration.

Likewise, this effort to discredit the FBI, to discredit the Justice Department, Bob Mueller, is a joint Republican Intel Committee, Republican Judiciary Committee effort that must have the blessing of the speaker.

It will not only, I think, be a disservice to the public, in terms of getting it to the bottom of the Russia involvement in our election, but it will do lasting damage to the Department of Justice and the FBI.

BLITZER: Let's talk about that very controversial June 2016 Trump Tower, in New York City, meeting that some of the president's advisers, including Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort who was then the chairman of the Trump campaign, had with Russians. Steve Bannon now suggesting it was treasonous, unpatriotic for that meeting to take place. And for them not to notify the FBI about it. Do you agree?

SCHIFF: I certainly think that it was unpatriotic. Now, it whether it rises to the level of treason, that has a certain very strict, legal connotation. I wouldn't go that far.

But it certainly could have been part of an illegal conspiracy. That is the subject of our investigation. What led up to that meeting. What took place after that meeting.

We know, for example, prior to that meeting, the Russians had made the campaign aware, through Papadopoulos, that they had stolen e-mails.

We know that they offered dirt on Hillary Clinton in the runup to that meeting and the campaign expressed great eagerness to get that dirt.

We know that the campaign was disappointed in the dirt they got at the meeting.

And we know, almost immediately thereafter, Assange received these stolen e-mails from the Russians and the Russians began publishing them through their own cutouts.

So, there's a lot we know. There's a lot more we need to continue to investigate to determine what level of coordination or collusion may have been involved.

[13:10:03] BLITZER: The president's son, Donald Trump Jr., he testified. He appeared before your committee behind closed doors. Steve Bannon says that Donald Trump Jr. would crack like an egg during the course of this inquiry. First of all, did he?

SCHIFF: Well, the end of the -- one of the most important questions we asked the president's son is when this became public, when this meeting that had -- they had denied ever took place. None of these meeting ever happened. When it became public, what did you discuss with your father? He refused to answer that question.

We know about some, at least reportedly, of the president's involvement in the crafting of that false and misleading statement about what took place. But he refused to answer the questions on the basis of a nonexistent attorney-client privilege, when neither our attorney or client.

And we need to follow-up and bring him back, with a subpoena, to answer those questions.

But will the majority do so? In a like circumstance when, on a bipartisan basis, we asked the White House for any records of conversations between the president and James Comey. We sent two bipartisan letters to myself and Mr. Conaway, the White House, demanding that information.

On both occasions, they refused us. We said in our second appeal, if they refused us, we would have to use, potentially, compulsory process. But we have not been able to get the majority to fall through.

BLITZER: So, is -- right now, Congressman Conaway, who's leading this investigation on the Russia probe, together with you, because Devin Nunes, the Chairman, has removed himself from that investigation.

Is he with you still? Are you cooperating with Conaway?

SCHIFF: Mr. Conaway and I, I think, work together very well. But, on these key decisions, do we subpoena the White House for records that we've already asked for that they have told us to pound sand? Do we subpoena Don Jr. and have him come back and tell us about that conversation?

BLITZER: So, when do you?

SCHIFF: Those decisions are made by Devin Nunes. And those decisions are not made in the interest of our investigation.

BLITZER: Do you have any idea when Steve Bannon and, or Donald Trump Jr. will appear before your committee?

SCHIFF: Well, I hope that we would get Steve Bannon soon.

BLITZER: Well, what does that mean, soon?

SCHIFF: Well, in the very near future?

BLITZER: Like within days, weeks?

SCHIFF: You know, I can't be specific. We leave it to the witness to say when they come in, if they come in. But it's certainly our interest and desire to have him come in. I think the majority is willing, I hope, to bring him in and follow through to make sure that he comes and testifies. Plainly, he would have a lot to say to our committee.

BLITZER: He also suggested, in this new bombshell book, that money laundering, which is illegal, obviously, with the Russians are basically at the heart of this investigation involving Donald Trump, as a candidate, as a businessman, with the Russians. Tell us about that.

SCHIFF: It's ironic because I've been discussing my concern over money laundering for months now. And the fact that we're not doing what we need to do to get to the bottom of that allegation. Only to be criticized by Breitbart for raising this issue and now you have Steve Bannon doing it himself.

People look at the issue of compromise, kompromat and they think of a salacious video. From my point of view, if the Russians were laundering money through the Trump Organization or guaranteeing financing for the Trump Organization, that's far more compromising of this president and our country.

BLITZER: Do you believe they were?

SCHIFF: I don't know. But I do think it's negligent, given the credibility of these allegations, for us not to look into it. And it, frankly, would be an easy thing to find out or refute. It will require a subpoena --

BLITZER: A subpoena of Deutsche Bank, for example.

SCHIFF: -- from our committee of Deutsche Bank.

BLITZER: Has that happened?

SCHIFF: That has not happened. The only subpoenas for bank records the majority has shown any interest in is Fusion GPS's banks records, not Deutsch Bank's. And I think that's a real disservice to the country.

BLITZER: Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the so-called dossier that got a lot of embarrassing information involving Donald Trump and the Russians. They're also suggesting -- you saw their op-ed in "The New York Times," the cofounders of Fusion GPS, that money laundering is at the heart of all of this.

SCHIFF: Well, and I think they have a point that the transcripts of their interview should be released. This is a step that I -- that I embrace reluctantly because, as a practical matter, I think we ought to conduct the investigation and then disclose transcripts.

But given how they have misrepresented what he has said and attempted to attack both him and his firm personally, I think out of fairness, we ought to release those transcripts.

Among other things they'll show, and this is already in the public record, this op research began by the "Washington Free Beacon" which, at the time, published along the lines of it. It didn't know who was behind the financing of this work to begin with, when it was their own paper.

That research that was carried on later by Democratic sources.

BLITZER: By the Hillary Clinton campaign. They took over the financing of it, the "Washington Free Beacon," a conservative publication here in Washington.

[13:15:01] SCHIFF: Yes.

BLITZER: All right. So, they originated with Fusion GPS, the investigation. Is that what you're saying?

SCHIFF: Yes.

BLITZER: But it -- but, at some point, they moved on and the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton's campaign took over and spent a lot of money for this research.

SCHIFF: Yes. Now, both, you know, The Washington Free Beacon as well as the Clinton campaign had an interest in learning what they could about Donald Trump and his businesses and business ties and potential money laundering. The question for us is how much of what they produced is true? And I wish more focus was spent on that rather than simply attacking Christopher Steele or attacking Fusion GPS. Let's focus on finding out, proving or disproving what has been alleged.

BLITZER: What's your impression of the President's state of mind right now?

SCHIFF: Well, look, the reality is that what has been revealed in this book isn't surprising to people because it's consistent with what many others have said both in the White House and those that have left the White House about the extraordinary dysfunction in the Oval Office, about the President's erratic behavior, about in many respects his unfitness for the responsibilities of that job. So, nothing, frankly, all that surprising. And even though Steve Bannon said positive things today, he didn't repudiate anything that was attributed to him in the book. He didn't say, oh, that's not true I never said that. It looks all too true which obviously is a great concern to all of us.

BLITZER: Two of your Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives, two influential members, Congressman Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan both conservatives. You know them well from the Freedom Caucus, they are now calling on the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions to resign because they accuse him of losing control of the Justice Department and this entire investigation. What's your reaction?

SCHIFF: My reaction is that we've seen a concerted effort by the White House, its external allies and its allies in Congress to try to tear at the Department of Justice with the goal of both discrediting Mueller and also limiting the scope of what Mueller can look at. If they can get rid of Jeff Sessions and put in a more malleable attorney general who is not recused, that new attorney general can tell Bob Mueller you can't look at money laundering. If they get rid of Rod Rosenstein, they could do same thing. That to me if the motive is to interfere with Bob Mueller's investigation, represents a serious form of obstruction of justice and I think it's deeply irresponsible for members of the House to be condoning this effort by the White House to interfere with Bob Mueller's investigation.

BLITZER: And you're confident your investigation in the House Intelligence Committee is going to go on not just for weeks, but for months?

SCHIFF: Well, it should if we are serious about it. If we are going to interview the witnesses that have relevant evidence and we're going to require the production of relevant documents, it will take months. But we don't yet know from majority whether they are seriously committed to this. The only thing at the moment they seem to be seriously committed to is tearing down the Department of Justice.

BLITZER: Congressman Adam Schiff from California. Thanks very much for coming in.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll continue this conversation.

Up next, I will speak live with one of the key figures from the Watergate investigation on Steve Bannon's comments on treason and money laundering involving the President of the United States and his family. Plus, the President taking credit for North and South Korea talking and calling critics of his rhetoric fools.

The former Defense Secretary of the United States William Cohen, he is here with me, he will respond. Also, the White House briefing moments away from now. Looking at live pictures coming in from the briefing room as new revelations and new accusations surfaced from this explosive new book.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:22:47] BLITZER: President Trump brushes off criticism of his nuclear war of words with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. And now the President is taking credit for the fact that North and South Korea are communicating.

Once again, earlier today, President Trump tweeted this. "With all of the failed experts weighing in, does anybody really believe that talks and dialogue would be going on between North and South Korea right now if I wasn't firm, strong and willing to commit our total might against the North? Fools. But talks are a good thing." That was the President's tweet for more on the nuclear tensions on North Korea and other critically important issues.

Let's bring in the former Defense Secretary of the United States, William Cohen. Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for joining us.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Good to be with you. BLITZER: What's your reaction for the President claiming credit for this new dialogue that has emerged for the first time in the couple years between North and South Korea?

COHEN: Well, I think there is some credit that he can take by sending a very strong cycle that we would going to intensify sanctions that we were prepared to use whether the force was necessary. So I think there's some credit that can be given. By the same token, I think it's important to say that the goal has been to not go to war and to have some kind of a dialogue which appears to be taking place on a very lower level at this point.

I think we should not see this as a hallelujah moment, but rather understand what Kim Jong-un's goals are and they are to drive a wedge between the United States and South Korea. So I think we have to watch that carefully. I think the President of South Korea has to be very careful that he doesn't simply start to take this line that he can negotiate a deal with the North Koreans without regard to what the U.S., Japan's interest and others who were involved.

So it's a good thing that we are going to talk. They are going to talk. But I think we have to be careful that we don't overestimate what's going to come about --

BLITZER: That tweet that he did today, it's different than the tweet he had the other day when he was speaking about and warning the North Korean leader that I too have a nuclear button, but it is a much bigger and more powerful one than his and my button works. Listen to Republican Senator Jeff Flake, how he responded to what the President is saying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[13:25:05] SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: I wish we handled it differently. I don't see anything good that comes from this kind of back and forth. I really don't. And it's concerning.

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: It's a style I have never seen before but it's a way of communicating back and forth. And he is the President. He has chosen to do that. So I don't prejudge it. Hopefully it has good results.

BLITZER: Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma as well. And even Senator Cornyn is the top -- the number two Republican in the Senate, he said, "It's a very serious issue and I don't know how anybody's interests are served by escalating that rhetoric." What was your reaction when you saw that tweet?

INHOFE: I thought it was childish and I thought it was unbecoming of the President of the United States. I tried to imagine would we ever see a Ronald Reagan make a statement or a Jack Kennedy who had something to do with dealing with the Russians as did President Reagan. I think it lowers the threshold of the office. I think it lowers the dignity of the office to engage in that kind of rhetoric and for the White House to say, well, he is just trying to show that he is strong and not weak and will stand up for America. You can stand up for America. I think he ought to start standing up for America by going after the Russians and what they tried to do. You know, I said this before, but the President has been involved in criticizing black athletes for taking a kneel during the anthem because they are protesting unjust treatment of black men and women who are being killed. Honoring black men and women.

I would hope and he is criticizing him say he should be fired. I want him not to take a kneel to President Putin. I want him to stand up for this country and say Mr. Putin, you've tried to interfere with our system, you are undermining the integrity of our democracy and I'm going to stand up to you and be critical and support the investigation that's under way to see exactly what you have done and what you have tried to do and you may try to do in 2018. That's what I want to see him. That's how I think he should act as President.

BLITZER: Why doesn't he do that?

INHOFE: Obviously, there is some reason why he can criticize every single ally that we have in the British Prime Minister to the Chancellor of Germany, to the Prime Minister of Australia to the President of South Korea, but not a word towards Putin. So it's really quite incredible that that is taking place. So it raises the spectrum.

I was on this program with you at the very beginning of last year. And I said there are three things that the President needed to do. He had to disclose what you own, what you owe and to whom you owe it. And until those questions are answered, there always going to be these issues hanging over the presidency. And that's what Bob Mueller is looking at in terms of were there any certainly financial transactions that we should be concerned about and know about whether leverage that Putin, the Russians can exercise to in order to control the United States? Those are really serious issues.

And what's troubling to me is that members of my party especially in the House seem determined to undermine that investigation. And frankly it's disappointing to say, you know, we were elected to serve the American people, to search for the truth. And anyone who is trying to obstruct that search for the truth certainly is not worthy of holing that high office.

And so, I would hope that the Republicans as well as the Democrats would say let's put the partisanship aside. Did the Russians try to influence and impact our elections? Our intelligence community said so unequivocally, unanimously and yet we have a President and the administration who denies who refuses to come out flatly, categorically and say that, it raises suspicions.

BLITZER: But why do you think -- when you say suspicious, what specifically are you concerned about? Because there are some who have suggested the Russians may have something on him.

INHOFE: Well, they may. That's precisely. I think what Bob Mueller is looking at. What do they have if anything? Should we know about it? Shouldn't Republicans be concerned about whether or not President Putin is able to exert influence over our Democratic system to undermine it, to compromise it, to say it's fake, to say it's all rig and participate in that?

And why would any members of Congress want to be part of trying to shut that investigation down? Look for the truth and the truth whatever it is, make it factual, not fictional, not Bannon's book or anything else. What are the facts? Show me the facts.

BLITZER: You speak on this very sensitive issue with some unique perspective. Because many years ago, you were a young Republican Congressman from the state of Maine, you were in the House Judiciary Committee and you were one of the first who suggested that the Republican President of the United States at that time, Richard Nixon, should be impeached?

INHOFE: Something happened even before that investigation took place when Gerald Ford, the Minority Leader at that time was named to be the Vice President on that. We had confirmation hearings in the House and I was on that committee to confirm him. And I admired him immensely.