Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Nunes Met with Ryan; Nunes Documents to be Viewed; Senate GOP Ends Gorsuch Filibuster; Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired April 6, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We begin with breaking news on multiple fronts. First, a source tells CNN President Trump is considering military action in Syria in retaliation for this week's chemical attack. The president said yesterday that he now bears the responsibility when it comes to the Syria conflict. We're going to have much more on the options the president is now considering. A live report coming up from the Pentagon.

Also, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has stepped aside from the panel's Russia investigation. Critics accused Devin Nunes of trying to provide cover for President Trump's unfounded wiretap claims against President Obama.

The other breaking story is the show down in the U.S. Senate right now over the Neil Gorsuch U.S. Supreme Court nomination. Just a little while ago, Senate Republicans invoked what's called the nuclear option. And that allowed a simple 51 majority to break the Democrat's filibuster.

All that coming up. But, right now, a source telling CNN President Trump told several members of Congress that he is considering military action in response to the horrific chemical weapons' attack in Syria.

During a news conference with Jordan's King Abdullah yesterday, the president called the Syria attack a heinous act that changed his views on Syria.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching it and seeing it and it doesn't get any worse than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr and our Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash.

Barbara, what kind of options, military options, would the president have?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the first thing to say is there's no indication just yet, that the president has made that political decision to move ahead with any kind of strike in Syria.

But let's say that he does. There are basically two military options, two military decisions for him to make. If he wants direct retaliation for the strike against those civilians, he could decide to order limited air strikes to basically take out the air field where those aircraft came from that dropped the bombs that the U.S. believes was filled with nerve agent.

But that would be a very limited option because of the second problem. Assad has a much greater capability to deliver chemical weapons. Not just from fixed wing aircraft. He's got helicopters that have regularly been filled with barrel bombs. Those helicopters can take off from anywhere. Artillery, rockets, they have shells that can be filled with chemical agent.

So, he's got to first make the decision which way he wants to go limited with direct retaliation or a larger action to try and take out Assad's capabilities. One of the big factors here for him will be the Russian presence inside Syria, we are told.

What the U.S. is going to be cautious about if it hits that wider set of targets, it's going to want to make sure it doesn't inadvertently hit a target where there may be Russian personnel, of course, that the U.S. doesn't know.

Nobody's looking for a wider war here. These are some of the very complicated decisions that have kept the U.S. frankly from doing this in the past. The question for Mr. Trump now, does he want to move ahead -- Wolf.

BLITZER: It's a serious question.

Dana, give us a sense of what the president might need members of Congress to do to get on board were he to decide to move forward with military action.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first and foremost, he would need rhetorical moral support if he does something in the short term. And that is why, clearly, our reporting shows that he is touching base with members of Congress to do just that. To give a heads up that this is being seriously considered.

But then, this is going to unleash and launch the same kind of debate that we saw several years ago when President Obama was in the white house and he was considering military action in Syria. Which is should the Congress do something that they haven't done in years which is pass what is known as an AUMF, an Authorization of Military Force. Many members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, say it is time because the executive, the president, hasn't had such a thing now since back before the air strikes in Afghanistan.

And so, that's why that is going to be clearly a conversation, depending on how robust the president wants to be, that is going to go on here.

[13:05:04] Just in the short term, though, I will tell you that I spoke with our news -- given our news to one member of the Armed Services Committee. A Democrat told this senator what we were reporting. And this senator, who's not exactly super hawkish, said, I would support that. If it's limited. If it's focused. If it's targeted, I would support that.

So, that's just -- the buzz is already starting to, kind of, brew here about what that would mean and what the reaction would be from members of the United States Congress.

BLITZER: Contingency plans certainly being drawn up over at the Pentagon, I'm sure. Barbara Starr, there's always contingency plans for these kinds of options, if the president asks for the various options.

All right, guys, thanks very much.

I want to bring in Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour. Christiane, this would be a significant move for this new American president authorizing military action, precise military action, presumably against various targets from the Syrian regime. Could this be a game changer?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It could be. It could be. But, of course, we're now talking about limited moves, if any at all, and the fact that Russia does occupy a big space in Syria.

But you'll remember, 24 hours ago, when we were all on this program as Donald Trump spoke in the rose garden, we described his rhetoric as a big departure. A 180-degree departure from what he had said before.

He said he's completely changed on Syria and on Assad because of this attack. He described the death and the terrible contortions and suffering that the children went through. And he called this a terrible, terrible thing.

And all his administration were giving the same message, whether it was at the U.N., whether it was the vice president, whether it was the secretary of state, even Rex Tillerson.

And so, now, you've got all sorts of conversation coming out from Russia. They're trying to say, well, look, this wasn't a deliberate attack by Syria. And, look, please, United States, lay out your strategy for Syria.

And Bashar Al Assad, himself, has given an interview. He didn't talk about this, but he's even talking about continuing the war until there is total victory. He said, we have no other option. So, it's very likely that these kinds of attacks could happen again unless they are stopped. At this -- unless there is a price to be paid by Assad for launching these kinds of chemical weapons.

And you know that the Pentagon has also confirmed that their intelligence shows that there were regime aircraft dropping bombs in that particular region at that particular time. We're not sure that they've confirmed what was in it, but the actual aircraft dropping bombs at the time that everybody describes those chemical weapons had been dropped on that area of Honachahun (ph) in Syria.

BLITZER: As you remember, at that news conference with King Abdullah of Jordan yesterday, the president did not mention Russia at all.

But in an interview with "The New York Times," he was asked the specific question, what do you think it says about the role of Russia in Syria? His response, well, I think it's a very sad day for Russia because they're aligned and, in this case, all information points to Syria that they did this.

So, a muted response. Certainly not as vitriolic --

AMANPOUR: Well, --

BLITZER: -- as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. But he is saying it's a sad day for Russia.

AMANPOUR: -- he's moving. I mean, that is movement. He actually said that before, in those words at this time. And, look, the president faces two very, very dramatic foreign policy challenges. You've got weapons of mass destruction in this way having been used by the Syrian regime, most people in the region believe that it was the Syrian regime and they've done it before.

And you've got nuclear armed North Korea which is raising its threats on a practically daily basis, having conducted yet another ballistic missile test towards the U.S. ally, Japan, a day before President Trump is meeting with President Xi Jinping in Florida.

So, these are two huge, huge issues that the west, that the United States has to deal with. And the way the president deals with Syria which is a more immediate issue, potentially could set the tone for the kind of message that North Korea gets about what it's doing.

So, it's all linked. And when the president of the United States makes very dramatic statements about the horror of what happened in Syria, about how it's an affront to the civilized world and to humanity, and using the words, red line, himself beyond the red line, then it implies because the world is listening and watching that there needs to be some follow-up to that.

BLITZER: Christiane Amanpour joining us from London. Christiane, thanks very much.

I want to bring in our Global Affairs Analyst David Rohde and our CNN Military Analyst Lt. Col. Rick Francona. David, you've been working your sources. You're hearing what we're reporting about the president considering some sort of military response to this brutal attack, this gas attack against these civilians, including kids in Syria. What are you hearing?

[13:10:06] DAVID ROHDE, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I heard -- and this is from a separate member of Congress than the -- than the person Dana Bash referenced earlier. So, I heard from a separate member of Congress that President Trump called them yesterday, said he was considering military action in Syria. And President Trump said he would want to speak with Secretary of Defense Mattis about this.

It wasn't clear, you know, yesterday, as Barbara Starr is reporting, that there has been a decision to do this. But, you know, again, a separate member of Congress saying the president told them that he is considering military action in Syria.

BLITZER: Colonel Francona, what kind of military options do you believe the president will have if he gives the go ahead for some sort of military option?

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, what we're hearing is that they would like to close down the operations of the Syrian Air Force. The Syrians operate out of about four or five major airfields. Closing them would be not a challenge so much but keeping them closed would be.

We could, you know, shut down the airport. If you want to take out the aircraft, take out the runways and all that, you know, the U.S. military has plans to do this. They're very effective at it.

The problem isn't can we do it. The problem is what happens after we do that. Are the Russians going to stand by as we do this or are they going to try and intraduct any kind of missile strikes, aircraft strikes? What happens if they engage in American aircraft? What happens if they shoot an American aircraft down? These are all things that have to be factored in before you start deciding what kind of action you're going to take.

I would assume, in the interest of pilot safety, they would try and do this with longer range missiles, say tomahawks or air launch cruise missiles where you could cripple a couple of these airfields. That would send the message.

Then, you have to address the political fallout with that with the Russians. Ever since September 2015 when the Russians intervened in Syria, they have become a major player in anything we do in Syria.

BLITZER: And, David, it's a fair point because there are a lot of Russian military personnel working with the regime of Bashar Al Assad. There's Iranian backed Hezbollah militia working with the regime of Bashar Al Assad.

If the U.S. were not necessarily to use air strikes because the Syrian, we believe, still have a pretty robust air defense system, U.S. planes and pilots could be in danger. But if they use tomahawk cruise missiles and other weapons of that nature, in the process, U.S. could wind up killing Russians and Iranians. That could cause some further problems, right?

ROHDE: Yes, you're absolutely right. What happens if an American weapon kills a Russian advisor? We don't know where these, you know, advisors are based. They could be spread across the country. I think there's be less fallout, frankly, if it was an Iranian advisor. But this is very serious stuff if you are mistakenly harming, you know, a Russian adviser.

So, it's a very -- it's a serious step. I think, you know, that the administration would have to talk to Russia about this beforehand and members of the U.S. military have been, you know, nervous about that. They have not wanted to cooperate militarily with Russia.

So, it's not a simple step. But, you know, as we're hearing, the president is considering it.

BLITZER: Very quickly, Colonel, how good is the Syrian air defense system?

FRANCONA: Oh, the Syrian air defense system has atrophied over the years. Their weapons are old. It's not the Syrian air defense system we have to worry about. It's the Russian air defense system. They brought in the state of the art S300VM. It is -- it is really an effective system.

However, U.S. Aircraft, if we employ stealth aircraft or you use low- flying cruise missiles, we could easily penetrate that. But, as David said, the question is these Russian advisers. And they're virtually everywhere in the Syrian armed forces now.

BLITZER: Yes, they certainly are and a lot of Iranian advisers as well.

FRANCONA: Exactly.

BLITZER: All right, Rick Francona, David Rohde, guys, thanks very much.

Our other breaking news story right now, the Senate just triggered the so-called nuclear option to break the filibuster by Democrats blocking the confirmation of the Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. That nomination should go forward now.

Plus, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, has stepped aside temporarily in the investigation over Russia's meddling in the U.S. presidential election. We have new details when we come back.

[13:14:20]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:18:12] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We're back with other breaking news. The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, has stepped aside temporarily in the investigation over Russia's meddling in the U.S. presidential election. The news comes as we learn the House Ethics Committee is currently investigating Congressman Nunes.

The congressman releasing this statement saying, in part, and I'm quoting him now, "several left wing activists groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power." That statement from Representative Devin Nunes.

I want to bring in our senior congressional reporter, Manu Raju.

Manu, just learned that Nunes actually met with the House speaker, Paul Ryan, last night about this decision. What else are you learning?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yes, that's right, they did meet. Speaker Ryan does support his decision to step aside, I am told. But one thing that Ryan's office and Ryan himself are not saying, Wolf, is whether or not the speaker himself urged Nunes to step aside. I tried to ask Paul Ryan that at the press conference earlier today but he did not respond. And his office has not responded to that question either, but saying that they believe that his decision to step aside was to avoid becoming a bigger distraction on this committee.

Now, one of the reasons why he had become a bigger distraction was this announcement today by the House Ethics Committee that it was investigating Devin Nunes for possibly revealing classified information. Now, the committee had said in a statement that it's "determined to investigation these allegations in order to fulfill its institutional obligation."

Now, this comes in the aftermath of Mr. Nunes going to the White House, briefing the president of the United States on intelligence information that he said showed some incidental collection of Trump transition communications. He also briefed the press on that as well. So that's going to be at the center of this investigation going forward.

[13:20:12] Now this decision stunned the House Intelligence Committee which members did not even know about this decision when they met privately with Devin Nunes earlier today. The top Democratic on the committee, Adam Schiff, came out and said this afterwards.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I just want to express my appreciation for what the chairman decided to do. I'm sure it was a very difficult decision for him. But as he mentioned, I think it is in the best interest of the investigation. It will, I think, allow us to have a fresh start moving forward. I look forward to working with Mr. Conaway. This, I think, investigation is of such critical importance that we need to get fully back on track. (END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now the White House is now making available those documents that both Mr. Schiff and Mr. Nunes saw those documents that got Chairman Nunes in a difficult position about that incidental collection of information, and as well as whether any officials were unmasked in their identities revealed within the intelligence committee. We are told that the full committee will start to look at this information. Jim Hines, the member of the - a member of the committee, a Democratic member of the committee, told me that he's going to review it today in an intelligence agency. So some signs, Wolf, that this investigation could be moving forward now that Devin Nunes is stepping aside. But Nunes himself, Wolf, not answering any questions today as he bolted out of the Capitol and left and got on a plane for this two-week House recess, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, the fact that the Congressional Ethics Committee is even investigating a chairman of the House Intelligence Committee on potentially disclosing classified information, that is in and of itself pretty unusual indeed.

Manu, thanks very much for that.

Now to the other showdown we're seeing. The showdown over the Neil Gorsuch U.S. Supreme Court nomination. Democrats, they made good on their threat to block the nomination with a filibuster and Republicans followed through on their threat to invoke the so-called nuclear option. That means they only needed a simple - a majority of 51 votes instead of 60 to end the filibuster.

Let's bring in our political director, David Chalian, and our chief political analyst, Gloria Borger.

Gloria, give us a sense of what this all means because this is historic.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it is historic and it means - let's do - let's talk about the short term. It means that in terms of future Supreme Court nominations, there is no going back. And, you know, this means that what we are used to in terms of bipartisan agreements on things as important as Supreme Court nominees will not occur.

It is not a surprise given the fact that Harry Reid started this in 2013 for lower judicial appointments. But I think it means that our courts are just going to be more ideological. It means that judges, both on lower benches, on the Supreme Court, will be more ideological. I'm not so sure that's great for the country. And the question I have going forward, and I know David can talk about this, the question I have going forward is, does this then mean there is a slippery slope and that the Senate, which is supposed to be a deliberate body, then starts doing a nuclear option, say, for legislation? And then the Senate becomes the House of Representatives, which is not a role model in government.

BLITZER: Where you only need simple majorities to get legislation passed.

BORGER: Right. Right.

BLITZER: Listen to some of the debate that unfolded, David, today. This is the majority leader and the minority leader in the Senate making their respective cases.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MAJORITY LEADER: This isn't really about the nominee anyway. The opposition to this particular nominee is more about the man that nominated him and the party he represents.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), MINORITY LEADER: There's a reason it was dubbed the nuclear option. It's the most extreme measure with the most extreme consequences. And while I'm sure we will continue to debate what got us here, I know that in 20 or 30 or 40 years we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So it does guarantee within the next day or so Neil Gorsuch will become a United States Supreme Court justice. It also potentially sets the scene if there's another opening, let's say, in the next nearly four years during a Trump administration for a new Supreme Court justice. The president could go even further to the right if he wants, if he simply needs a simple majority.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes. To Gloria's point, that's why we're going to have more - a more ideological court, not just the Supreme Court, but throughout the whole judicial system. And as you know, this was a conservative for a conservative. This - this nomination wasn't really changing the balance of the court. But there's no doubt when it comes to changing the balance of the court, if - if Steven Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Kennedy are the next vacancy to emerge on the court, you can imagine how Donald Trump not only has the ability to shape, ideologically recraft the court, but to do so in a much more conservative fashion than maybe otherwise.

[13:25:27] But I - this - what happened today I think was on an inevitable course from the moment Harry Reid decided to break tradition and do that. And so I think there's no great - I don't begrudge Mitch McConnell really for changing the rules today. This is - this was on a path here to change the rules.

What I do - and I don't mean to sound like a fuddy duddy here, but like what I -

BORGER: Go ahead.

CHALIAN: Thanks.

But what I learned in school growing up and the whole notion of the saucer of the Senate that cools the hot passions of the House, that there were differences in these bodies. I think that if we do indeed see us going down this slippery slope and legislation is invoked, you're going to have a very hard time. What that - what that 60 threshold tradition put in place, Wolf, was an ability to bring people across party lines, to gather some bipartisan consensus on a given issue. And I think that if this now moves on to losing the filibuster of a legislation, which it very well might -

BORGER: Right.

CHALIAN: You know, then I think we are in a place where there's zero incentive in either chamber of the United States Congress to actually form some bipartisan consensus around something. That's not good for the country.

BORGER: And, you know, something like Medicare was passed in 1965 with buy-in from both sides of the aisle, with 70 votes. And we saw what happened with Obamacare when it passed with, what, one vote. Slim majorities don't make for great pieces of legislation. People ought to have buy-in on both sides. And I think we could be seeing the beginning of the end of that.

BLITZER: Obamacare passed with no Republican support, only Democrats.

BORGER: Right. Right. Exactly.

BLITZER: But the Democrats had the majority in the House and the Senate and they may have it down the road. Republicans will potentially look back at this vote today and say, well, that was a mistake. Like Democrats look back at Harry Reid's action in 2013 and say, well, that was a mistake.

BORGER: That was a mistake.

CHALIAN: Yes, one Democrat says that over and over again, Chuck Schumer, the minority leader.

BLITZER: Yes.

BORGER: Chuck Schumer thinks it was a mistake.

BLITZER: All right, guys, thanks very, very much.

Coming up, take a look at this, we've got some live pictures of the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, are expected to arrive in Florida at any moment now, down in West Palm Beach. Later today he's set to meet with President Trump, a known China critic, of course. So what's on the line as these two world leaders get ready to have dinner at Mar-a- Lago in Palm Beach later tonight?

Also, a source tells CNN that President Trump is considering military action in Syria following this week's chemical attack against civilians. We're going to speak with two members of the House - of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)