Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff on Trump Jr Russian Meeting, Russia Investigation; Lobbyist with Alleged Russian Intel Ties Says Attended Trump Jr Meeting; Fate of Senate Health Bill Could Hinge on One Vote. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired July 14, 2017 - 13:30   ET

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


[13:30:00] REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D), CALIFORNIA: -- by the president himself speaking quite openly saying, hey, Russians if you're listening, hack Hillary Clinton's e-mails, you'll be richly rewarded. And, indeed, the Russians have been rewarded. Plainly, this Russian attorney, this other third party, if they were present, they were there to both deliver a message as well as receive a message. And plainly, Moscow understood only too well this is conduct the Trump campaign would really appreciate.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Do you know if this individual did, in fact, have ties to Russian intelligence?

SCHIFF: I don't know the answer to that. Certainly, that's something our committee's going to want to find out, exactly who was in that meeting, what their roles were. And we're going to want to know about their travel to the country, and the terms of the Russian lawyer, under what auspices. But one thing is plain, even from Donald Trump Jr's admissions, they went into that meeting knowing they were receiving help from the Russian government, wanting to get that help. They did not disclose it and, indeed, did everything they could to conceal it, conceal the contents of the meeting. Only when they were forced to confront the fact that the press had those e-mails, did we get a full sense about the whole purpose behind that meeting. So deeply disturbs me, from beginning to end. And yet, every day, we learn more to concern us about the Trump campaign's willingness to work hand in hand with the Russian government.

RAJU: When did you learn about this meeting?

SCHIFF: Well, I can't go into what the committee is aware of and at what point. But there's aspects of this that are very important and add additional facts to our investigation, and are going to need to be fully vetted and investigated.

RAJU: Will you want to bring this Russian-American lobbyist to the committee and interview him?

SCHIFF: Absolutely. Absolutely.

RAJU: How many people were in this meeting, do you know?

SCHIFF: I think this is still an unresolved question. One thing we can say with great surety at this point, we can't rely on a single representation coming from Donald Trump Jr or the Trump administration about this. Time after time, they've had meetings and dissembled about the contents of the meeting. And so one of the very basic facts we have to get to the bottom of, just who was at this meeting.

RAJU: Do you know if this representative for this Russian singer/songwriter was also at the meeting at all? We've heard reports possibly that person might have --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIFF: I don't know who all was present. And that's certainly a very important fact to our investigation.

RAJU: You also said you believe Jared Kushner's security clearance should be perhaps suspended? What's your basis for saying that?

SCHIFF: If he didn't disclose on his SF-86 that he was having this meeting in renewed clearance forms, still didn't disclose it and didn't disclose the true purpose of the meeting, it absolutely should be disqualifying in terms of a security clearance. Those are the allegations. We still want to get to the bottom of them. But whatever agency holds his clearance needs to be doing an investigation. I am confident of this, anybody else applying for a clearance under these facts would be denied that clearance.

RAJU: Has this camp been cooperative with the House Intelligence Committee, Jared Kushner, cooperative in providing records and documents so far?

SCHIFF: We are in communication with his counsel. I don't want to comment beyond that.

RAJU: Do you know when you may talk to him?

SCHIFF: I'm not prepared to comment on that.

RAJU: We talked to Mike Conway today, expressing concerns about the pace of this investigation. Saying, going frustratingly slow. His words. Do you share those concerns? And why is it going slow?

SCHIFF: I certainly share the concern that we need people to be responsive in terms of our document requests. We want to make sure we have the appropriate documents before we interview witnesses. But an investigation like this, I can tell you from experience, takes time to do. Because you do have to get the documents first. You do have to bring in witnesses that lead you to more witnesses. And this is a -- an investigation global in scope. That will take time. And that is, at times, frustrating. But if we're going to be thorough, do it right, we need to be thorough.

RAJU: You think it will go into 2018?

SCHIFF: I don't want to comment how long it will take. We all feel a sense of urgency. We'd all like to get to the bottom of this as soon as possible. At the same time, we learn new facts privately and publicly, and that continues the investigation. RAJU: Last night, Roger Stone announced you guys cancelled his

testimony. Why did you cancel his testimony?

[13:34:57] SCHIFF: I wouldn't rely completely on Mr. Stone's representations. But bottom line, the witness interviews are scheduled at the convenience of the investigation, not to suit witnesses. We let them speak about it however they want. Reality, we have a certain order of investigation in terms of receiving documents, schedules witnesses, of course, coordinate with the Senate, with the special council. Our decisions on scheduling are made based on what's best for the investigation, not for any particular witness.

RAJU: Do you know when you'll talk to Mr. Stone?

SCHIFF: He'll come before the committee. He's a person of interest. I'm not ready to comment on a date.

RAJU: Has the special counsel told you not to interview witnesses involved with the Trump Tower meeting?

SCHIFF: I won't comment on our discussions, except we are coordinating, making sure we're not intruding on his equities. Not saying that on behalf of Mr. Stone's case, but as a general matter. Doing our best to coordinate multiple axes with our schedules, documents production, significance of witnesses, preliminary witnesses, coordination with the Senate, coordination with Bob Mueller. That's what's guiding our timing, not any particular witness's desires.

RAJU: Have you talked to special counsel's office about the Donald Trump Jr meeting?

SCHIFF: I don't want to get into particulars.

RAJU: But you do want to talk to everybody involved in that Donald Trump Jr meeting?

SCHIFF: Absolutely.

RAJU: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

SCHIFF: Thanks.

RAJU: See you.

So, Jim, a lot of questions for the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee about the meeting, who was in the meeting and whether or not this Russian-American lobbyist did, in fact, have ties to Russian intelligence. And also, they're, Jim, defending the pace of this investigation, the House Intelligence Committee is conducting. Of course, that, last night, scrapping this testimony that was expected later this month from Roger Stone, that former Trump adviser. Making it very clear, Adam Schiff did, just there, they still do plan to talk to Roger Stone. And also signaling they're in communications with the special counsel's office. Not saying whether or not the special counsel in any way waived them off in interviews Roger Stone or gave information about that Trump Tower meeting.

So a lot of questions for this committee as it tries to probe and learn more about this meeting. Looks like it's not going away anytime soon -- Jim?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNNN ANCHOR: Manu Raju, on the Hill. Thank you.

Want to bring in CNN crime and justice producer, Shimon Prokupecz, CNN political analyst. And White House reporter for the "Washington Post," Abby Philip. CNN diplomatic and military analyst and former State Department spokesman, not to mention a retired rear admiral, John Kirby. And joining us from New York, CNN law enforcement analyst, retired FBI adversary, James Gagliano.

I'm start with you, Shimon.

This Russian lawyer came from Russia, but actually now has U.S. citizenship, dual national, but a U.S. citizen, so he can be subpoenaed to appear before the committees?

SHIMON: Absolutely. Nothing stopping the committee from subpoenaing him, requesting to talk to him, to investigate him. Which probably, at this point, will happen. The other thing interesting to see if the FBI will try to talk to him.

SCIUTTO: That's not what's key about that. It's a non-Trump ally who was in the meeting, and can give his view --

PROKUPECZ: Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: -- of what was going on, who can be subpoenaed. Of course, the Russian lawyer, non-Trump ally, can't be subpoenaed because she's Russian.

PROKUPECZ: That's right. He's given his view. He spoke to the Associated Press and said this was no big deal. This meeting kind of turned into something it wasn't supposed to be. He was expecting it to be more serious, but then it turned into something else. He's kind of already made statements about it, it's out in the public now. We'll see.

SCIUTTO: Abby Philip, following the story closely. It's changed multiple times in the span of a week. Almost every day. Any indication of an opening left that there were others in the meeting besides the Russian lawyer?

ABBY PHILIP, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Not much information given. No one said these were the only people in that meeting. It's clear that's because they weren't the only people in that meeting. We still don't know who was all -- all of the people who were potentially there. That remains an open question. I think right now you have lawyers for a lot of people who were in that meeting, for Jared Kushner, for Paul Manafort, for Don Jr, all giving different sides of the story, because everyone is trying to protect themselves here.

SCIUTTO: Right. PHILIP: I think there's a recognition in the White House that this

meeting is a very serious problem. They don't want to say too much, because many people, particularly the folks in the White House, don't know what they don't know about this meeting.

SCIUTTO: John Kirby, been in a lot of important meetings in your life with principles. Is it acceptable to not mention this additional person? Keep in mind, the whole point of the meeting was initially hidden. Right? To talk, saying it was about adoption, when, in fact, it was about damaging information for Hillary Clinton? Is this acceptable? Not just a random person, a translator, a friend of a friend. This guy was a well-known lobbyist pushing for change in U.S. policy, not to mention reports and questions on whether or not he had an intelligence past.

[13:40:22] REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, CNN MILITARY & DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: The short answer to the question, no, it's not. Left off when they originally had a chance to disclose. Passed on that. A second time to amend your security clearance application to include this lawyer and still not, that given opportunity, not mention another guy who obviously had some concerning ties to Russian intelligence. It boggles the mind. Look, I think anybody who loves this country, if you get a call from somebody representing a foreign government saying they want to help you, intervene in our election, it should set off alarm bells. It's troubling for at least Don Jr and maybe others, it set off a dinner bill. A chance to get a feast and help themselves along. That's what's really troubling here.

SCIUTTO: That's not a partisan point of view. The president's own FBI nominee said exactly that. Someone offers you that, call the FBI. GOP Representative Adam Kinzinger on, got an offer like that, call the FBI. Seems straightforward.

James Gagliano, you had the advantage of being with the FBI and a former law enforcement official. Does it matter -- part of the Donald Trump Jr defense is, came in saying they had damaging information on Clinton, didn't bring it, therefore, it doesn't matter? Does it matter?

JAMES GAGLIANO, CNN ANALYST: I agree with you and the admiral. The standard for ethical conduct or behavior is not predicated on solely if the activity is illegal. I'll leave to the legal analysts whether or not this fits the narrow statute that collusion or obstruction of justice would fit into. What's unsettling here is I think that Donald Trump Jr and, obviously, the president, in the defense of his son, they're applying situational ethics. You can't be a good person, trustworthy and honorable? I learned that at West Point and as an FBI agent. Our motto, fidelity, bravery, integrity. That integrity applies in all instances. When you get an e-mail like Donald Jr did and you agree and say, I love it and you're willing to meet with somebody, whether or not there are in fruits to be gathered from that meeting or not, you're guilty of unethical behavior in my estimation.

SCIUTTO: I saw you nodding, John Kirby.

KIRBY: I couldn't agree more. Said it far better than I did. Absolutely right. This just -- again, you get an e-mail like this, any kind of information like that, coming from a foreign government, particularly in election season, my goodness, you have an obligation to notify, and to let the law enforcement, any intelligence community know about that. I mean, look, I don't know anything about politics or opposition research. I grew up in the Navy. But this just is stunning to me that, instead of setting off alarms, they raced to this as a chance to gain an advantage.

SCIUTTO: Amazing it's not a baseline agreement? Right? We're all Americans, regardless of party. A foreign adversary who -- not just any foreign adversary but one frequently described as one of America's greatest threats, offering help there.

PHILIP: It's worth noting that, despite what's said publicly, there is widespread belief among people in the White House and former campaign aides this meeting should never have happened. Everyone I've talked to has said, no one should have agreed to this meeting. And the person in particular who they felt like should have stopped it was Paul Manafort. The only one in the room who had previous political experience, who would have seen the red flags because the entire e- mail chain had been forwarded to him, including the information about the fact that the Russian government wanted to help Donald Trump's candidacy. That -- the White House people, Trump campaign aides, all agree that the meeting should never have happened.

SCIUTTO: Why does that matter when the president himself continues to say, repeatedly, the meeting's just fine, I would have taken the meeting, everyone would have taken the meeting? Have 1,000 saying, shouldn't have taken the meeting, but the commander-in-chief is saying, nothing wrong with that.

PROKUPECZ: To go back to something said before. We were covering the campaign. There was always a notion they just weren't sophisticated. As much as we all sit here and say, Russia's an adversary, in their mind, right, they never viewed it that way. And they never saw the need to alert authorities that it was someone within the Russian government maybe coming to try to meet with them. Always this argument -- and they were really -- even during that time would never agree --

SCIUTTO: Why do you have to be an experienced politician to know accepting help from a hostile foreign government is a bad thing?

(CROSSTALK)

That's not a matter of --

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: Not just any foreign government, not to mention, Russia, but any foreign government.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

PROKUPECZ: Trump, he was in Moscow, the Miss Universe there. There have been other sorts of dealings with them. I don't know that he necessarily views them as an adversary at all, or thinks we, in the government, people in the government, would think that --

(CROSSTALK)

[13:45:12] SCIUTTO: You're right, there was a fundamental disagreement. You've heard the president's own questions about that very thing. Why can't we be friends? Did they really interfere? Things the president does, despite the fact that the entire national security community concludes with confidence that Russia interfered and is an adversary.

Final thought, John Kirby?

KIRBY: I keep coming back to what they said when they got this information. We're all talking about a nothing burger, nothing happened. This guy tells A.P., ah, that doesn't matter at all. That is not the issue. And I'm stunned that people keep coming back to that. What matters is they got an offer from a foreign government, let alone Russia, of intervening in our election and giving opposition information on the opposing candidate and jumped at this opportunity. At a high level, by the way, jumped at it. That should concern all of us.

SCIUTTO: I think we could safely say nothing burger's off the menu in this story. Initial defense hasn't held to do the facts.

Shimon, Abby, John Kirby, James Gagliano, thank you all very much.

Coming up, President Trump says he's at his desk, pen in hand, waiting to sign a new GOP health care bill, but lawmakers aren't quite there, as the fight for votes reconvenes with a new Senate plan. A look at what's next, right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:50:51] SCIUTTO: The fate of the Senate bill to repeal and replace Obamacare could hinge on just one vote. A White House official says that plump was working the phones, talking to Senators and pushing for yes votes on the health care bill during his trip to Paris. Right now, Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, and Rand Paul, of Kentucky, say they plan to vote against the motion to proceed. If just one more Senator votes against the motion, the bill can't even be debated, can't move forward.

Correspondent Ryan Nobles joins us.

Ryan, update us on the scramble for votes. Where does your vote count stand on this?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's as tight as it can possibly be. There's 52 Senators. They need 50 Republicans to push this big through. And, so far, they have two that are definite hard "no's." But I talked to a lot of Republicans Senators over the past couple of days, and they are really taking a wait-and-see approach. They want to check back with their governors in their home states to see how this bill is going to impact their Medicaid costs down the road. They want to talk to their stakeholders. And they want to get the real impact of this. And of course that Congressional Budget Office score that comes out on Monday is going to be crucial as well.

So, it doesn't look good for Republicans right now. But if they can get those 50 votes, if they can hold on to the remaining Senators that they have available to them right now, they may be able to push this through. And they're obviously having now an aggressive push from the White House. You mentioned that the President Trump has been making phone calls. Vice President Mike Pence also making a direct push to these Senators to try to get this bill through. It is going to be close, for sure. But majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has definitely not given up quite yet.

SCIUTTO: Ryan Nobles, on Capitol Hill, thanks very much.

The vote on whether to move the health care bill forward could come as early as Tuesday. The revised bill includes a significant concession to conservatives. The challenge now is whether enough moderates will support the bill to get it passed.

Stephen Moore is a CNN senior economics analyst and former senior advisor to the Trump campaign.

The new bill, as you know, includes a version of this Cruz Amendment, which is basically designed to appeal to conservatives. Is it correct to say that essentially it makes cheaper policies with fewer benefits?

STEPHEN MOORE, CNN SENIOR ECONOMICS ANAYST: It's almost like an off ramp from Obamacare. If you want the Obamacare coverage, you can have that, but it basically provides people options where they can get much cheaper coverage if you don't want all the 30 defined benefits, if you want to kind of scale down a plan that's going to cost you less money. And by the way, those plans could cost a lot of middle class family $3,000 or $4,000 less than an Obamacare plan.

SCIUTTO: There's a headline that 20 million will lose coverage. This is complicated, as we know, even for the president. Folks at home are going to focus on certain headline numbers and that CBO number, 22 million people who would lose their health insurance under the Republican plan.

MOORE: Right.

SCIUTTO: Based on your analysis of the current bill, would that number change?

MOORE: Yes. It will come down. We don't know how much it will come down.

But I agree with you. I think that headline of 20 million people losing their health insurance is a big problem for Republicans, no question about it. But there's really two metrics here. There's one about how many people are going to lose insurance. The other one is, will this provide affordable plans for people. We know this, that Obamacare costs are really running out of control in a lot of states and people are losing their coverage because they can't afford it. If Republicans can demonstrate to people that this is something that will actually lower their costs, especially for middle class families, then I think they've got a political winner.

I've been doing my own kind of vote count. I met with a bunch of the Senators yesterday. And your analysis is pretty correct, that they're very close. But you know, this is almost, for me, like deja vu all over again. Because, remember, when Obamacare passed, which was eight years ago, Obama had the same thing. He had to buy those last couple of votes in the Senate to get there. So I think they will get to 50. Whether it happens next week or we're going to be here late in August, I don't know.

SCIUTTO: How much is this going to cut Medicaid? Because Medicaid is the issue --

MOORE: It is.

SCIUTTO: -- that really, even for Republican -- well, certainly voters, but also the governors who accepted it, that's a big deal. It puts a lot of people on health care who, frankly, would not have health care otherwise.

MOORE: I mean, actually, what Obamacare was, more than anything else, was a vast expansion of Medicaid. And all this talk about we're going to bend the cost curve down and all these other things, really, the main way that Obamacare extended coverage to people was putting millions and millions of people on Medicaid.

SCIUTTO: Now people have that, and they have health insurance because of that.

MOORE: That's true --

SCIUTTO: How do you --

[13:55:09] MOORE: Look, Medicaid is one of the worst insurances. Most really good hospitals, doctors, treatment centers, don't even take Medicaid.

SCIUTTO: Well, the choice is between bad and nothing.

MOORE: That's true.

SCIUTTO: What would you choose?

MOORE: But, look, I think Republicans probably have to come up with some solution that says people aren't going to lose their insurance.

And by the way, people aren't going to lose their coverage in the first five years or so. I think a lot of people are confused about that. That number about 20 million people losing their insurance is a forecast about what will happen six, seven, eight years down the road.

SCIUTTO: Why does that matter? My health insurance is important --

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: Hopefully, if the bill works, if insurance premiums come down, Jim, significantly, and we think maybe by 30 percent or 40 percent, guess what? More people can afford insurance and you're going to have more people covered by driving down the cost.

SCIUTTO: Why doesn't the CBO reflect that?

MOORE: We will see.

SCIUTTO: That doesn't sound like a fact to me.

MOORE: CBO has been wrong on this stuff before. Look, I respect CBO, but I think on this one, they're not giving enough credence to what happens to the market if people have more affordable care. And I think the other flaw in the CBO thing is that they're assuming that Obamacare is just on a fine track and people will have it, when we see, week after week, more and more insurance companies dropping out of the insurance market under Obamacare.

SCIUTTO: We know there is a story behind that.

MOORE: Don't blame that one on Trump.

SCIUTTO: Thank you very much.

That's it for me.

The news will continue right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)