Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Book Claims People Around Trump Question His Mental Health; Trump Ordered Lawyer to Stop Sessions from Russia Recusal; Justice Department Investigating Clinton Foundation; Rare Interview with Rex Tillerson. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 5, 2018 - 13:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:33:23] WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Claims in a bombshell book raising new alarms about the president's mental state. The author of the new book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," said, in his opinion, 100 percent of the people around the president question his fitness for the job. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC CO-HOST, THE TODAY SHOW: Let's talk about the book itself. One of the overarching scenes is that, according to your reporting, everyone around the president, senior advisers, family members, every single one of them questions his intelligence and fitness for office.

MICHAEL WOLFF, AUTHOR: Let me put a marker in the sand here, 100 percent of the people around him.

GUTHRIE: Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, Ivanka Trump question his fitness for office?

WOLFF: Certainly, Jared and Ivanka. In their current situation, which is in a deep legal quagmire, are putting everything on the president. Not us. It's him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's discuss with Democratic Senator Ed Markey, of Massachusetts.

Senator, thanks for joining us.

SEN. ED MARKEY, (D), MASSACHUSETTS: You're welcome.

BLITZER: Do you share that same concern about the president's mental fitness. Are the concerns fair?

MARKEY: My feeling is that, the title of the book is "Fire and Fury," and that relates to his threat to the North Koreans that he is going to have a "fire and fury" descend upon the entire country of North Korea, which is nuclear war. And his own advisers talk about a preemptive nuclear war. We would begin the nuclear war. From my perspective, that is a crazy policy to have. Any thinking that reflects that kind of an attitude and ignores the need to cut off all crude oil going into North Korea, which what we are not doing yet, crude oil still flows through unimpeded every single day into North Korea, yes, that's a crazy policy. We are not using diplomacy. We are talking about nuclear buttons being bigger than that which the North Koreans have. There's a good reason for our people, not only in that region, but all around the world and in the United States to be concerned.

[13:35:38] BLITZER: What was the reaction when you saw that tweet from the president talking about the North Korean leader and claiming that he, the president, had a bigger nuclear power button at his desk. What did you make of that?

MARKEY: Well, it was just four days after he tweeted out that he now realizes -- and this is just last Thursday -- that he, President Trump, had been soft on the Chinese, soft on their ability to gain access to oil, soft on a really stronger diplomatic perspective. Instead, within four or five days, he is talking about a bigger nuclear button while not having a discussion about not having a bigger nuclear button but by having a big wrench that we should be insisting on being used that cuts off all the crude oil going into North Korea. The Chinese refuse to do it. The Russians are helping them. The president still hasn't taken the tough diplomatic position which he needs, which will lead towards the completion of the North Korean ICBM and a miniaturized hydrogen bomb program and, ultimately, a real confrontation. There could be military between our two countries without having exhausted this oil option that sit there is unused by the president.

BLITZER: Let's get to the latest developments. Pretty explosive developments in the Russia investigation. President Trump urged, we are now told, his top White House lawyer, the White House counsel to stop the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, from recusing himself from the Russia investigation. From your perspective, Senator, is that obstruction of justice?

MARKEY: I think it's a clear indication of obstruction of justice. It's a clear indication of an attempt to shut down the investigation of the alleged collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. And Donald McGahn was asked to play the role of Roy Cohen (ph), this Joe McCarthy 1950s henchman who used his governmental power in an abusive way. And it's pretty clear that McGahn should no longer have a position in the White House. He was not representing the Constitution or the American people but representing Donald Trump as a private attorney and that is inappropriate.

BLITZER: Do you want Don McGahn, the White House counsel, to testify before Congress?

MARKEY: Don McGahn has to testify before Congress and tell the American people what the president said to him, why the president wanted him to ensure that Jeff Sessions stayed on the job as attorney general, not notwithstanding Sessions' role as a high-ranking Trump campaign official and someone who was talking to Russian officials during the campaign and during the transition. It's imperative for us to understand this. It's one more piece of critical information that points towards this relationship between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

BLITZER: Amidst all of this, we are now getting word, Senator, that federal authorities, including at the Justice Department and the FBI, they are investigating claims of corruption tied to the Clinton Foundation. That's the charity that Bill and Hillary Clinton. The reports have been emerging now. This is a serious development. Potentially, a criminal investigation under way. What's your reaction?

MARKEY: I don't know the details of that, but I do know that it will be used by the Trump administration just as another red herring to avoid the American public focus on the much more important investigation, which is what Robert Mueller is going in getting to the bottom of the attempted Russian compromise of the presidential election of 2016. That is the big investigation going on. I don't know the details of this investigation that you just referred to. If there is evidence, it should be pursued. But it will be a footnote in history compared to the Mueller investigation. If it continues on as it has, what Donald McGahn was trying to do, we are heading towards a historical explosive moment in American politics later on this year.

[13:40:42] BLITZER: The allegation is that when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, contributions to the Clinton Foundation were given in exchange for promises of policy decisions by the secretary of state. That's a serious charge. We don't know how serious the investigation is, but we do know that it is under way right now and has been for the past few months.

(CROSSTALK)

MARKEY: And I have not seen any evidence to conclude that those allegations are accurate. It should be pursued. But we are here again on the Mueller investigation or what Donald McGahn was doing or Jeff Sessions. This thing continues to grow as something that gets to be more than just circumstantial evidence. It gets right to the core question of whether or not Donald Trump and firing Jim Comey and using Donald McGahn was trying to shut down the Russia investigation.

BLITZER: Senator Markey, thanks for joining us.

MARKEY: You're welcome.

BLITZER: Just in, the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson giving a rare interview to CNN, talking about the president's mental fitness, his nuclear taunts against North Korea. Just sat down with our own Elise Labott. Stand by. We are about to release some of that interview.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:45:42] BLITZER: Just in, CNN getting a very rare interview with the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on everything from the president's mental fitness, to his own future, to the nuclear tensions with North Korea.

Here's the first part of his interview with our global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It was big news about the North and South arranging talks for next week. North Korea coming to the table. Is that an opening maybe for talks with the U.S.?

REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it's too early to tell. We need to wait and see what the outcome of their talks are. The president, President Trump had a good call with President Moon yesterday morning, which I participated in, and their intent is to talk about the Olympics. Obviously, very important for South Korea, and the potential participation of North Korea in the Olympics. So our understanding is that's the content of the meeting. I think a little early to draw any conclusions.

LABOTT: It could be a positive sign maybe that North Korea wants to engage a little bit.

TILLERSON: We will see. We will see. Perhaps. Some are speculating that this might be the first effort of the channel, but as you know, we had channels open with North Korea for some time, so they know how to reach us if and when they are ready to engage with us as well.

LABOTT: Maybe you'll be next.

TILLERSON: We'll see.

LABOTT: If you can explain about the U.S. policy is on North Korea. I think Americans are a little confused. Do the North Koreans have to give up their nuclear program before committing to talks?

TILLERSON: Our policy is complete verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

LABOTT: Right.

TILLERSON: That is a policy that is commonly held by everyone in the region as well. The Chinese have that stated policy and Russia has that policy. Regionally, all of the countries in the area, as well as the international community are well aligned with the policy. How we achieve the ultimate end point, the finally full denuclearization, the verification of that, and the reversibility of it, clearly, that's going to take time. How we begin the talks is yet to be determined, but we clearly need a signal from North Korea that they understand these talks must lead to that conclusion. The pathway of how you get there, that is the nature of the negotiation. There will be some give and take to achieve that objective so that objective has never changed.

LABOTT: You said it's unrealistic for them to sit down and say, we are ready to do it. It sounds like they have to show some willingness, but then the mechanics of that are --

TILLERSON: We have to have a shared view that that is the reason to talk. That's the purpose of these talks. It is through those talks that North Korea can chart the way for themselves for a more secure future and more prosperous future for the people as well. There are positive outcomes to these talks for North Korea as there will be positive outcomes for the security of the region. That's the nature of the negotiations.

LABOTT: Do you think -- a lot has been made about the president's tweets on the nuclear button? But now North Korea is talking to South Korea. Do you think that tough rhetoric has worked here?

TILLERSON: I think the rhetoric that North Korea understands is while it is our objective, the president has been very clear, to achieve a denuclearization through diplomatic efforts, those efforts are backed by a strong military option, if necessary. That's not the first choice. The president has been clear that's not his first choice. But it is important that North Koreans as well as other regional players understand how high the stakes are, in an effort to ensure our diplomatic efforts are fully supported. To date, the diplomatic efforts have been supported very well in the international community.

If you look at the three Security Council resolutions on sanctions and the participation in those sanctions and a number of countries doing well beyond the Security Council resolutions and imposing unilateral actions on their own, both economic and diplomatic. I think it's the recognition the president has demonstrated to the world how high the stakes are. That's why we must achieve a diplomatic outcome. But the North Koreans have to understand the penalties to them will continue and will only grow more severe in terms of sanctions and other actions until they do get on the pathway to achieve that objective the entire world hopes to achieve.

[13:50:15] LABOTT: It sounds kind of like good cop/bad cop, if you will. Hold out the prospects of talks, but if talks don't work, military action, that might be the formula that you and the president will continue.

TILLERSON: I'm going to let you characterize it that way. I'm not going to necessarily show all of our cards.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Elise is with us right now.

It certainly sounds a lot more moderate and more diplomatic than others in the administration. Nikki Haley, for example, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and the president who tweeted a few weeks ago it's a waste of time all this diplomacy.

LABOTT: When the North and South agreed to have talks and the North said it wanted to open up this channel with South Korea, Nikki Haley was like, you know, we don't care, we are not taking that seriously, we don't want a picture. But I think if you would talk to Secretary Tillerson privately, he doesn't want to have rose-colored glasses, but he does think that this is showing some kind of willingness to at least talk to North Korea. And maybe that's something he can build on. And also the president and Nikki Haley are going out and saying they

have to denuclearize first. He's saying, listen, that's the goal. We are not going to have talks with them if they are not willing to give up their program, but that will take time. We need a sign they are willing to go there, and that's the goals of these talks. So I think there is a little bit more of a nuanced view with Secretary Tillerson that they are going to have to show some willingness, but it's unrealistic they'll have to give everybody up before talks can start.

BLITZER: He's the secretary of state, the top diplomate in the administration.

LABOTT: That's right.

BLITZER: Elise, stand by.

Part two of this interview is coming up.

I know you had the chance to ask the secretary of state about the president's fitness, mental state and all of that. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[13:55:40] TILLERSON: We had a very successful, in my view, year, 2017, pivoting our policies and helping our partners understand those policies. We're now into the implementation and execution of those policies. I think we'll have a very productive 2018. Again, the State Department gets stronger every day, understanding what we are trying to do. And I look forward to having a very, very successful 2018.

LABOTT: For the whole year?

TILLERSON: I intend to be here for the whole year.

LABOTT: Has the president given you any indication you won't be around for a while?

TILLERSON: None.

LABOTT: None whatsoever?

TILLERSON: None whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: One of the rare interviews. The Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaking with our own Elise Labott, insisting he will be on the job for all of this year.

The secretary also speaking about his relationship with President Trump, including his take on the president's mental state. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) LABOTT: I'm sure you've heard about this new book out there about the White House, the talk of the town. It describes, you know, a president whose foreign policy is uninformed, that he's not engaged, that he's not interested, that he gets up and leaves meetings with world leaders because he's bored. You are at the White House several times a week. Is that your experience?

TILLERSON: I think among all the cabinet secretaries, I probably have spent more time with the president than perhaps Secretary of Defense Mattis, who spends a lot of time with him as well. I've never seen the president leave a meeting with a foreign leader. He is very engaged in these meetings, and in our policy deliberations, and the meetings of the national security council with him. As I said, a big challenge was pi pivoting policies in a different direction than they were placed when the president took office. From North Korea, to Afghanistan, South Asia policy, and to the Defeat ISIS campaign, the president prioritized the threats early on. And that's the sequence we have addressed those. In all these deliberations -- and these have not been easy deliberations - these are not easy decisions for a president to make, he has been very deliberative. He's listens to the arguments. He argues back.

(CROSSTALK)

TILLERSON: As he should. He pushes back. And in the end, he makes a decision that we then implement. I'll tell you, on all of the major policy areas, the president has made the right decision on every one of those. How we got there involves a lot debate, and it should involve a lot of debate. It's a very healthy exchange with the president, and one which I think is important that we continue to have.

LABOTT: Everybody in this book questions his mental fitness. Have you ever questioned his mental fitness? And describe your relationship with him. Because some people would think, you know, through his tweets and stuff, it's not a very good relationship.

TILLERSON: I've never questioned his mental fitness. I have no reason to question his mental fitness. My relationship with him, and it is a developing one -- and I remind people, and I think it's well- known that he and I did not know one another before he asked me to serve as secretary of state. So we don't have a lot of history in the past, so part of this is us coming to learn and understand one another.

LABOTT: You're also two different kinds of people.

TILLERSON: Well, we have different management styles. How I make decisions, how I process information, I have to learn how he takes information in, processes it, and makes decisions. That's my responsibility. I'm here to serve his presidency. So I've had to spend a lot of time understanding how to best communicate with him so I can serve his needs with information.

I do think one of my roles is to always give him all side of the issues, even when I know it's not the side that he really wants to consider. I think it's part of making good decisions is I know he at least has had visibility to all aspects of the decision he's about to make.

And that's my role of secretary of state, is to provide him the whole 360-visibility of what decisions mean for foreign affairs, with allies, with partners, and with adversaries. And I think what comes out sometimes, what people see is they think it's conflict but it's not. It's a normal process of having the president look at all sides and then saying, I don't like that. That's healthy. That's good. People should feel good about the way decisions are made because it's not one of giving in to what you think the president wants.